Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ThamiorTheThinker]

Many creatures are outwardly symmetrical and many aren't. Regarding the creatures that are, I find it interesting that most of their inner parts aren't symmetrical; it's as if their outward appearance is important for some reason.

What reason would that be?

If a creature that is symmetrical loses a limb, they lose their symmetry and we find the sight of them distasteful. The loss of symmetry somehow offends our sense of beauty. Why should that be? Other than its role in sexual attraction, evolution can't explain why humans appreciate beauty, or why symmetry should be a prerequisite for beauty.

Don't conflate the lack of an explanation with the inability to explain. Biology does not have to provide all the answers for the answers to exist in its domain. It is perhaps more an effect of our perception, and therefore psychology, that we find symmetry beautiful and asymmetry not beautiful. It's also a matter of what we observe, since symmetry is not necessarily a prerequisite for beauty in all cases;
Perception boils down to psychology, psychology to neurology, and neurology down to biology and biochemistry.

Furthermore, consider a possibility like such: Human bodies evolved symmetrically because their upright stance is best supported by symmetrical skeletal structures. Natural selection helps breed populations with bodies fit enough to survive and reproduce in their niche. Hence, symmetry became naturally selected for and, consequently, the perception of it as aesthetically pleasing developed.

That may or may not be the case, and I do not have reason to think the above possibility is definitely accurate; I do know, however, that plausible-sounding explanations like the above exist in droves among evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary biologists. Evolution is not excluded from the picture by default, as you claim.

Even if you are correct, you couldn't automatically fill in the blank with "God" simply due to evolutionary psychology lacking a complete, holistic picture of our sense of beauty. Philosophy doesn't work that way. A blank spot in our explanations isn't a "Fill in anything here" space, if you catch my drift.

I would argue that it's no coincidence that most, if nor all, creatures we find beautiful are symmetrical in shape. I would also argue that human beings are programmed to appreciate beauty, since we are made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) and God is the Author of beauty.

Okay - IF this God exists, IF God is responsible for the Biblical teachings and instructions found in modern, Latin-translated Bibles, IF God is the sole propieter of human evolution, and therefore psychology and perception, and IF it really does intend for us to find symmetry beautiful... then you could very likely say that God is responsible for our sense of aesthetic appreciation... Do you see all these IFs?

It's remarkable that symmetry is evident across such a wide spectrum of creatures - mammals, reptiles, fish, birds, insects, crustaceans. Symmetry is synonymous with beauty, and beauty for the sake of beauty points to, not evolution, but design. The Designer is obviously a big fan of symmetry.

\

We find many things beautiful, and symmetry is not synonymous with it, for it is not the sole factor that causes us to see beauty in a thing. Furthermore, beauty is usually referred to as an abstract concept - a cognitive result of analyzing and interpreting our experiences and perceptions - and it is therefore not the case that beauty is necessarily attributed to design. Beauty is designed by humans. This, we know. But that does not mean that a human's sense of beauty necessarily implies that the human was designed. Do you see what I'm getting at here? You're jumping the gun on many of your conclusions. You're skipping a lot of argumentative steps and leaving a lot of blanks.

[LuckyR]

The starfish disagrees.

[Ranvier]

The symmetry of life could be for several reasons:

Biochemistry - enantiomers, molecules and compounds that are mirror images of each other, including L/D amino acids of structural proteins (although mostly D (right) AA's are used for protein synthesis for unknown reason).
Chemistry - one of the conditions for life is water. Water acts as buffer and solvent with dipole moment.
Biology - another fundamental condition for life is DNA with symmetry of double helix. Embriogenesis and symmetrical differentiation of morula. Reproduction in example of binary fission. Mitosis and symmetrical cell growth.
Physics - Conservation of energy. Essentially with symmetry everything requires less energy as simple mirror copy. Structural stability, asymmetrical objects are less stable
Physiology - as Greta mentioned, ease of locomotion.

[Steve3007]

It seems to me that the most fundamental reason for symmetry in life is that one of the central concepts associated with life is copying. Life copies itself. Symmetry is another name for copying. Ranvier: I guess that would be closest to the reason that you gave under the heading of "Physics".

