Why are things beautiful?

[blue sock monkey]

This reminds me of something I recently read - an article about the perception of beauty in mountains and wild nature being basically a cultural thing. Here's a quote from the article:

Very stimulating link--thank you! Reminds me of a book I read some years ago called Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory: The Development of the Aesthetics of the Infinite (argues for the relatively recent cultural development of appreciation of mountains and other forbidding landscapes).

All of which circles me back around to Piggy's enviable enjoyment of storms. We had a ferocious thunderstorm here last night that almost sent me quivering into the closet. Yet I also love to watch the storms. When I nerve myself to do that, am i just whistling past the graveyard?

 

[The Man]

Not necessarily. I just find it interesting, especially because it throws a wrench into the hypothesis that we evolved a sense of beauty as a means of identifying or attending to things that are helpful to us.

Knowing that a storm is coming is not helpful to us? Again finding and identifying patterns is helpful. That we might receive some reward response when finding particular patterns simply makes the pattern recognition helpful to us and not the storm itself. Recognizing patterns to avoid as well as those favorable are the advantages of pattern recognition. Again it goes back to those aspects that we can identify as affecting the perception of beauty. The presence of some perceived danger simply may not be one of them. A negative feedback study on what some would consider beautiful might be interesting, I’m not sure if anything like that has been attempted. I can certainly see negative results affecting ones perception of beauty, but does that negative perception carry over to similar patterns that are specifically given positive connotations for the subject? Perhaps our pattern recognition can be definitive enough to distinguish between those similar patterns that provide different feedback (deliberately in an experiment)? I’m not sure, but I find the possibilities interesting.

ETA: Perhaps this is one of the downfalls of pattern recognition, patterns that we might find beautiful or provide a positive stimulus, but still know we should avoid having had recurring negative feedback.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I haven't read this entire thread but here are a few thoughts. While the perception of beauty seems to be universal, what we consider beautiful is not. This fits with a genetic behavior that is overridden by our brains. Right now I can't think of any evolutionary benefit to beauty other than mate selection so I am going to make a guess that it is a side effect of the gene when it is applied to other things and not the what the genes were selected for.

 

[blue sock monkey]

I haven't read this entire thread but here are a few thoughts. While the perception of beauty seems to be universal, what we consider beautiful is not. This fits with a genetic behavior that is overridden by our brains. Right now I can't think of any evolutionary benefit to beauty other than mate selection so I am going to make a guess that it is a side effect of the gene when it is applied to other things and not the what the genes were selected for.

IMO, mate selection as the driving force behind an appreciation for human beauty is a distinctly plausible hypothesis. But how in the world does one test such an hypothesis? (As you can see, I am not well-read in the theories of evolutionary psychology.)

 

[Tumbleweed]

Hike across the "wild beautiful wild places" while starving and dehydrated.
Think Donner Party when enjoying a snow fall.
Depending on the circumstances of the viewer, it's beauty or hell on earth.
Subjective to the extreme.

I thought the subject was "why are things beautiful", not "why things may not be beautiful" . It's a given that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The question I think he is asking is on a tree level not a forest, or individual versus culture. Again beauty is in the eye of the culture, buy why beauty at all? And as I said, an ecosystem such as found in many wildernesses has no beauty until someone who can conceptualize it walks in. A human can add very little to that ecosystem on his vist there - a little CO2 water vapor and a minscule amount of fertilizer. So his function there becomes to give it a sense of beauty

 

[The Man]

IMO, mate selection as the driving force behind an appreciation for human beauty is a distinctly plausible hypothesis. But how in the world does one test such an hypothesis? (As you can see, I am not well-read in the theories of evolutionary psychology.)

Perhaps identifying a genetic deficiency in someone that generally does not find any beauty anywhere? Although I think you might have more success testing it as a chemical imbalance first then perhaps identifying some generic precursor for such an imbalance.

 

[Philosaur]

Not necessarily. I just find it interesting, especially because it throws a wrench into the hypothesis that we evolved a sense of beauty as a means of identifying or attending to things that are helpful to us.

Oops. Didn't notice that you said this...which answers my question from the previous post.

I don't think it throws a wrench into this hypothesis at all. But I think there's a missing part to add.

The hypothesis posed here seems to be: humans find things (or people, or places) which confer some survival benefit to be beautiful. I think we can add to this, that certain traits can multiply or add to the sense of beauty, like a thing's rarity or obscurity. So we might find even more beauty in those things that are benefiicial *and* hard to find.

Furthermore, beauty seems to be intimately linked to the sensations the thing evokes in us. Colors, scents, tactile sensations, and sounds serve to identify those beneficial things. We don't experience the ding an sich--the "thing in itself" (sorry, more philosophy), but only the colors, sounds, scents, and other qualia it emits. It's plausible that we may find certain not-necessarily-beneficial things to be beautiful because they resemble beneficial things, or even because they emit a hodge-podge of qualia from various beneficial things. I think this is all the more possible the more removed humans are from the state of mere survival.

To tie it up, a lightning storm might be beautiful because it sheds light (albeit erratically), which is good, it heralds rain, which is generally good, it probably makes it less likely that predators are out hunting, which is good. But I think a key ingredient in a storm's beauty is in its inability to harm us. That is, early hunter-gatherers probably found a storm beautiful when they were sitting safely in a cave, out of the rain. The joy at being safe in an otherwise dangerous event might serve to heighten the beauty of it. I think we're still responding to that.

 

[blue sock monkey]

Perhaps identifying a genetic deficiency in someone that generally does not find any beauty anywhere? Although I think you might have more success testing it as a chemical imbalance first then perhaps identifying some generic precursor for such an imbalance.

The chemical imbalance looks more promising to me. Studying genetic deficiencies might only tell us that people with certain diseases broadly lose their abilities for pleasure. That is, the failure to perceive beauty might only be an indirect result of the disease, not a direct result of the genetic problem.

Then there is the related issue of why certain chemicals--beer say--artificially "enhance" some people's perception of beauty.

 

[Piggy]

This is not true. As I said to Roger - you might think circles are beautiful. I think they're ugly! Explain to me why you consider them beautiful.

This answer will be a philosophical one. There is a reflective process going on. I know this upsets you, because for spurious ideological reasons you hate the word, but it shouldn't. Science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive.

No, it doesn't upset me. And I don't hate the word "philosophy" (words are my business -- I love them). I just find the practice of philosophy useless.

Anyway, if we want to answer the question of why one animal finds circles beautiful and another doesn't, perhaps philosophy will come up with some sort of answer. I don't know. I can't imagine it would be very accurate or reliable or satisfying.

Doesn't matter, tho, b/c this thread is about a scientific approach.

I don't think we have the means of answering that question at the moment. But to get there, we might follow a process like this:

First, figure out what goes on in subjects' bodies and brains when they have the experience of perceiving things as beautiful, ugly, or neutral.

I'd be willing to bet that there are telltale physiological responses and signature neurological responses associated with that state. It's likely that some of these will also scale with the intensity of the experience.

Then run some experiments exposing subjects to various types of circular items and patterns, as well as other types of items and patterns, and measure their responses, as well as have them indicate somehow "beautiful", "ugly", "neutral".

Interview the subjects while showing them the same sets of images or objects again to determine what kinds of associations their brains conjure up when they see these things. You might even run the same measurements to see how their bodies and brains react while they're describing these associations.

In the end, you might discover that subject A (me) has a brain which tends to have more frequent and stronger experiences of beauty in general, triggered by a wider range of objects, and that this is due to A's individual chemical and neurological makeup, and that A has many happy memories associated with balloons, wading pools, merry-go-rounds, and Twister boards.

You might also discover that subject B (you) has a brain with a different composition that has fewer and less intense experiences of beauty, triggered by a narrower range of objects, that B responds negatively to regular forms in general but positively to more chaotic and nonlinear forms, and that B has very bitter memories of a childhood spent in a Spanish Franco-era housing project with lots of regular features, but wonderful memories of later years spent in the Alps with his grandparents.

That's how you'd get a scientific answer.

 

[Piggy]

Hike across the "wild beautiful wild places" while starving and dehydrated.
Think Donner Party when enjoying a snow fall.
Depending on the circumstances of the viewer, it's beauty or hell on earth.
Subjective to the extreme.

