Why are flowers "beautiful"?

[Crucible]

Re:

• Quote

Post by Crucible » Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:54 am

yes, probably. Otherwise the ancestor wouldn't get sugar, right?
So, we have ancestor, who's perceiving sweetness and probably likes it, because it's essential, right? So what more do we want?

Please stay with salt/salty so we don't need to get tangled in mere words. We can say "salt is essential to get", for this organism. We can say the organism needs salt and has detectors for salt or at least one of the ions. Go on.

[JackBean]

• Quote

Post by JackBean » Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:32 am

I don't see much difference. Why is sugar/sweet bad?

OK, so we have ancestor who needs salt and is able to perceive salt by receptors. That's when "we" started to perceive it as salty. After we had already the receptors for salt.

[Crucible]

Re:

• Quote

Post by Crucible » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:27 pm

I don't see much difference. Why is sugar/sweet bad?

OK, so we have ancestor who needs salt and is able to perceive salt by receptors. That's when "we" started to perceive it as salty. After we had already the receptors for salt.

The organism is able to detect salt.

That's when "we" started to perceive it as salty.

So a concept was developed ? Something like this ?

Salt tastes of salt !

Blood is bloody

Water is watery

Stuff like that ?

Salt is better because you cannot just introduce a descriptive word ( "sweet" for things that are high in sugar ) for the taste or appearance, and thereby hand us an extra twist to the puzzle.

[JackBean]

• Quote

Post by JackBean » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:44 pm

I give it up. I basically don't know what are we arguing about or whether are we arguing at all or what's going on...

[Crucible]

Re: Why are flowers "beautiful"?

• Quote

Post by Crucible » Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:56 pm

The problem is that you have animals detecting substances. What you do not have, is the said animals having concepts.

[JackBean]

• Quote

Post by JackBean » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:05 pm

you want to define exactly everything, so how do you define concept?

[Crucible]

Re:

• Quote

Post by Crucible » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:30 pm

you want to define exactly everything, so how do you define concept?

An abstraction removing differences, leaving only commonalities - in this way:

The many things that are detected to contain salt, have many differences - differences which are ignored in pointing to salty items ( items already experienced or tested). Items that are not salty are not mentioned ( in the set of salty items) .

So we have animals which have detectors> What's the next step ?

[Crucible]

Re: Why are flowers "beautiful"?

• Quote

Post by Crucible » Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:52 pm

Steps to get in order to be saying that this crystal

http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photosalt.html

is the same as this liquid
http://geotcha.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... n_wave.jpg

[JackBean]

• Quote

Post by JackBean » Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:18 pm

experience and learning from olders?

[JackBean]

• Quote

Post by JackBean » Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:18 pm

however, how does that relate to the egg-chicken question?

[Crucible]

Re: Why are flowers "beautiful"?

• Quote

Post by Crucible » Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:47 am

there is no "chicken egg" question.

The question is : how do you support this ?

My point is, that it doesn't taste sweet because we like it but vice versa

[canalon]

Re: Why are flowers "beautiful"?

• Quote

Post by canalon » Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:00 am

there is no "chicken egg" question.

The question is : how do you support this ?

My point is, that it doesn't taste sweet because we like it but vice versa

I think that what JackBean is saying, is that you do not need a conceptualization of saltiness or sweetness or whatever in order to associate emotions to it. i.e the actiation of the salt(sugar) receptor will be linked to the brain as the satisfaction of a need and as such will create a neural pathway that will link this activation of a receptor to a pleasurable sensation.
The fact that anything that activates the receptor, whether or not they are the right molecule or a neutral inducer (say a sweetener like aspartame) that do not fulfill any need would be a good proof that only the receptor activation is necessary. Concepts and intellectualization are unnecessary burden created by man.