Physical Basis of Beauty?

[AceofSpades]

I was struck tonight by a sense of wonder and beauty of the world around me, and it caused me to think: what is the physical basis/reason we see beauty in the world around us?

I understand beauty in the sense of sexual attraction and hot women look amazing, but on the "non-purpose" level, what is it that causes our brain to feel that sense of "awe" and why do we see some abstract things as beautiful and others as not? Is there a specific "beauty" response that gets triggered or do we experience the beauty of different things in totally different ways?

[MidGe]

Hi AcesofSpades,



[ QUOTE ]
I understand beauty in the sense of sexual attraction and hot women look amazing, but on the "non-purpose" level, what is it that causes our brain to feel that sense of "awe" and why do we see some abstract things as beautiful and others as not? Is there a specific "beauty" response that gets triggered or do we experience the beauty of different things in totally different ways?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is because we look selectively. One may look at the sunset of a park and the sea and will see the interplays of colours, the other will see the insects, animal, fishes devouring each others. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[cambraceres]

This is a topic that has been addressed by some rather prolific scientific minds. I read an article about a year ago which sights symmetry as an essential characteristic to beauty. The article pointed out that the Fibonacci series is present in many structures generally regarded as beautiful, and is common to a large part of living things in general.

I wish I could remember more of this, it is an interesting subject.

Cambraceres

[yukoncpa]

Hello Cambraceres,
First, thank you for your earlier replies to me.
Beauty has a great deal to do with symmetry, but it also has to do with evolution. For example, a large nose or a large jaw is caused by an extra dose of testosterone, which among early females would have made them less capable of perpetuating the species, and thereby making the attribute less desirable to the male of the species.

[yukoncpa]

upon reading the original poster, it seems he is looking for non-sexual reasons for beauty, so my above post may be inappropriate.
Is it possible that we find beauty for non-evolved reasons? I do find this interesting.

[tolbiny]

It is likely a combination of several things- in a way an evolutionary byproduct. Humans are very visual animals, probably because of tool making and other activities that seperate us from other animals require attention to detail and the ability to recognize and repeat certain patterns. The optical center of the human brain is much larger than that in a dog, or even in other apes. Combine this with the tendancy to enjoy the exotic (this is helpfull in finding mates) and you get groups whose attention is caught by things that are colorful or have subtle patterns to them (the human mind is great at finding patterns, even ones that don't really exist).

[felson]

The evolutionary psych explanation I read is that humans evolved to be interested in flowers because they are useful for distinguishing plants before their fruits are in season. The same neural circuits would cause us to appreciate colorful patterns in general. It also would be adaptive to notice sunrises and sunsets, since they indicate an important transition in time.

[Sharkey]

Those apes that could appreciate a beautiful sunset reproduced, while those that couldn’t didn’t.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Those apes that could appreciate a beautiful sunset reproduced, while those that couldn’t didn’t.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you are starting to get it, sharkey.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those apes that could appreciate a beautiful sunset reproduced, while those that couldn’t didn’t.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you are starting to get it, sharkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ve got it all along. You should try it sometime.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those apes that could appreciate a beautiful sunset reproduced, while those that couldn’t didn’t.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you are starting to get it, sharkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ve got it all along. You should try it sometime.

[/ QUOTE ]
so why the bogus first member stuff?
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t pretend to any expertise in the subject, but I do have what I consider legitimate questions, like how does the new species perpetuate itself without its first member(s) mating?

[/ QUOTE ]
chez

[Sharkey]

I don’t appreciate a posture of truth-by-expertise from anyone, nor do I impose the same.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t appreciate a posture of truth-by-expertise from anyone, nor do I impose the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you'd rather the posture of truth-by-blind-faith... LOL

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t appreciate a posture of truth-by-expertise from anyone, nor do I impose the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
but if you got evolution as you now claim you knew the first member argument was bogus, its very basic stuff.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t appreciate a posture of truth-by-expertise from anyone, nor do I impose the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
but if you got evolution as you now claim you knew the first member argument was bogus, its very basic stuff.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That particular discussion wasn’t continued, so I didn’t take the time to explain that my own version of the first member argument was not the one you seemed to be referring to.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t appreciate a posture of truth-by-expertise from anyone, nor do I impose the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
but if you got evolution as you now claim you knew the first member argument was bogus, its very basic stuff.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That particular discussion wasn’t continued, so I didn’t take the time to explain that my own version of the first member argument was not the one you seemed to be referring to.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif