The Problem of Beauty

_{Barry Arrington

April 22, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This is an excellent primer on the problem of beauty from a Darwinian perspective. Why Extravagant Beauty is Evolution’s Most Persistent Problem.

It seems more reasonable, as Wallace believed, that extravagant beauty is likely to eject creatures from the gene pool. It requires more energy to develop and maintain and makes one highly conspicuous and attractive to predators.

A quibble: I am not sure this is Darwinian evolution’s most persistent problem. There are so many candidates for that title, it is hard to keep count, much less come to a definitive answer as to which problem is the worst.

Comments

PK says that we are resorting to mind projection fallacy when we say that beauty has an objective existence.
The mind projection fallacy is an informal fallacy first described by physicist and Bayesian philosopher E.T. Jaynes. It occurs when someone thinks that the way they see the world reflects the way the world really is, going as far as assuming the real existence of imagined objects,, - per wikipedia
The fatal flaw in PK's claim that beauty is merely illusory is that everyone on the face of the earth, though they may vary in the details as to what they personally consider beautiful, has an innate sense of beauty. Thus PK has to claim that everyone is suffering from the illusion that beauty objectively exists. In fact, as was mentioned previously, in the article that Mr Arrington referenced, both Darwin and Wallace themselves, (as well as Richard O. Prum and Michael J. Ryan who have written books on the subject), all presupposed that beauty was something that was objectively real that was in need of an coherent explanation. (By the way, as the article also makes clear, they all failed to give a coherent explanation). In other words, Darwin and Wallace did not presuppose that beauty was something that was merely subjective and illusory, but that it was something that was indeed objectively real and that it therefore was something that was in need of a coherent explanation. As the article quoted Darwin as saying, ““The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”
,,,, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, were profoundly burdened by the problem of beauty. Darwin confessed to a friend, “The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” – Glenn Stanton – Why Extravagant Beauty Is Evolution’s Most Persistent Problem – Apr. 2020
And indeed it should have made Darwin sick. The objective existence of beauty in nature and biology goes far beyond any possible Darwinian explanation, and simply shatters the primary reductive materialistic presupposition that beauty is merely subjective and illusory.
The Biology of the Baroque – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FothcJW-Quo Google search – beautiful pictures https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01gE7KCuHGhnQrtab9HsY3NUF3BkA:1587590310738&q=beautiful+pictures&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2w5Tk-vzoAhWUVs0KHZJnCN0QsAR6BAgLEAE&cshid=1587590382657241&biw=1600&bih=774
But alas, PK, being the armchair philosopher that he is, sees no need to acknowledge the objective existence of this universal experience of beauty, i.e. that the "experience of beauty as something meaningful is universal in human beings." He feels content to just label beauty illusory, and/or 'mind projection fallacy', and act like he has somehow managed to explain why we all have this meaningful experience of beauty. He has done no such thing. He has not one shred of evidence that consciousness can possibly 'emerge' from some material basis. Much less does he have any evidence that the subjective experience of beauty, and/or qualia itself, can somehow emerge from some material basis and that it is therefore merely illusory.
Qualia Excerpt: Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky (i.e. beauty). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
In fact, 'qualia' itself is, via Chalmers and company, referred to as the 'hard problem' of consciousness
David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem of Consciousness) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
Qualia and/or beauty simply refuses to be reduced to any possible material explanation As Professor of Psychology David Barash states in the following article, an article which happens to be entitled “the hardest problem in science?”, “But the hard problem of consciousness (i.e. qualia) is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.”
The Hardest Problem in Science? October 28, 2011 Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness (i.e. qualia) is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’ - David Barash - Professor of Psychology emeritus at the University of Washington. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845
Moreover, within his reductive materialism, it is not just qualia and/or beauty that PK is forced to deny the objective existence of and claim that it is merely illusory. Presupposing Darwinian materialism as being true literally forces PK to claim that everything is illusory:
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Thus in conclusion, though PK appealed to 'mind projection fallacy' to try to claim that beauty does not objectively exist and that we are all therefore suffering from the illusion that beauty really exists, the fact of the matter is that it is PK himself who is living in a world of fantasy and illusion that he, via his atheistic materialism, has constructed whole cloth out of his imagination.bornagain77_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