[Sy Borg]

The symmetry of life could be for several reasons:

Biochemistry - enantiomers, molecules and compounds that are mirror images of each other, including L/D amino acids of structural proteins (although mostly D (right) AA's are used for protein synthesis for unknown reason).
Chemistry - one of the conditions for life is water. Water acts as buffer and solvent with dipole moment.
Biology - another fundamental condition for life is DNA with symmetry of double helix. Embriogenesis and symmetrical differentiation of morula. Reproduction in example of binary fission. Mitosis and symmetrical cell growth.
Physics - Conservation of energy. Essentially with symmetry everything requires less energy as simple mirror copy. Structural stability, asymmetrical objects are less stable
Physiology - as Greta mentioned, ease of locomotion.

Interesting approach. How about carbon, along with water as a fundamental driver of life? This is a long video but extraordinary about how life came about, with much grist for the mill as regards symmetry.

It seems to me that the most fundamental reason for symmetry in life is that one of the central concepts associated with life is copying. Life copies itself. Symmetry is another name for copying. Ranvier: I guess that would be closest to the reason that you gave under the heading of "Physics".

Yes, it's easier to copy than to create a whole new entity.

Is the symmetry superficial? After all, many of our internal organs are not arranged symmetrically. There is a more abstract, and arguably deeper, symmetry to be found in the torus that runs through the bodies of all animals.

[Steve3007]

Greta:

Is the symmetry superficial? After all, many of our internal organs are not arranged symmetrically.

I guess in the arrangement of our bodies the symmetry is simply incomplete. In the case of the slight asymmetry of things that are ostensibly symmetrical (e.g. the arrangement of our facial features) I suppose that's copying and propagation errors. Hence the supposed beauty of symmetry. More symmetry = less error = health. In the case of things that are definitely not meant to be symmetrical, I don't know. It would be interesting to research theories as to why we have two kidneys and two lungs but only one heart and liver, for example.

There is a more abstract, and arguably deeper, symmetry to be found in the torus that runs through the bodies of all animals.

You mean the fact that we are all topologically, with our mouths and anuses and the tube that connects them, donuts? I suppose that's a function of the fact that a donut/torus/tube arrangement is a good setup for any system that is a continuous processor of material from one form into another, as living things tend to be.

[Sy Borg]

Greta:

Is the symmetry superficial? After all, many of our internal organs are not arranged symmetrically.

I guess in the arrangement of our bodies the symmetry is simply incomplete. In the case of the slight asymmetry of things that are ostensibly symmetrical (e.g. the arrangement of our facial features) I suppose that's copying and propagation errors. Hence the supposed beauty of symmetry. More symmetry = less error = health. In the case of things that are definitely not meant to be symmetrical, I don't know. It would be interesting to research theories as to why we have two kidneys and two lungs but only one heart and liver, for example.

Just thinking about it more, it's actually eh symmetry of our spinal column that forces asymmetry on other organs. I was wondering why the heart is not protected under the sternum. Then I realised that there'd need to be more room; a central heart would force a protuberance at the front of the body that was clearly not selected. I expect other organs have that issue. Also, there is an essential imbalance between stuff that goes in (eg. food to stomach, blood to the heart, air to the lungs) and stuff that goes out after processing. That is what goes in is chemically different to what comes out and requires to be handled by the body in a different way.

There is a more abstract, and arguably deeper, symmetry to be found in the torus that runs through the bodies of all animals.

You mean the fact that we are all topologically, with our mouths and anuses and the tube that connects them, donuts? I suppose that's a function of the fact that a donut/torus/tube arrangement is a good setup for any system that is a continuous processor of material from one form into another, as living things tend to be.

Yes, we are fundamentally complicated doughnuts. Just reading the Wiki page (that shall not be named) there's a wonderful animation, it's description being, "As the distance to the axis of revolution decreases, the ring torus becomes a horn torus, then a spindle torus, and finally degenerates into a sphere".

I'd not thought of a sphere as a degenerative form before, thinking of it as the beginning of order once there is enough mass for an object to spherise and develop a core and layer structure. Meanwhile we appear to be a stretchy horn torus and, when you think about it, when we die our body does essentially degrade from a torus to, if not a sphere, at least a solid mass.

It's an interesting group of things with toruses - galaxies, life, storms, magnetic fields.

[Rr6]

We now known that the more complex, and symmetrical jellyfish are older than the less complex, aysmmetrical sponges, or at minimum, the jeelyfish evolved on a different biological branch at same time as the less complex sponges.

