Cats also have less complicated thoughts. They involve eating, sleeping, sunny windows, belly rubs and killing annoying things.
All so simple.
Jeez. I must be a cat.
quote:Without being in love, yes. But without attraction? Attraction from beauty? It's difficult for any species to procreate with another member one finds unattractive.
And, once again, the concept of beauty might have evolved as a reproductive mechanism, but being a concept of things we see with our eyes, could it not naturally extend to those things upon which we depend in nature? It could.
Cats have all the same emotions we do, and, I'm convinced, a few more we cannot imagine.
That doesn't answer my questions. Does the scientific method apply to beauty? How can you prove scientifically that something is beautiful?
Emotional response to a stimulus. Why do some people respond differently to one stimulus?
quote:Originally posted by Smooth operator:
ed, but no one can say why this happens or why it causes the brain to perceive pleasure. My explanation is that God created us that way.
So your 100% definitive, scientifically accurate, empirically proven answer to why sunsets are beautiful is because an invisible superman who lives in the sky put the concept of "beauty" into your brain. OK.
So then he also put all the bad stuff such as murder, hate, ugliness, cancer, infidelity and stroke there, too.
Right?
quote:I know it's simplistic to you (I knew this before you pointed it out), but it is the explanation at this time that bests fits the question at hand.
Smooth, "God-did-it" was the answer to everything before we had science. In fact, in the western world, the bible WAS our science before we had science.
That was 500 year ago, my friend. We have better ways of discerning the workings of the universe now.
quote:At least that's my belief. I respect your right to believe otherwise, but if you're going to call me a moron,
Wow. We've had a perfectly respectful, illuminating conversation in this thread. You guys regularly bring this "moron" statement up as if we use it at every opportunity. I've not even hinted at the fact that you are a moron in this thread.
But, now that you mention it, if you are insisting in this thread that the brain of man was built 6000 years ago with all this ability already pre-programmed then, yeah, I'm reaching for the Moron Card as I type.
Is THAT what you are asserting?
Don't make me pull it out, Smooth.
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
So if we both agree beauty exists, can the scientific method be applied to it?
I'm sure it can.
I don't feel like googling it at the moment but much has been done in how to empirically determine exactly what kind of face we find "beautiful." It turns out that the more "average" a face is, the more beautiful we find it. Our minds do not prefer physical patterns that are very far outside the norm.
Aww heck, I had to Google it, anyway. Here is an interesting website that can tell you how beautiful you are using a algorithm. Link
All that aside, Nash, you and Smooth both seem to be indicating that because evolution cannot explain every single process known to man that it must be incorrect and, therefore, God must have done it. Is that correct?
Tell us, what is YOUR scientific explanation for why we perceive beauty?
quote:I'm sure it can.
I don't feel like googling it at the moment but much has been done in how to empirically determine exactly what kind of face we find "beautiful." It turns out that the more "average" a face is, the more beautiful we find it. Our minds do not prefer physical patterns that are very far outside the norm.
Aww heck, I had to Google it, anyway. Here is an interesting website that can tell you how beautiful you are using a algorithm. Link
All that aside, Nash, you and Smooth both seem to be indicating that because evolution cannot explain every single process known to man that it must be incorrect and, therefore, God must have done it. Is that correct?
Tell us, what is YOUR scientific explanation for why we perceive beauty?
As I've already stated, sexual attraction and beauty are two separate things.
Can beauty be proven scientifically?
the most beautiful sunsets i have seen were usually dependent on the person i was viewing them with! how would that figure into the equation? 
Nash,
Let's do a scientific experiment.
Who's more beautiful, Taylor or me?
DF
Let's do a scientific experiment.
Who's more beautiful, Taylor or me?
DF
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
As I've already stated, sexual attraction and beauty are two separate things.
Not necessarily. I've given a plausible example of why we humans appreciate symmetry and tend to make order out of chaos.
