The cognitive error of "creator" is immediately introduced without dispute. Neither is the concept of "beauty." Some further bias occurs in the unchallenged use of "human" or human social values as composing "beauty." Beauty appears to be dependent upon complex diverse factors. Truth, as in true or real factors, is surely a component and dynamic factor. Dynamical process appears to best describe reality. Emergence itself is such process. Material, though having relatively stable componentry in quark-gluon relationship under conditions observable to us, may not exist as stable in all universal conditions. All, then, is likely dynamical in nature. On this particular planet, relatively self-replicating organisms are and were subject to modification, and in utilizing exterior resourcing. This, within that dynamical subsystem, selected for capacity to molecularly absorb, and sometimes develop toward, and move toward nutritive, and away from, toxic molecules. This motility itself selected for changes increasing detection, at least of molecular gradients. Senses, then, evolved, for such gradient detection. Senses, detecting differences gave rise to the self-signaling resulting in endocrine, juxtacrine, and exocrine distinctions useful to such motility. Beauty itself attracts a in a limited manner - much that is beautiful to humans, is noxious or toxic when approached too closely, perhaps implicitly inducing a recognition (again, quite molecular) of diversity. What is "good" for one organism is certainly not the same for another. So "good" is a VERY limited evaluation, NOT AT ALL universal. That alone invalidates any single creator or observer as arbiter of Beauty. We involved in the study of brains recognize that brains evolved to develop individual estimates of predictability, that contingent and error-prone, if constantly updating system, comparing memory with novel sensory input/experiences. It is the brain and sensory organs reporting change to it, that induces teleological probability to organisms having neural tissues, though the pure molecular gradient-sensing of single motile cells precedes and includes teleological presumption. Self-interest is emergent, even in inert rna and dna replicating viruses. Accretion of nonliving elements really must be distinguished from that emergence, though contributing to beauty sensed by any replicating or basically gradient- or difference- sensing organism. Those involved in the discussion, it strongly appears, may not at all be described as scientists, due to commission of cognitive errors so numerous and accepted by their interlocutors without immediate critical questioning. The symposium's validity is immediately compromised by this failure. Of course, it evokes a broad hormonal response, involving such failure and consequent sadness in the necessary rejection of any claim by the participants to any scientific validity therein.
The cognitive error of "creator" is immediately introduced without dispute. Neither is the concept of "beauty."
Some further bias occurs in the unchallenged use of "human" or human social values as composing "beauty."
Beauty appears to be dependent upon complex diverse factors. Truth, as in true or real factors, is surely a component and dynamic factor.
Dynamical process appears to best describe reality. Emergence itself is such process. Material, though having relatively stable componentry in quark-gluon relationship under conditions observable to us, may not exist as stable in all universal conditions.
All, then, is likely dynamical in nature.
On this particular planet, relatively self-replicating organisms are and were subject to modification, and in utilizing exterior resourcing.
This, within that dynamical subsystem, selected for capacity to molecularly absorb, and sometimes develop toward, and move toward nutritive, and away from, toxic molecules.
This motility itself selected for changes increasing detection, at least of molecular gradients.
Senses, then, evolved, for such gradient detection. Senses, detecting differences gave rise to the self-signaling resulting in endocrine, juxtacrine, and exocrine distinctions useful to such motility.
Beauty itself attracts a in a limited manner - much that is beautiful to humans, is noxious or toxic when approached too closely, perhaps implicitly inducing a recognition (again, quite molecular) of diversity.
What is "good" for one organism is certainly not the same for another. So "good" is a VERY limited evaluation, NOT AT ALL universal. That alone invalidates any single creator or observer as arbiter of Beauty.
We involved in the study of brains recognize that brains evolved to develop individual estimates of predictability, that contingent and error-prone, if constantly updating system, comparing memory with novel sensory input/experiences.
It is the brain and sensory organs reporting change to it, that induces teleological probability to organisms having neural tissues, though the pure molecular gradient-sensing of single motile cells precedes and includes teleological presumption.
Self-interest is emergent, even in inert rna and dna replicating viruses. Accretion of nonliving elements really must be distinguished from that emergence, though contributing to beauty sensed by any replicating or basically gradient- or difference- sensing organism.
Those involved in the discussion, it strongly appears, may not at all be described as scientists, due to commission of cognitive errors so numerous and accepted by their interlocutors without immediate critical questioning.
The symposium's validity is immediately compromised by this failure. Of course, it evokes a broad hormonal response, involving such failure and consequent sadness in the necessary rejection of any claim by the participants to any scientific validity therein.