..."Instead, the moon jelly had rearranged its six remaining arms until they were evenly placed around the body. Muscles in the jellyfish's body had pushed and pulled on the remaining arms until they were once again evenly spaced. Being symmetrical is crucial for moon jellyfish movement.

......The scientists had stumbled upon a phenomenon completely new to science, which they call "symmetrization." Because jellyfish often suffer from injuries—sometimes inflicted by unsuccessful predators—symmetrization is an important method to heal themselves.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015 ... ce-oceans/

Fuller might say that since the Vector Equlibrium--- aka the cubo{6}-octa}8}hedron ---is the Operating System of Universe and it is asymmetrical i.e. it has 8 regular triangles and 6 regular squares.
The VE will contract with spin in two directions--- left or right --- on four differrent axes.
http://howthingsfly.si.edu/flight-dynam ... ch-and-yaw
The VE two possible spin contractions results in the icosa{20}hedrons surface being subdivided into the maxim set of 120 left-skew or right-skew, right triangles on surface of any sphere.
The equilateral triangle subdivides equally as 3 left-handed right triangles and 3 left-handed right-triangles.
The VE will transform into the only 3 regular symmetrical, structurally stable polyhedral of Universe;
1} icosa{20}hedron,
2} octa{8}hedron,
3} tetra{4}hedron.
Fuller would have us believe, all structure of Universe is based upon--- derived from ---these three polyhedra.
The VE's four bisecting hexagonal planes, share the same 60 degree configuration as that of the tetrahedron, only oriented differrently see link.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... ate31.html
Roger Penrose discovered quasi-periodic geometry patterns before they were discovered in nature.

Nature cannot exist in anyway that is not mathematically possible ie. all of nature/cosmos/Universe/God is complementary occupied space and metaphysical-1, geometric patterns.

We could say that, perhaps metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo geometry can exist without occupied space, however, occupied space cannot exist with the complement of geometric patterns or other associated mathematics.

Even the macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces our finite, occupied space Universe, is has shape, because our finite, occupied space has a dynamic shape that shape the macro-infinite, from the inside > out, so-to-say. imho

r6

[Sy Borg]

......The scientists had stumbled upon a phenomenon completely new to science, which they call "symmetrization." Because jellyfish often suffer from injuries—sometimes inflicted by unsuccessful predators—symmetrization is an important method to heal themselves.

news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150 ... ce-oceans/

Interesting. I note this passage from the article:

It's like a car: Remove one wheel and you won't be able to drive it. But if you shift the remaining wheel from the side of the vehicle into the center, the car will once again be able to move about, the researchers say.

Symmetrisation seems to happen wherever an organism has needs it. For instance, if we break a leg we use crutches to get about, which brings the good leg to the centre of a three-legged locomotive approach. It seems to be just a natural inclination, like a dog shifting its centre of balance when it hurts foot. A relatively chaotic body design is fine for amoebas, which simply take a randomised and opportunistic approach to life - wander around and either eat, ignore or avoid anything it blunders into. However, more complex organisms need greater control.

We could say that, perhaps metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo geometry can exist without occupied space, however, occupied space cannot exist with the complement of geometric patterns or other associated mathematics.

Even the macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces our finite, occupied space Universe, is has shape, because our finite, occupied space has a dynamic shape that shape the macro-infinite, from the inside > out, so-to-say. imho

This calls to mind the idea of Platonic solids pre-existing the physical universe, with everything branching outwards in a way based on the information in its its seed (and in its environment).

[Rr6]

Fuller might say that since the Vector Equlibrium--- aka the cubo{6}-octa}8}hedron ---is the Operating System of Universe and it is asymmetrical i.e. it has 8 regular triangles and 6 regular squares.r6

The VE/cubo-octahedron is a truncated cube. It has 24 surface 90 degree angles, 24 surface 60 degree angles, 24 chords, 24 radii

.......Box jellyfish have 24 eyes of four different types, and two of them -- the upper and lower lens eyes -- can form images and resemble the eyes of vertebrates like humans. The other eyes are more primitive. It was already known that box jellyfish's vision allows them to perform simpler tasks, like responding to light and avoiding obstacles

.....In the new study, scientists found that one species of the cube-shaped box jellyfish, Tripedalia cystophora, uses its upper lens eyes, which are mounted on four cuplike structures, to make sure it stays close to the prop roots of mangrove trees that define its habitat.

