I was watching Denis' TED talk on beauty and it occurred to me I was sorry he died because I want him to address some quibbles I feel like making.
He says beauty is an "adaptive effect" which is probably true although it's not at all clear how or even why this is true. He points out quite reasonably that rotting meat and throwing up or dying could create a selection pressure for the emotion of "revulsion" and he says that sexual displays like peacock tails are the result of selection pressures for more positive emotions, but I don't think I see a connection- certainly not an easily falsifiable one- between "things that are beautiful" and "good feelings that evolution could select for."
There are many behaviours that are heritable and easilty selected for: gulls have red spots on the bills. Baby gulls peck at the spot and the parent regurgitates food for it. Easy to imagine how it might arise via natural selection. Easy to think gulls both big and small might enjoy this interaction and it may even be possible to determine how much they value it (by seeing if they will do it as something frightening approaches for example.) But I can't imagine how an animal (or an infant human either) could stand back from an attractive object and a feeling for it and call it "beautiful."
Which is maybe the point, without language, creatures can't complete the act of appreciating beauty- bridging the gap betwen the thing and the good feeling- because they simply can't say "That's beautiful."
Which is a trivial quibble. I should reconsider sending this to everyone. I originally sent it to just Donal but then I realized I should send it to everyone and now I think I shouldn't send it at all.
David