Your job is to refute that argument by showing exactly how God inserted this appreciation into our brains without us looking.
quote:Can beauty be proven scientifically?
Yes. So much so that it can be written into an algorithm and a robot can produce something guaranteed to be "beautiful" to us.
I swear, man, you and Smooth are bird of a feather. I've submitted a very good example of how "beauty" can be quantified. I will provide others if requests but I'll not waste my time as long as you both continue to pretend that you don't see my posts.
I STILL don't understand the purpose of this discussion. It SEEMS to be "since evolution cannot explain this or that, then evolution is completely untrue. Therefore God did it and WE WIN HALLELUJAH!"
I'm reaching for thew Moron Card again. Don't make me whip it out. I am certain that both of you can understand how absurd that notion is. There is a natural, scientific explanation for everything, Nash. We may not know the answers yet but they are there waiting to be discovered. 500 years of scientific progress has borne this out billions of times.
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
Nash,
Let's do a scientific experiment.
Who's more beautiful, Taylor or me?
DF
Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! I know, I know!
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
Nash,
Let's do a scientific experiment.
Who's more beautiful, Taylor or me?
DF
I've interviewed Taylor before she hit it big, she's finally grown into her veneers and she has a great make-up and photoshop artist now. I digress.
Attraction of that nature and beauty are two separate things. Is it possible to measure the beauty of a composition by Mozart? Can we observe the beauty of music? If not, then how can we know it's beautiful?
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
As I've already stated, sexual attraction and beauty are two separate things.
Can beauty be proven scientifically?
....I'm thinking enough beer and the lines between them blur....sexual attraction turns into sexual interaction and that could be a beautiful thing to some....
Beauty, like taste, is subjective.
quote:Originally posted by 8I:quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
As I've already stated, sexual attraction and beauty are two separate things.
Can beauty be proven scientifically?
....I'm thinking enough beer and the lines between them blur....sexual attraction turns into sexual interaction and that could be a beautiful thing to some....
Beauty, like taste, is subjective.
The difference between beauty and taste is that we know how taste works. We can see the taste buds, we know which ones detect which tastes, and we know the parts of the brain that receives information about the taste. We can measure and control the level of sweetness or bitterness in a recipe and observe reactions when something is too sweet or too bitter.
What we can't measure is how good something tastes. If we could, there would be no need for BBQ judges, just a scale of measurement.
It's the same as with music. We can write notes, play notes, and learn certain patterns that people generally like. However, how can we measure the beauty of music? If we can only acknowledge what we can measure and quantify, then why do we acknowledge beauty?
quote:Originally posted by 8I:
I'm thinking enough beer and the lines between them blur....sexual attraction turns into sexual interaction and that could be a beautiful thing to some....
Beauty, like taste, is subjective.
Beauty is a function of time. When I was single, a woman got more beautiful the later it got.
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
Can we observe the beauty of music? If not, then how can we know it's beautiful?
Yes, we can actually. It's old news. An example here: Link
After all, music (and even "beauty") when you get down to the bone, is an expression of math. Computers can compose music that is "beautiful" to us.
They can paint, too. Link
But the question that neither you nor Smooth will answer is this: So what? What would it prove to you if we could not "observe the beauty of music?" Again I ask, what is YOUR scientific explanation for the recognition of beauty?
Smooth's elaborate scientific theory is "God." What's yours?
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
If we can only acknowledge what we can measure and quantify, then why do we acknowledge beauty?
God?
quote:Yes, we can actually. It's old news. An example here: Link
After all, music (and even "beauty") when you get down to the bone, is an expression of math. Computers can compose music that is "beautiful" to us.
They can paint, too. Link
But the question that neither you nor Smooth will answer is this: So what? What would it prove to you if we could not "observe the beauty of music?" Again I ask, what is YOUR scientific explanation for the recognition of beauty?
Smooth's elaborate scientific theory is "God." What's yours?
