paul gerhold on thu 16 sep 10
We have all heard about Darwin's Theory Of Evolution and most of us probabl=
y
believe it. So it makes sense that over thousands of years butterflies hav=
e
evolved to be attractive to other butterflies. The question is why are
butterflies attractive to humans?
Then why not spiders or rats?
This was asked on a program on the neuroscience of art.
Paul
Taylor Hendrix on thu 16 sep 10
Interesting,
I find spiders attractive and have had three, count them, three pet
rats in my life.
Don't forget, there is attraction and then there is ATTRACTION.
Sorry I missed that program,
Taylor, in Rockport TX
wirerabbit1 on Skype (-0600 UTC)
http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:59 AM, paul gerhold wr=
=3D
ote:
> We have all heard about Darwin's Theory Of Evolution and most of us proba=
=3D
bly
> believe it. =3DC2=3DA0So it makes sense that over thousands of years butt=
erfl=3D
ies have
> evolved to be attractive to other butterflies. =3DC2=3DA0The question is =
why =3D
are
> butterflies attractive to humans?
>
> Then why not spiders or rats?
>
> This was asked on a program on the neuroscience of art.
>
> Paul
>
David Woof on fri 17 sep 10
Taylor=3D2C=3D20
well that explains just about everything I've ever wondered about you!! (Fr=
=3D
iendly Grin) =3D20
=3D20
And I might ask of Paul and all=3D2C when is a "theory" something to attach=
a=3D
seriously held belief to? Seems dangerous=3D2C I fail to see how thinking=
f=3D
olks can arrange their thinking to support a state of belief in a Theory. D=
=3D
ust off the Webster's. This is said in a general sense=3D2C not with refer=
en=3D
ce to the creation/evolution debate.
=3D20
Speaking of butterflies=3D3B who was it that was running around for those t=
ho=3D
usands of years joining little butterfly bottoms together for mateing until=
=3D
l they "evolved" the attraction factor and fluttered off to get off?. Hu=
=3D
mans for example=3D3B how many folks=3D2C in any semblance of a right mind=
=3D2C w=3D
ould just decide to give up two thirds of their productive life to the woes=
=3D
and tribulations of procreation unless there was an over-riding attraction=
=3D
default program in operation?=3D20
=3D20
Best to all
=3D20
David
________________________
=3D20
3a. Re: Another Question About Art/ Beauty
Posted by: "Taylor Hendrix" wirerabbit2@GMAIL.COM=3D20
Date: Thu Sep 16=3D2C 2010 11:12 am ((PDT))
=3D20
Interesting=3D2C
=3D20
I find spiders attractive and have had three=3D2C count them=3D2C three pet
rats in my life.
=3D20
Don't forget=3D2C there is attraction and then there is ATTRACTION.
=3D20
Sorry I missed that program=3D2C
Taylor=3D2C in Rockport TX
wirerabbit1 on Skype (-0600 UTC)
http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
=3D20
=3D20
=3D20
On Thu=3D2C Sep 16=3D2C 2010 at 7:59 AM=3D2C paul gerhold mail.n=3D
et> wrote:
> We have all heard about Darwin's Theory Of Evolution and most of us proba=
=3D
bly
> believe it. So it makes sense that over thousands of years butterflies h=
=3D
ave
> evolved to be attractive to other butterflies. The question is why are
> butterflies attractive to humans?
>
> Then why not spiders or rats?
>
> This was asked on a program on the neuroscience of art.
>
> Paul
=3D20
=3D
Rodney Roe on fri 17 sep 10
This seems like one of the Nature versus Nurture questions. I find
butterflies beautiful and rats and spiders repulsive (one of my college
roommates had a terrarium with a pet tarantula. I found the spider
fascinating, but I never wanted a pet spider.) One Egyptian friend told me
that he could not stand "anything that creeps". Some butterflies and moths
have evolved a wing pattern of spots that look like eyes that protect them
from predators like birds which shy away from anything with big eyes. Do
other animals find things beautiful?
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Taylor Hendrix wrot=
e:
> Interesting,
>
> I find spiders attractive and have had three, count them, three pet
> rats in my life.
>
> Don't forget, there is attraction and then there is ATTRACTION.
>
> Sorry I missed that program,
> Taylor, in Rockport TX
> wirerabbit1 on Skype (-0600 UTC)
> http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
> http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:59 AM, paul gerhold
> wrote:
> > We have all heard about Darwin's Theory Of Evolution and most of us
> probably
> > believe it. So it makes sense that over thousands of years butterflies
> have
> > evolved to be attractive to other butterflies. The question is why are
> > butterflies attractive to humans?
> >
> > Then why not spiders or rats?
> >
> > This was asked on a program on the neuroscience of art.
> >
> > Paul
> >
>
Rodney Roe on sat 18 sep 10
David, the confusion may be in the meaning(s) of the word theory.
- a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world;
an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of
circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can
incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and the=
ory"
- hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that
is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or
phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing
becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis tha=
t
later was ...
- a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that mor=
e
is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
The Theory Of Natural Selection belongs to the first definition. It is a
theory in the same way that Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is a
theory. We have Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the hole where the Bikini Atoll
was to substantiate the theory. Any hypothesis, no matter how well
substantiated, arrived at by inductive reasoning can only be called a theor=
y
since there always remains the possibility that it may fail to hold true in
some future application. Arguments against the Theory of Natural Selection
come about because of a conflict with a belief. One cannot argue against a
belief since it does not depend on a demonstrated set of effects. So, I am
not arguing. :-)
Rodney
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:41 PM, David Woof wrote:
> Taylor,
> well that explains just about everything I've ever wondered about you!!