....."The box jellyfish solution may thus be linked to the absence of a central brain, but it defeats the idea that a central brain is a prerequisite for advanced behavior," they write online April 28 in the journal Current Biology.

http://www.livescience.com/13929-box-je ... brain.html


The VE folds into a flat, 2D set 4{ double sets of 2 triangles each } sharing a common spinal chord{ axis }.

/\/\
\/\/

or as follows to show four of the edges share common axis{ spinal chord }

/\/\
----
\/\/

From this position we can move two of the triangles we will have the EMRadiations double sine-wave set. This 2D flat set can also be seen as the basic bluebprint for all fish and cetaceans .

The either bonded set of 2 triangles can be twisted at 90 degrees to back set of two, this gives us the side fins of fish, shark etc......wherein the tail is a right angles to the side-fins.

If we lave the above set of 4 just as then we have the side arms of cetacean{ whales porposies } on same plane as their tail flukes.

So here have the basic body plan for all quadra-pedic-like animals ex scorpions, dogs, humans, dinosaurs etc,,, or their like that have bilateral symmetry.

....../\--------/\
:-----------------------------^ tail of scorpion
......\/--------\/

VE is operating system of Universe and shows basics of the oldest species of complex animal on earth, the jelly fish, and all billateral aninals, and double-sine-wave set at 90 degrees to each as found with EMRadiation electric wave at 90 to magnetic wave.

4-fold VE = operating system, not structure except when its transforms into its triangles formation.

5-fold Icosa{20}hedron = structure ex the protein shells of virus other phenomena related truncated icosahedra exc Buckminister Fullerenes etc....

r6

[Steve3007]

Greta:

Just thinking about it more, it's actually eh symmetry of our spinal column that forces asymmetry on other organs. I was wondering why the heart is not protected under the sternum. Then I realised that there'd need to be more room; a central heart would force a protuberance at the front of the body that was clearly not selected. I expect other organs have that issue. Also, there is an essential imbalance between stuff that goes in (eg. food to stomach, blood to the heart, air to the lungs) and stuff that goes out after processing. That is what goes in is chemically different to what comes out and requires to be handled by the body in a different way.

A relevant, albeit quite old, article on this subject suggests a couple of theories about our internal asymmetries:

nature.com/news/1998/980806/full/news98 ... 806-7.html

One is that being seen to be symmetrical is important, so we are externally (approximately) symmetrical but internally don't need to be. Another theory is that it was a 600 million year old symmetry-breaking accident deep in our evolutionary history. Intriguing.

[Sy Borg]

Greta:

Just thinking about it more, it's actually eh symmetry of our spinal column that forces asymmetry on other organs. I was wondering why the heart is not protected under the sternum. Then I realised that there'd need to be more room; a central heart would force a protuberance at the front of the body that was clearly not selected. I expect other organs have that issue. Also, there is an essential imbalance between stuff that goes in (eg. food to stomach, blood to the heart, air to the lungs) and stuff that goes out after processing. That is what goes in is chemically different to what comes out and requires to be handled by the body in a different way.

A relevant, albeit quite old, article on this subject suggests a couple of theories about our internal asymmetries:

nature.com/news/1998/980806/full/news98 ... 806-7.html

One is that being seen to be symmetrical is important, so we are externally (approximately) symmetrical but internally don't need to be. Another theory is that it was a 600 million year old symmetry-breaking accident deep in our evolutionary history. Intriguing.

It is. I rather like the poetry of having these hidden, inner imperfections while presenting a (hopefully) more beauteous symmetrical face to potential mates. Then again, does it really matter how symmetrical or not our repulsive goo innards are? :)

Logically, if we are to have large, effective hearts and livers and remain relatively streamlined then those organs must be balanced off at either side.

[Rr6]

We have bilateral, two hemi-spheres of the one brain. However the nervous system in whole is bilateral.

We have one spinal chord and 32 or so vertabrae.

31 bilateral spinal nerves---icosahedron has 31 left and right skew sets of 31{ axi } great circle planes

12 cranial nervous but not clear if their bilateral or not.

4-fold cubo-octahedron and 5-fold icosahedron both share same 12 vertexex/nodes/joints/points/knucles/hubs/crossings.

One digestive tract{ tube } ergo human is at minimal a torus.

r6