I think I have a better understanding of my own objection to Denis' theory: he's only being a little bit of a scientist.It's all very well to say "Well, this trait has persevered therefore it confers some survival value" but then you totally stop being a scientist and you begin telling non-falsifiable just-so stories.
DNA is for creating proteins.That's what a gene is, something that inititates a whole chemical sequence that culminates in a protein, like keratin, for making hair. If you think it's tricky imagining how a recipe for making hair could be selected for such that hairy animals in cold places get a reproductive advantage, you're not alone. Now multiply the trickiness by an order of magnitude or so and explain how the creation of proteins could be connected to an appreciation of beautiful things. This is why claiming schizophrenia is "biochemical" is true and completely unhelpful: we have no idea what the connection is between the behaviour and the proteins. I mean it's possible to imagine explaining behaviours like drive reduction (I'm hungry, get food) in terms of proteins but that reduces behaviour to ergulations and makes it us fleshy thermostats. It certainly doesn't help us understand beauty.
David
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
