Beauty is a physical state of neurons in the brain.

This physical state can only be identified by reports of beauty.

Beauty, therefore, is an activity that surgically targets a particular part of the brain.

(Well, I don’t know about you, but that looks fine to me.)

looks retarded to me.
beauty isn’t a verb.

This much, science agrees to.

If by this you mean verbal reports, then no. The brain’s response to stimuli can be shown by the electro-magnetic activity of the brain.

Particular parts of a given brain. It’s not the same parts for all brains. Men and women appear to respond differently, for instance.

Bu let’s not get bogged down by any actual science, huh? Carry on, Johnny.

You made a mistake on premise two, and ended up agreeing with me despite your best protestations.
I said that the brain part that is beauty can only be identified by reports of beauty. That is true. The brain part doesn’t in any way announce or identify itself as beauty.

IMHO, for what it’s worth, any consideration of beauty as a brain phenomenon ought to address how aesthetics of any ilk could contribute to survival of the organism. That would challenge “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” with “Why is it necessary that we have personal, emotional, endogenous responses to the phenomenon?”

Why does the ‘golden ratio’ figure so prominently in aesthetics? Why do the neurons respond to it?


The Golden Ratio is an occult heirloom passed on from the time of hocus pocus to the people now who wish it still was.

If you mean “electro-magnetic” “reports”, then I agree. But no one claimed that the “brain-part” itself is beauty.


Science does not, so far as I know, eliminate cultural factors. But those factors are more likely the result of natural selection than a cause of it.

The neurons don’t change for anything except chemicals and electromagnetic forces.

As for the golden ratio, it too is electromagnetic and chemical as far as premis one is concerned.

As for the neurons and the golden ratio, they don’t respond to anything. Response is an electrochemical.

You’ve outdone yourself this time, mr Jones!
That was the most nonsensical post you’ve made.

It seems redundant to say that aesthetic electrochemical states promote the survival of electrochemical states.

JJ thinks survival and aesthetics are synonymous.
That’s weird.

The brain part “is beauty” only as far as is meant by premis one - “beauty is a physical state of neurons in the brain”.

Are you also saying that what is selected is only here because of natural selection?

In a sense, everything is here only by natural selection. What I am saying is that cultural factors play a role, and not brain architecture as seen in a vacuum.

Are you saying that things have been selected because they have been around for longer ?
Are you saying that things are around for longer because they have been selected?

Longer than what?

You know, life-forms that have been around longer than other life-forms. Obviously you can’t select unless something is there to select. So, are things selected because they have been around for longer, or are they around for longer because they have been selected?

](*,) ](*,)


Life forms - like “living things”? The answer is “neither”. Life evolves. We can say that dinosaurs are extinct, or we can say that they have evolved into birds. Take your pick.

We have here not been talking about entire organisms, though. We have been talking about traits.

Issuing Humpty with a warning for repeated sniping.