PK@17
Are you claiming that beauty is an objective property of a thing? Intrinsic to that thing, even without observers?
Yes. God always observes.Latemarch_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

@Doubter #18 That is more Mind Projection Fallacy, on a massive scale. Please see my first post.Pater Kimbridge_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

PK, there are some things that are beautiful, and that beauty -- surprise -- somehow manages to comport with intelligible aesthetics principles. Many of which -- surprise again -- are mathematical. The patterns in beautiful music are a capital example. Going to the logic of being, a first principle is distinct identity: A is itself, A i/l/o its core characteristics. There is no compelling reason why those characteristics would not in many cases comport with aesthetics principles. Why, there is even Mathematical beauty, a classic result being 0 = 1 + e^i*pi. It's just that, in an age that rose up in rebellion against such, these things are unfamiliar. Why not go look at my earlier discussion as linked. KFkairosfocus_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

TF, while there is a lot of genuinely beautiful modern art there is indeed too much ugliness masquerading as art. KFkairosfocus_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

PK @17 From Sir James Jeans:
"I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe... In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. .................................. The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality... Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."
Jeans died in 1946 and was the product of and reacted to late Victorian and early 20th century physics and materialism. All the findings into this mystery since then in consciousness reseach and quantum mechanics only confirm his intuitiuon. Reductive materialism is an untenable worldview, as well explicated by BA77 in numerous posts. The essence of reality is consciousness and the quality of beauty would not exist without an ultimate beholder, which may not be human conscousness, but is consciousness nevertheless. So it is a false dichotomy. The two are intertwined, beauty means consciousness to perceive and create it exists, and consciousness means the capacity to create beauty and appreciate it exists. Neither without the other. Of course, time must be allocated to the peanut gallery. Feel free to scoff.doubter_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

@LateMarch #14 Are you claiming that beauty is an objective property of a thing? Intrinsic to that thing, even without observers? Would a flower have beauty if there was no one there to see it?Pater Kimbridge_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

today’s architecture of deliberate ugliness imposed by power.
God is beauty in Himself. By rejecting God, you embrace (and you have to impose, which is also ugly) all this garbage called modern 'art'.Truthfreedom_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

LM & PK, we are conscious subjects and can perceive what is true. Where, that something is beautiful can be analysed in light of a cluster of aesthetics principles, many of which used to be routinely taught -- cf. my discussion here at UD, linked at 8 above. But no more as subjectivism and radical relativism took over. I also note, there is a world of difference between tastes and preferences and such that align well with principles of aesthetics. The difference is particularly noticeable with today's architecture of deliberate ugliness imposed by power. The wrecking of London's skyline as more and more outre buildings were put up, overshadowing St Paul's is a capital case in point that makes me wonder if Mr Goering's ghost could give us some help. KF PS: I list some inductively drawn out principles, inviting discussion of Mona Lisa as an iconic case (and yes I know of the second, younger ML):
the process of addressing a hard puzzle where our intuitions tell us something but it seems to be forever just beyond our grasp, is itself highly instructive. For, we know in part. Dewitt H. Parker, in opening his 1920 textbook, Principles of Aesthetics, aptly captures the paradox: Although some feeling for beauty is perhaps universal among men, the same cannot be said of the understanding of beauty. The average man, who may exercise considerable taste in personal adornment, in the decoration of the home, or in the choice of poetry and painting, is at a loss when called upon to tell what art is or to explain why he calls one thing “beautiful” and another “ugly.” Even the artist and the connoisseur, skilled to produce or accurate in judgment, are often wanting in clear and consistent ideas about their own works or appreciations. Here, as elsewhere, we meet the contrast between feeling and doing, on the one hand, and knowing, on the other. Of course, as we saw above, reflective (and perhaps, aided) observation of case studies can support an inductive process that tries to identify principles and design patterns of effective artistic or natural composition that reliably excite the beauty response. That can be quite suggestive, as we already saw: symmetry, balance, pattern (including rhythms in space and/or time [e.g. percussion, dance]), proportion (including the golden ratio phi, 1.618 etc) unity or harmony (with tension and resolution), highlighting contrast, variety and detail, subtle asymmetry, focus or vision or theme, verisimilitude (insight that shows/focusses a credible truth/reality) echoing of familiar forms (including scaled, fractal self-symmetry), skilled combination or composition and more.
Here is the comment on ML as the portrait likely originally looked (I put up a reproduction that tries to capture what things would have been like 500 years ago now):
A wealthy young lady sits in a three-quarters pose . . . already a subtle asymmetry, in an ornate armchair, on an elevated balcony overlooking a civilisation-tamed landscape; she represents the upper class of the community that has tamed the land. Notice, how a serpentine, S-curved road just below her right shoulder ties her to the landscape and how a ridge line at the base of her neck acts as a secondary horizon and lead in. Also, the main horizon line (at viewer’s eye-level) is a little below her eyes; it is relieved by more ridges. She wears bright red, softened with dark green and translucent layers. Her reddish brown hair is similarly veiled. As a slight double-chin and well-fed hands show, she is not an exemplar of the extreme thinness equals beauty school of thought. The right hand is brought over to the left and superposed, covering her midriff — one almost suspects, she may be an expectant mother. Her eyes (note the restored highlights) look to her left . . . a subtle asymmetry that communicates lifelike movement so verisimilitude, as if she is smiling subtly with the painter or the viewer — this is not a smirk or sneer. And of course the presence of an invited narrative adds to the aesthetic power of the composition. These classics (old and new alike) serve to show how stable a settled judgement of beauty can be. Which raises a question: what is beauty? Like unto that: are there principles of aesthetic judgement that give a rational framework, setting up objective knowledge of beauty? And, how do beauty, goodness, justice and truth align? These are notoriously hard questions, probing aesthetics and ethics, the two main branches of axiology, the philosophical study of the valuable. Where, yes, beauty is recognised to be valuable, even as ethics is clearly tied to moral value and goodness and truth are also valuable, worthy to be prized. It is unsurprising that the Taj Mahal was built as a mausoleum by a King to honour his beautiful, deeply loved wife (who had died in childbirth). AmHD is a good place to start: beauty is “[a] quality or combination of qualities that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is often associated with properties such as harmony of form or color, proportion, authenticity, and originality. “ . . . . At one level, at least since Plato’s dialogue Hippias Major, it has been well known that beauty is notoriously hard to define or specify in terms of readily agreed principles. There definitely is subjectivity, but is there also objectivity? If one says no, why then are there classics? Further, if no, then why could we lay out a cumulative pattern across time, art-form, nature and theme above that then appears exquisitely fused together in a portrait that just happens to be the most famous, classic portrait in the world? If so, what are such and can they constitute a coherent framework that could justify the claim to objective knowledge of aesthetic value?
And more . . .kairosfocus_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Pater@11:
First you call it “the subjective experience of beauty….” Then you call it “The objective existence of beauty in nature and biology” It’s either one or the other, dude.
Are you saying that it's not possible to have a subjective experience of an objective reality? Because that's the context of BA77's post.....dude.Latemarch_{April 23, 2020
April
04
Apr
23
23
2020
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Sev
Beauty is in the eye of the ~~beholder~~ beer holder,
There, I fixed it for you.Ed George_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

https://byronsmuse.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/1795-lawrence-was-in-love-with-sarah-siddonss-daughter-sally-painting-by-thomas-lawrence.jpgEDTA_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