> (Friendly Grin)
>
> And I might ask of Paul and all, when is a "theory" something to attach a
> seriously held belief to? Seems dangerous, I fail to see how thinking fo=
lks
> can arrange their thinking to support a state of belief in a Theory. Dust
> off the Webster's. This is said in a general sense, not with reference t=
o
> the creation/evolution debate.
>
> Speaking of butterflies; who was it that was running around for those
> thousands of years joining little butterfly bottoms together for mateing
> untill they "evolved" the attraction factor and fluttered off to get off?=
.
> Humans for example; how many folks, in any semblance of a right mind, wo=
uld
> just decide to give up two thirds of their productive life to the woes an=
d
> tribulations of procreation unless there was an over-riding attraction
> default program in operation?
>
> Best to all
>
> David
> ________________________
>
> 3a. Re: Another Question About Art/ Beauty
> Posted by: "Taylor Hendrix" wirerabbit2@GMAIL.COM
> Date: Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:12 am ((PDT))
>
> Interesting,
>
> I find spiders attractive and have had three, count them, three pet
> rats in my life.
>
> Don't forget, there is attraction and then there is ATTRACTION.
>
> Sorry I missed that program,
> Taylor, in Rockport TX
> wirerabbit1 on Skype (-0600 UTC)
> http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
> http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:59 AM, paul gerhold
> wrote:
> > We have all heard about Darwin's Theory Of Evolution and most of us
> probably
> > believe it. So it makes sense that over thousands of years butterflies
> have
> > evolved to be attractive to other butterflies. The question is why are
> > butterflies attractive to humans?
> >
> > Then why not spiders or rats?
> >
> > This was asked on a program on the neuroscience of art.
> >
> > Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
ivor and olive lewis on sat 18 sep 10
Dear Paul gerhold
An interesting question " The question is why are butterflies attractive t=
o
humans?"
Perhaps this is counter intuitive. There are many examples in the natural
world of organisms, zoological and botanical, where bright colours and
symmetrical or dominating patterns are a signal, a warning to predators or
those whose attention would be unwelcome.
I find spiders perform a wonderful service and rats are not a problem,
thanks to our snakes.
Regards,
Ivor Lewis,
REDHILL,
South Australia
paul gerhold on sat 18 sep 10
David,
I don't apply seriously held beliefs to theories but to facts which is what
theories can become when proven beyond reasonable doubt. If the comment
applies to DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION yes it was a theory when proposed
but I would maintain that it is pretty much a fact at this point except for
a few republicans who probably also believe in the flat earth theory.
As for how butterfly butts got together in the past- they didn't. New
butterflies appeared through immaculate conception prior to Darwin.
Paul
Philip Poburka on tue 28 sep 10
Hi Paul, all...
Just a little fun...
Far as I can tell...Explanations are descriptions which achieve enough
acceptance to emolliate
an anxiety about an issue or problem or question in the minds of those who
find the explanation to be acceptable.
Probably Darwin's Theory of Evolution is one way among many of re-stating
empirical observations in a context which includes respects to
the
Fossil 'record'.
It is thus an adjunct for us to use in organizing our experience, while als=
o
supposing we are organizing representations of various elements of the
World.
Successive and brachiated arrays and relations of forms assumed by Species
appearing to
bloom from common lineages through time, is implied by their present
existence with respect to the existence of past
examples who enjoyed differences in forms or details not seen in the presen=
t
representatives, hence, one suspects that the former and the latter
represent phases within a continuous line or brachiation of emergent change=
.
Whether 'adaptation' is the 'mechanism' which satisfies the question, is
another question.
I personally do not think it does ( satisfy the question, or, rather, I
would say, it begs the question).
And, as Charles Fort nicely observed, the assertion of 'Survival of the
Fittest' as explanation, is merely another way of saying, "The survivors
survive", which ought to have been obvious to everyone, anyway.
Who are the 'fittest'? - those who had survived...etc...
Tells us nothing.
I can not think of any area of Life where people in general, or people even
in specific, are interested in 'facts' more than their relations to (
whatever for them, are the operatively germane ) authority-dispensations,
politics, or ( usually, the permutated introjections of second
hand ) emotion...( the figurative 'Three Faces of Eve' one
might say...)
And 'facts' all in all, are of little interest or are spurned, impetuously
or perfunctorily
rebuked, exiled, denied, or
waved aside, or trivialized, unless
harnessed to serve one or more of those three.
Just as rationality or 'reason' is always serving one or more of those
three, or no one would have any interest in either of them, either.
Mundane facts - who had what for lunch, color of Socks, what day-of-the-wee=
k
it is, etc, are not so
liable or not liable at all to these politics.
Other facts, ( absolutely ) are.
Beliefs appear to be emotional constellates who possess their own 'Algebra'
or equation reason(ing), and exist independent of facts otherwise, or, find
facts as such, inconvenient and or irrelevant.
Far as I can tell anyway...
Art and Beauty ( and probably everything else ) are forms of cultivated
parallax stability, or, discrete accomplishments of managing one's relation
to constructed Dioramas.
They work well so long as one is standing in the operatively necessary
parallax.
Seen from the side, they might not work at all.
Love,
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "paul gerhold"
> David,
>
> I don't apply seriously held beliefs to theories but to facts which is
> what
> theories can become when proven beyond reasonable doubt. If the comment
> applies to DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION yes it was a theory when proposed
> but I would maintain that it is pretty much a fact at this point except
> for
> a few republicans who probably also believe in the flat earth theory.
>
> As for how butterfly butts got together in the past- they didn't. New
> butterflies appeared through immaculate conception prior to Darwin.
>
> Paul
| |
|