But as you note here, it varies for a reason. So what you're talking about in this example, specifically, is not evidence of subjectivity; rather, it's evidence of objective circumstances influencing the brain.

 

[Piggy]

Roger - tell me why you think canyons are beautiful.

From a scientific point of view, Roger has no way of knowing why his brain responds the way it does. His answer would be a mere guess, not to be relied upon. Maybe right, but maybe entirely wrong.

 

[The Man]

The chemical imbalance looks more promising to me. Studying genetic deficiencies might only tell us that people with certain diseases broadly lose their abilities for pleasure. That is, the failure to perceive beauty might only be an indirect result of the disease, not a direct result of the genetic problem.

Then there is the related issue of why certain chemicals--beer say--artificially "enhance" some people's perception of beauty.

Well if I were conducting such research, that would be where I would start. Chemical imbalance that is, not necessarily beer (as I prefer Rum) and am continuing my own entirely unscientific study in that regard. There are some pretty good indications and evidence that internal chemical changes can alter ones perception of beauty probably as much as some external change. It would be interesting to see if those internal and external changes may reinforce each other or counterbalance the each other or both.

 

[I Ratant]

But as you note here, it varies for a reason. So what you're talking about in this example, specifically, is not evidence of subjectivity; rather, it's evidence of objective circumstances influencing the brain.

.
But what else is there, other than manufacturing beauty by fouling up the brain with drugs?
The objective situation is external to any human influence, it's the way the human subjective responds that makes beauty or hell.

 

[Piggy]

I can't tell if you're reiterating the idea that things can be beautiful and hypothetically dangerous at the same time, or if you are contending that in the midst of imminent danger, your awareness of the beauty of the storm would be anywhere near your sense of distress. If the latter, then I have a very hard time believing you. I live in Mobile, AL, and I've been in hurricanes and lightning storms.

From a distance (even if the distance is only the next town over), I could see how the hurricane *might* be considered beautiful. But when you are in imminent danger (i.e. the roof is gone and aluminum road signs are cutting tree limbs off next to your head), I can't seriously believe you'd still be thinking "ah, this is truly beautiful"; or if you were, you're using some sense of the word that very few others would understand or agree with.

The reason I'm pursuing this, is because you seem to be saying that the operational definition "beauty is a human reaction to things that are or were of benefit to our survival" is false or lacking because a storm (a dangerous thing) could be beautiful. In short, I don't think this counter to the definition works--chiefly because in order to really experience a feeling of "that's beautiful", the danger needs to be somewhat removed from the experience. Am I understanding your counter-argument?

Well, the reason I mentioned it to begin with is that I do, in fact, have that experience. I've been in all those kinds of storms I mentioned, and I've been impressed at how majestically beautiful they can be (especially the lightning storms in Florida) even when I know right then that there's a chance they'll hurt or even kill me.

But as you say, there's a point where fear overwhelms you and you're not experiencing the beauty. Hurricanes are like that for me, and floods -- they scare my boots off. I was in a storm on a mountain in Colorado once, and it, too, was quite pretty, until it got so bad I thought we might literally get blown off the ridge!

I've been in very sad situations, too, and found them touchingly beautiful. Recently I was at the funeral of a dear friend, and had a heightened sense of beauty, probably because of the love I was feeling. I noticed that the back of the old man's head in front of me -- his deeply tanned and creased skin, the scissor marks in his grey hair, the folds of flesh above his collar -- were not ugly to me at that moment. They could have been a sculpture or a painting, they were touching, they had a pleasing visceral aesthetic to them.

But yes, in short, I've often observed that the natural world is still gorgeous even when it's threatening.

 

[Piggy]

Knowing that a storm is coming is not helpful to us? Again finding and identifying patterns is helpful. That we might receive some reward response when finding particular patterns simply makes the pattern recognition helpful to us and not the storm itself. Recognizing patterns to avoid as well as those favorable are the advantages of pattern recognition.

Good point.

 

[Piggy]

.
But what else is there, other than manufacturing beauty by fouling up the brain with drugs?
The objective situation is external to any human influence, it's the way the human subjective responds that makes beauty or hell.

You need to get better quality drugs.