As I've already stated, we can learn certain musical patterns that people generally like, such as a 1-4-5 blues progression. However, that isn't a measurement of the music's beauty. So again, if we can't measure a song's beauty, then how do we know it's there?
As for your question, I've never claimed that there is a scientific explanation for beauty. I'm asking for scientific evidence of it. If you believe beauty exists, and you only believe what science can prove, then show me how science proves beauty exists.
Ok we know that we evolved from the Neanderthals right? When they gave way to Cro-Magnon man we start to see paintings on cave walls. The reason? The brain had developed to a point that they were learning how to make tools that could be used over and over. They were starting to express themselves through these tools and one thing led to another and we have cave paintings. It told a story of what happened to the people who painted it and it also was a form of pure expression. What they thought was beautiful then today we might call childish art that most 5 year olds can do.
Different cultures and people define beauty in different ways. Just like different cultures have different ideas about what taste good. Its dependent on what their environment, culture and surroundings are. What might be a delicacy in one part of the world, might make me want to hurl. The same goes with beauty. With out a big plate in my lip I would be considered very ugly in parts of New Guinea.
The point being this. Every culture has their own ideas about what is beauty. That tells me that it most defiantly is an evolution thing. No we do not need to think that sunsets are beautiful to survive, but that emotion or idea of beauty is linked to something that was extremely important to our survival or we wouldn't have it. The reason Cookey and others keep bringing up what we find beautiful as it pertains to sex is because it is related to why we find sunsets beautiful. Just like the Cro-Magnon man that started painting on walls to help pass along information (needed for survival) and then started doing it to express themselves, so is the link between who we find beautiful and what we find beautiful. Once that part of the brain started to develop it could not be stopped. So are the ways of evolution. We learn, we grow, we expand. Who knows what we will find beautiful a 1000 years from now.
Different cultures and people define beauty in different ways. Just like different cultures have different ideas about what taste good. Its dependent on what their environment, culture and surroundings are. What might be a delicacy in one part of the world, might make me want to hurl. The same goes with beauty. With out a big plate in my lip I would be considered very ugly in parts of New Guinea.
The point being this. Every culture has their own ideas about what is beauty. That tells me that it most defiantly is an evolution thing. No we do not need to think that sunsets are beautiful to survive, but that emotion or idea of beauty is linked to something that was extremely important to our survival or we wouldn't have it. The reason Cookey and others keep bringing up what we find beautiful as it pertains to sex is because it is related to why we find sunsets beautiful. Just like the Cro-Magnon man that started painting on walls to help pass along information (needed for survival) and then started doing it to express themselves, so is the link between who we find beautiful and what we find beautiful. Once that part of the brain started to develop it could not be stopped. So are the ways of evolution. We learn, we grow, we expand. Who knows what we will find beautiful a 1000 years from now.
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
As I've already stated, we can learn certain musical patterns that people generally like, such as a 1-4-5 blues progression. However, that isn't a measurement of the music's beauty. So again, if we can't measure a song's beauty, then how do we know it's there?
Nash, I've given you an example of how a computer, all by itself, can generate "beautiful" music. It can't do that unless we have some idea of how to qualify "beauty."
The question is much like, "What is pornography." I know it when I see it. I'm sure "scinece" might come up with a reason at some point in the future but until then, I've no idea.
So, since I can't answer that, did God give us the ability to discern porn from modern art, too?
quote:As for your question, I've never claimed that there is a scientific explanation for beauty. I'm asking for scientific evidence of it.
Dude, it's you and Smooth who are making the wild claims that essentially says, "Beauty exists, you can't explain it, therefore God did it."
It was silly when he first brought it up. It is now navigating into stupid waters.
quote:Originally posted by Jankinonya:
The reason Cookey and others keep bringing up what we find beautiful as it pertains to sex is because it is related to why we find sunsets beautiful.
Thank you. I didn't think it was difficult of a concept. Again, it is just one plausible answer. I've no idea whether or not it would actually hold up to scientific scrutiny.