@Bornagain77 #10 First you call it "the subjective experience of beauty...." Then you call it "The objective existence of beauty in nature and biology" It's either one or the other, dude. Are you so unable to remember what you wrote from one paragraph to the next, that you are doomed to contradict yourself?Pater Kimbridge_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

Seversky states that,
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,,
The article, which I bet Seversky did not even bother to read, also mentions the phrase "Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder"
Why Extravagant Beauty Is Evolution’s Most Persistent Problem - April 22, 2020 Excerpt: Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder ,,, The problem here is human prejudice, assuming that what is beautiful to our eyes must also be beautiful to an animal’s mate. Couldn’t the iridescent peacock just as well appear garish to the peahen, while Mr. Blobfish cannot imagine anyone more lovely than Ms. Blobfish? It’s just as likely as it isn’t. If reproduction is driven by beauty, ugliness would be its speed bump. This is clearly not the case. https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/22/why-extravagant-beauty-is-evolutions-most-persistent-problem/
And indeed, if atheistic materialism were actually true, then beauty must necessarily be illusory. As the following article explains, if atheistic materialism is true then, "Beauty is “merely” an experience in the physical brain, not an external reality."
Beauty Evades the Clutches of Materialism – March 27, 2013 Excerpt: Evolutionary materialists must believe, at some level, that the experience of beauty can be reduced to actions of neurons in the brain. This would bring beauty into the purview of neuroscience — a subtopic known as neuroaesthetics — that could be probed and explained with the tools of science. If the materialists are right, the Prince doesn’t really love Cinderella because she is beautiful. She is beautiful to him because he loves her, and he loves her because certain neurons fire in response to a stimulus. Beauty is “merely” an experience in the physical brain, not an external reality. https://evolutionnews.org/2013/03/beauty_evades_t/
There is simply no way to reduce the subjective experience of beauty, and/or qualia, to materialistic explanation.
11.2.1 Qualia - Perception (“The Hard Problem” ) Philosopher of the mind Frank Jackson imagined a thought experiment —Mary’s Room— to explain qualia and why it is such an intractable problem for science. The problem identified is referred to as the knowledge argument. Here is the description of the thought experiment: “Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like 'red', 'blue', and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence 'The sky is blue'. (...) What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?" Jackson believed that Mary did learn something new: she learned what it was like to experience color. "It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism [materialism] is false.” https://www.urantia.org/study/seminar-presentations/is-there-design-in-nature#Emergence
Darwin himself once stated that, if "structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
“The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.” (Charles Darwin - 1859, p. 199)
Thus the argument for God from beauty can be stated like this,
1. If God does not exist then beauty does not objectively exist in the 'eyes of man' but is merely illusory. 2. Beauty does objectively exist in the 'eyes of man'. 3. Therefore God exists.
The problem for atheistic materialists in trying to defeat this argument for God from beauty is that everyone intuitively knows that beauty objectively exists. In fact, in the article that Mr Arrington referenced, both Darwin and Wallace themselves, (as well as Richard O. Prum and Michael J. Ryan who have written books on the subject), all presupposed that beauty was something that was objectively real that was in need of an coherent explanation. (By the way, as the article also makes clear, they all failed to give a coherent explanation). In other words, Darwin and Wallace did not presuppose that beauty was something that was merely subjective and illusory, but that it was something that was indeed objectively real and that it therefore was something that was in need of a coherent explanation. As the article quoted Darwin as saying, "“The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!”
,,,, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, were profoundly burdened by the problem of beauty. Darwin confessed to a friend, “The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!” - Glenn Stanton - Why Extravagant Beauty Is Evolution’s Most Persistent Problem - Apr. 2020
And indeed it should have made Darwin sick. The objective existence of beauty in nature and biology goes far beyond any possible Darwinian explanation, and simply shatters the primary reductive materialistic presupposition that beauty is merely subjective and illusory.