But if what you're pointing out is accurate, and I believe it is, then it fits hand in glove with a scientific explanation that beauty happens in the brain in predictable ways and is associated with specific states.

I don't think anyone's demonstrated that, but if I had to bet, I'd wager that it is.

 

[The Man]

From my rather amateurish speculation it seems most based on endorphins, when endorphins levels are high (or we are) things tend to seem more beautiful. When such levels are low (after the ‘crash‘) most things (if anything) do not. I recall seeing something on the effects of using Extacy for extended periods reducing serotonin levels and as a result the subjects inteviewed remark to not being able to find any beauty in anything unless they are on the drug. However from the function of serotonin that seems more like the general condition of malaise you were referring to blue sock monkey and not specifically related to just the perception of beauty, even though that was how the interviewed peopled tended to describe it as finding thing beautiful when on the drug and not finding any beauty when off.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extacy_(drug)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_transporter

 

[Philosaur]

I've been in very sad situations, too, and found them touchingly beautiful. Recently I was at the funeral of a dear friend, and had a heightened sense of beauty, probably because of the love I was feeling. I noticed that the back of the old man's head in front of me -- his deeply tanned and creased skin, the scissor marks in his grey hair, the folds of flesh above his collar -- were not ugly to me at that moment. They could have been a sculpture or a painting, they were touching, they had a pleasing visceral aesthetic to them.

This suggests to me even more that context is important. The relative safety in the midst of the storm, the old man's neck in the poignancy of a friend's funeral.

Lots of ink has been spilled about beauty, and I doubt we'll come to consensus right now, but the dialog's been fun.

Hopefully I can pick up this thread later.

 

[Piggy]

More interesting stuff:

Beauty Is Truth In Mathematical Intuition: First Empirical Evidence

In 2004, Rolf Reber (University of Bergen), Norbert Schwarz (University of Michigan), and Piotr Winkielman (University of California at San Diego) suggested – based on evidence they reviewed – that the common experience underlying both perceived beauty and judged truth is processing fluency, which is the experienced ease with which mental content is processed. Indeed, stimuli processed with greater ease elicit more positive affect and statements that participants can read more easily are more likely to be judged as being true. Researchers invoked processing fluency to help explain a wide range of phenomena, including variations in stock prices, brand preferences, or the lack of reception of mathematical theories that are difficult to understand.

Pigeons As Art Critics? Pigeons, Like Humans, Use Color And Pattern Cues To Evaluate Paintings

A new study... shows that like humans, pigeons can be trained to tell the difference between ‘good' and ‘bad' paintings. According to Professor Shigeru Watanabe from Keio University in Japan, pigeons use both color and pattern cues to judge the paintings' beauty as defined by humans, as well as their texture.

Computer Taught To Recognize Attractiveness In Women

"Until now, computers have been taught how to identify basic facial characteristics, such as the difference between a woman and a man, and even to detect facial expressions," says Kagian. "But our software lets a computer make an aesthetic judgment. Linked to sentiments and abstract thought processes, humans can make a judgment, but they usually don't understand how they arrived at their conclusions."

First Impressions Of Beauty May Demonstrate Why The Pretty Prosper

Experiments in which subjects were given a fraction of a second to judge "attractiveness" offered further evidence that our preference for beauty might be hard-wired. People who participated in the studies were also more likely to associate pretty faces with positive traits.

Rating Attractiveness: Consensus Among Men, Not Women, Study Finds

"Men agree a lot more about who they find attractive and unattractive than women agree about who they find attractive and unattractive," says Wood, assistant professor of psychology. "This study shows we can quantify the extent to which men agree about which women are attractive and vice versa."

 

[I Ratant]

You need to get better quality drugs.

But if what you're pointing out is accurate, and I believe it is, then it fits hand in glove with a scientific explanation that beauty happens in the brain in predictable ways and is associated with specific states.

I don't think anyone's demonstrated that, but if I had to bet, I'd wager that it is.

.
One of my friends who services electronic equipment in the mountains around here tells of observing the mating of two rattlesnakes on the trail ahead of his 4WD.
I understand this is an awesome/amusing sight.
He watched until they were done, and then ran over them, as he hates snakes.