You got it so why can't our resident fundies?
quote:Originally posted by Jankinonya:
Different cultures and people define beauty in different ways. Just like different cultures have different ideas about what taste good. Its dependent on what their environment, culture and surroundings are. What might be a delicacy in one part of the world, might make me want to hurl. The same goes with beauty. With out a big plate in my lip I would be considered very ugly in parts of New Guinea.
The point being this. Every culture has their own ideas about what is beauty. That tells me that it most defiantly is an evolution thing. No we do not need to think that sunsets are beautiful to survive, but that emotion or idea of beauty is linked to something that was extremely important to our survival or we wouldn't have it. The reason Cookey and others keep bringing up what we find beautiful as it pertains to sex is because it is related to why we find sunsets beautiful. Just like the Cro-Magnon man that started painting on walls to help pass along information (needed for survival) and then started doing it to express themselves, so is the link between who we find beautiful and what we find beautiful. Once that part of the brain started to develop it could not be stopped. So are the ways of evolution. We learn, we grow, we expand. Who knows what we will find beautiful a 1000 years from now.
Jankin is the recipient of today's Stop Making Sense Award! Congrats. I have to admit, he almost didn't make it, but the Nietzsche quote in his tagline pushed him over
quote:Originally posted by Cookey:
Dude, it's you and Smooth who are making the wild claims that essentially says, "Beauty exists, you can't explain it, therefore God did it."
It was silly when he first brought it up. It is now navigating into stupid waters.
Go ahead, show the Moron Card! Show it, show it, show it.....
quote:Nash, I've given you an example of how a computer, all by itself, can generate "beautiful" music. It can't do that unless we have some idea of how to qualify "beauty."
The question is much like, "What is pornography." I know it when I see it. I'm sure "scinece" might come up with a reason at some point in the future but until then, I've no idea.
As I've already explained, a computer can be programmed to recognize patters such as a blues progression, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is recognizing those patterns as pleasing. Only humans have the ability to appreciate beauty.
We can't measure beauty using the scientific method. We can see things that are beautiful, but we can't actually observe the concept of beauty. We can't conduct experiments on beauty, only people's perceptions of it. Therefore the scientific method cannot be applied to beauty.
So if we can't use the scientific method to determine beauty, then how can it exist?
Darn.
I missed the Stop Making Sense Award again.
DF
I missed the Stop Making Sense Award again.
DF
Sorry, I count off for bias, repetition, and sarcasm. Your fortitude in dealing with the fundamentalists and creationists make it very hard for you to win. But there is always tomorrow!
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
So if we can't use the scientific method to determine beauty, then how can it exist?
Dang. I tried so hard to avoid this.
Sorry but . . .
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by Cookey:quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
So if we can't use the scientific method to determine beauty, then how can it exist?
Dang. I tried so hard to avoid this.
Sorry but . . .
I'm disappointed you feel the need to resort to insults instead of addressing the discussion directly. I'll make my point and allow you to have the last word, you can insult me some more if you feel it strengthens your position.
My point is that there are somethings that we cannot know through scientific means, but we can still know. Science is the tool we use to understand our physical world. However, there are somethings that science can't measure, such as the human concept of beauty. So to say we can't know anything outside the realm of scientific knowledge but admit to understanding the concept of beauty is contradictory.
Science is important, I studied it in college and use it's principles every day. However, I also understand that it is limited to the natural world and there is so much more out there than that.
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
My point is that there are somethings that we cannot know through scientific means, but we can still know. Science is the tool we use to understand our physical world. However, there are somethings that science can't measure, such as the human concept of beauty. So to say we can't know anything outside the realm of scientific knowledge but admit to understanding the concept of beauty is contradictory.
Science is important, I studied it in college and use it's principles every day. However, I also understand that it is limited to the natural world and there is so much more out there than that.
This looks like something that might interest us all here in this discussion. I am going to watch it. I do not even pretend to have all the answers to these things but I have an open mind and I am willing to learn.
check this out Nash
Link
MUSICAL MINDS
Oliver Sacks answers questions about why music affects the brain, how it can treat some neurologic disorders, and more.
It still sounds like a, "science can't describe beauty so science should be considered irrelevant" meme. I mean, science can't even accurately describe three-dimensional couette flow of hot plasma, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Certainly religion doesn't answer it.
Years ago, thunder was explained as a manifestation of God's displeasure. Now, we understand it to be associated with different electrical potentials between clouds or between clouds and the ground. We describe "thunder" scientifically; but in truth, it doesn't completely eliminate the other rationale. That is a matter of faith and belief.
Perhaps science can't adequately the manner by which one appreciates "beauty"...YET. But aim enough relevance (and money) to the question, and it's likely that science will.
In any event, the concepts of beauty are not universal; rather, they are cultural. Different things are beautiful to different cultures.
Years ago, thunder was explained as a manifestation of God's displeasure. Now, we understand it to be associated with different electrical potentials between clouds or between clouds and the ground. We describe "thunder" scientifically; but in truth, it doesn't completely eliminate the other rationale. That is a matter of faith and belief.
Perhaps science can't adequately the manner by which one appreciates "beauty"...YET. But aim enough relevance (and money) to the question, and it's likely that science will.
In any event, the concepts of beauty are not universal; rather, they are cultural. Different things are beautiful to different cultures.
As the saying goes, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
In my opinion, seeing things that are beautiful to me relieves my stress when I view them. With less stress, I would think that would make my immune system stronger.
I have a family member who is blind. He says his sense of smell and sound are heightened. He feels his daughter’s face and says she is beautiful. It’s his way of seeing beauty and I’m sure it makes him happy.
Maybe it’s an anti-depression sense.
In my opinion, seeing things that are beautiful to me relieves my stress when I view them. With less stress, I would think that would make my immune system stronger.
I have a family member who is blind. He says his sense of smell and sound are heightened. He feels his daughter’s face and says she is beautiful. It’s his way of seeing beauty and I’m sure it makes him happy.
Maybe it’s an anti-depression sense.
quote:Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
It still sounds like a, "science can't describe beauty so science should be considered irrelevant" meme.
I think its more of a "science cannot explain it therefore God exists." It's a moronic argument.
Dangit, I pulled it out again!
quote:Originally posted by Cookey:quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
Can we observe the beauty of music? If not, then how can we know it's beautiful?
Yes, we can actually. It's old news. An example here: Link
They can paint, too. Link
But the question that neither you nor Smooth will answer is this: So what? What would it prove to you if we could not "observe the beauty of music?" Again I ask, what is YOUR scientific explanation for the recognition of beauty?
Smooth's elaborate scientific theory is "God." What's yours?
quote:After all, music (and even "beauty") when you get down to the bone, is an expression of math. Computers can compose music that is "beautiful" to us.
I'm glad you posted this. Computers can indeed produce "beautiful music" (if programmed to do so by a human), however, computers cannot perceive what "beauty" is. Why can't they? Because they do not have a soul or consciousness. We then have to ask ourselves, where does a soul come from. Did we evolve with it? What atoms make up a soul (or consciousness if you prefer). I believe it could only come from a creator. That is my profound unscientific theory. I know it doesn't pass with your scientific reasoning i.e. the scientific method, but it does explain what is the unexplainable to my satisfaction.
quote:Originally posted by Cookey:quote:Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
It still sounds like a, "science can't describe beauty so science should be considered irrelevant" meme.
I think its more of a "science cannot explain it therefore God exists." It's a moronic argument.
Dangit, I pulled it out again!
Hey, email me that graphic. I have need of it...
quote:Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
It still sounds like a, "science can't describe beauty so science should be considered irrelevant" meme. I mean, science can't even accurately describe three-dimensional couette flow of hot plasma, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Certainly religion doesn't answer it.
Years ago, thunder was explained as a manifestation of God's displeasure. Now, we understand it to be associated with different electrical potentials between clouds or between clouds and the ground. We describe "thunder" scientifically; but in truth, it doesn't completely eliminate the other rationale. That is a matter of faith and belief.
Perhaps science can't adequately the manner by which one appreciates "beauty"...YET. But aim enough relevance (and money) to the question, and it's likely that science will.
In any event, the concepts of beauty are not universal; rather, they are cultural. Different things are beautiful to different cultures.
Other than miracles or prophecy, give me one example in the Bible which has been proven to be scientifically in error (creation falls under miracle). Make sure to document your claims with appropriate scripture references.
quote:Originally posted by Smooth operator:
Other than miracles or prophecy, give me one example in the Bible which has been proven to be scientifically in error (creation falls under miracle). Make sure to document your claims with appropriate scripture references.
What? Seeing how ALL miracles, prophecy and creation are scientifically in error I would see why you would want to exclude them. Whats left bedtime stories? Jonah lived in the belly of a whale.....is that what your talking about or do you consider that a miracle too?
quote:Originally posted by Smooth operator:
Other than miracles or prophecy, give me one example in the Bible which has been proven to be scientifically in error (creation falls under miracle). Make sure to document your claims with appropriate scripture references.
You've gotta be kidding. Why would I care about doing that?
quote:Originally posted by Smooth operator:
[QUOTE]Other than miracles or prophecy, give me one example in the Bible which has been proven to be scientifically in error (creation falls under miracle). Make sure to document your claims with appropriate scripture references.
The Bible's authors were consistent in believing that the earth was a circular plane and not a sphere--a dome covered plate and not a beach ball. Job was no exception. "He has compassed [circled] the water with bounds," Job 26:10. Certainly Job would have known that a sphere does not have ends, "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it," Job 38:13. Notice that Job caused men to fear "they would drop off." From Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the Earth."
Anyone wanting a good laugh can read Bible science about four-legged chickens, Leviticus 11:20; unicorns, Deuteronomy 33:17; a talking ass, Numbers 22:27-33; and a forest where trees and shrubs talk to each other, Judges 9:8-15. These are probably found at "the four corners of the earth," Isaiah 11:12.
Every youngster has learned that the mathematical constant pi equals 3.1416. . . .. I am afraid it will not do much for their careers in science and engineering if they are taught that pi equals 3.00. II Chronicles 4:2 describes a circle with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. Pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle.
quote:Other than miracles or prophecy,
Other than ventriloquism and comedy, what does Jeff Dunham have to offer?
DF
quote:Originally posted by davidnmiles:quote:Originally posted by Smooth operator:
[QUOTE]Other than miracles or prophecy, give me one example in the Bible which has been proven to be scientifically in error (creation falls under miracle). Make sure to document your claims with appropriate scripture references.
The Bible's authors were consistent in believing that the earth was a circular plane and not a sphere--a dome covered plate and not a beach ball. Job was no exception. "He has compassed [circled] the water with bounds," Job 26:10. Certainly Job would have known that a sphere does not have ends, "That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it," Job 38:13. Notice that Job caused men to fear "they would drop off." From Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the Earth."
Anyone wanting a good laugh can read Bible science about four-legged chickens, Leviticus 11:20; unicorns, Deuteronomy 33:17; a talking ass, Numbers 22:27-33; and a forest where trees and shrubs talk to each other, Judges 9:8-15. These are probably found at "the four corners of the earth," Isaiah 11:12.
Every youngster has learned that the mathematical constant pi equals 3.1416. . . .. I am afraid it will not do much for their careers in science and engineering if they are taught that pi equals 3.00. II Chronicles 4:2 describes a circle with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. Pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle.
Absolute hogwash.
Link
Thought I might as well Google too.