The Biology of the Baroque – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FothcJW-Quo Google search - beautiful pictures https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01gE7KCuHGhnQrtab9HsY3NUF3BkA:1587590310738&q=beautiful+pictures&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2w5Tk-vzoAhWUVs0KHZJnCN0QsAR6BAgLEAE&cshid=1587590382657241&biw=1600&bih=774
Supplemental notes:
Beauty and the Imagination - Aaron Ames - July 16th, 2017 Excerpt: Beauty… can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this ‘idea’ of beauty were not found in the Mind in a more perfect form…. This consideration has readily persuaded men of ability and learning… that the original “idea” is not to be found in this sphere (Augustine, City of God). https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/07/beauty-imagination-aaron-ames.html The Reason Why God Is the Beauty We All Seek - Sept. 4, 2019 Excerpt: God loves beauty. As Thomas Aquinas asserts, God “is beauty itself”[1] St. Anselm argues that “God must be the supreme beauty for the same reasons that He must be justice and other such qualities.”[2] As the contemporary theologian Michael Horton so aptly states in his book The Christian Faith, “God would not be God if he did not possess all his attributes in the simplicity and perfection of his essence.”[3] The reason why we gravitate toward beauty is because God created us in his image.,,, In a chapel sermon titled, “Can Beauty Save the World,” Albert Mohler explains, "The Christian worldview posits that anything pure and good finds its ultimate source in the self-existent, omnipotent God who is infinite in all his perfections. Thus the Christian worldview reminds us that the “transcendentals”—the good, the true, and the beautiful—are inseparable. Thus when Psalm 27 speaks of the beauty of the Lord, the Psalmist is also making a claim about the goodness of the Lord and the truthfulness of the Lord. While we distinguish God’s attributes from one another in order to understand them better, we must also recognize that these attributes are inseparable from one another.[19]" Mohler goes on to state, “Our job as Christians is to remember the difference between the beautiful and the pretty,” because pure beauty is found in goodness and truth.[20] When we gaze upon ascetically pleasing objects or witness kind deeds in this world, we are at best seeing imperfect versions of the pure beauty that can only be found in God. https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/reason-why-god-is-the-beauty-we-all-seek
Verse:
Psalm 27:4 One thing I have asked from the LORD, that I shall seek: That I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, To behold the beauty of the LORD And to meditate in His temple.
bornagain77_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Three self-evidently true facts: Fact #1: The experience of beauty as something meaningful is universal in human beings. Fact #2: Human beings are for some reason hardwired to seek purpose and meaning. Fact #3: Human beings are for some reason hardwired to seek higher purpose and meaning. john_a_designer_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Beauty is quite rational .) https://uncommondescent.com/culture/logic-first-principles-14-are-beauty-truth-knowledge-goodness-and-justice-merely-matters-of-subjective-opinions-preliminary-thoughts/kairosfocus_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Whether or not our experience of beauty is completely subjective, it is something that humans being find to be meaningful. That of course, provokes some other questions which are difficult to explain from a completely Darwinian perspective, such as: Why are humans hardwired to seek not only purpose and meaning but higher purpose and meaning?john_a_designer_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

@5 Seversky
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Nice objective truth. If it's a subjective statement, you are talking to yourself. And that means also that beauty is real. Unless you wanna try the everything is an illusion non-sense. Which is self-refuting.Truthfreedom_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Beauty is in the eye of the beholderSeversky_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Darwinists are crackpots.Truthfreedom_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Wonderful. Another person engaging in the Mind Projection Fallacy. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZTRiSNmeGQK8AkdN2/mind-projection-fallacyPater Kimbridge_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/wuis-ldn042020.php An interesting experiment. Researchers took lizards who were known to communicate by pheromones. Placed some of them on an island where they didn't have to worry about predators. Freed from the need to communicate important warnings, the lizards quickly developed a wide variety of olfactory art, expressing their individual feelings and identities.polistra_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Barry pleaaaase, beauty is an 'illusion'. And you are an 'illusion' too. And UD. Darwinism solves everything! Pray Darw'.Truthfreedom_{April 22, 2020
April
04
Apr
22
22
2020
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply