Beauty and Art

1. Something that is both beautiful and art is Adele singing Someone like You. Her voice and her lyrics have the ability to make you feel exactly what she is going through and move you so much. In my opinion, a key component of beauty is the ability to make you feel an overwhelming emotion. This is also an example of art because she is deliberately singing it to make a statement, and she is packaging it as a piece that is her own that she created as art. It is aesthetically pleasing- a quality that makes it good art.

2. One of the most beautiful things in the world to me  is a sunset behind the mountains. What makes it so beautiful is all the of the colors in the sky behind a monumental landmark. It is also the way the scene makes me feel which can range from content to inspired to calm to sad. This scene however is not art. It is not man-made or made specifically to portray an idea. It is not deliberate. It is something that exists on its own. In order to make this scene art, one would have to paint a picture of it.

3. Something that I don't find beautiful but is art is the dancing/singing.../ weirdom of Those Funny Little People on America's Got Talent last year. Their performances are art because they are labeling it as art, and using it to send a message and evoke emotion. However, the only emotion it evokes out of me is annoyance. I do not find it beautiful because I do not enjoy watching gnomes dance and sing. I can understand why some people may find it funny, but it doesn't tickle me in that way. To some people this performance is aesthetically pleasing, making it art, but not necessarily making it beautiful.

The Trial of Galileo

vs.

     

      





         It would be quite a difficult task to convince the philosopher and mathematician to accept Galileo's findings. First of all, the philosopher and mathematician are both experts in their fields, and the knowledge of their fields directly competes with Galileo's findings. The philosopher believes full-heartedly in everything spoken by Aristotle, and as a species, we know how emotionally attached we are to something we believe in. But, if i had to convince the philosopher and mathematician to accept Galileo's findings for the sake of the benefit and growth of human society, I would first start by trying to convince the mathematician.
      If I were Galileo, I would find my own mathematician buddy to help me with my project. To convince the other mathematician, we would come up with mathematical formulas and reasons for the stars being where they are, and show the mathematician how the calculations match the real data. A mathematician is more likely to believe something if it involves a field that he is not only familiar with, but an expert in. Once I convinced the mathematician with my reason and proofs, the mathematician would help to convince the philosopher.
      The philosopher would be really hard to convince, even if I had the mathematician's help. Like I said before, he is an expert in his field, and his field directly contradicts what Galileo is saying. I would start by convincing him that the telescope isn't fake by first allowing him to look at the lens (which wouldn't have drawings on it) and then if that didn't work, by allowing him to take the telescope apart and put it back together on his own. Then, I would try to prove to him that all of Aristotle's findings are not 100% correct. Aristotle lived years and years ago in a time without as advanced technology. I would explain to the philosopher how far as a species we have come since then, and all of the new things we have learned (along with all of the old things we have proved wrong.) These things would not even have to be related to astronomy. Once I got the philosopher to see that 1) the mathematician was on my side 2) the telescope was not fake and 3) we have developed a lot since Aristotle, and Aristotle made predictions in a time without technology, I believe that that would be enough to let the philosopher explore outside his paradigm, and look into the telescope. Once he looked in the telescope, then the philosopher may choose to abandon his paradigm.
All of this of course would be quite a difficult task.
     

A Review of Incognito by David Eagleman

      Eagleman's goal in Incognito is to make the reader really stop and think. He forces the reader to question how she is thinking certain thoughts, discovering certain things, and percepting the world around her all on her own. Eagleman focuses on the central idea of the conscious and unconscious mind. To what extent is a person aware of what is going on in his brain? Somewhere deep in there is the brain already churning over ideas and making plans that the reader doesn't even realize yet? Eagleman opens the reader's eyes to the fact that the brain is extremely complex, and that it does most of its processing behind the scenes. Maybe unintentionally, Eagleman scares the reader into thinking that she doesn't even know her own self.
          Overall, I found the book quite interesting. It definitely brought to light  a lot of ideas that I probably would not have ever considered in my entire life (and would have been content not ever considering in my entire life, haha.) That is not to say that I did not appreciate the read; I certainly did. I just would not have minded remaining blissfully oblivious.
       I especially found interesting the idea of free will not existing- an idea that I do in the bottom of my heart think is true, but am not very fond of. The fact that the brain spends hours, days, maybe even years developing a thought to make it perfect before someone even realizes that he had that thought is crazy. We all take credit for ideas we come up with when in fact the ideas are mechanically made behind the scenes without any conscious effort. I also found especially interesting the case of the occasional pedophile. My personal taste in who I am attracted to, I always consider my own and permanently my own. Meanwhile, something as uncontrollable as a tumor can suddenly make me attracted to someone I never in a million years would have thought I'd been attracted to, and in the case of the occasional pedophile, someone I probably was not morally okay with being attracted to. Lastly, I was mind blown by the fact that we have a blind spot in our eye and that we are not aware of it.
       I disagree with David Eagleman on the importance of all of this fancy shmancy our brain control us stuff he threw at us readers. While I did find it very enlightening, and am honestly glad that I feel a little more open-mined, I do not think it really has that many ramifications on us besides that. I am happy with continuing on with my life as I was before, now just being a little more appreciative of this new knowledge. David Eaglemen made it seem like our whole life was going to change because we are now aware of this, when in my opinion, nothing really can change unless we want to be a bit more frazzled.
       I would recommend this book to someone, as long as I think that that person will appreciate what it has to say. I think giving this book to the wrong person can actually really upset them. Although I wouldn't have minded remaining blissfully oblivious as I stated earlier, I am actually really happy I read it. I can't really describe it, but I feel a little more open and freer now. I definitely appreciated the read.

Why Do McDonald's French Fries Taste So Good?

1. The article begins by naming the secret ingredient that made McDonald's french fries taste so good for decades. This ingredient- beef tallow and lots of it. However, once the 90s hit, and people began being more health conscious, McDonald's needed to find a new secret recipe that yielded the same taste. It turns out that the ingredients are just a bunch of chemicals made in a lab. The IFF speicalizes in creating chemicals so that they taste and smell exactly like a strawberry... hamburger... ice cream... body odor... and alas, also french fries. The flavors of our food are simply manipulated molecules.
2. What perspectives are there?
The industry- Grainger, a scientist at IFF, "takes quiet pleasure in seeing the well-known foods that contain his flavors." Just like an artist would be proud of his work, so is the scientist. The company as a whole seems to be very excited about the business, for even if the consumers don't agree with all of the chemicals added, there is nothing they can do about it because these chemicals are key, and will forever be key to so many of the foods in the supermarket or at a restaurant.
The consumers- However, the consumers who are catching on to what "artificial flavors" really are have an opinion that usually includes disgusted, and mad. If a flavor is not derived naturally, the health conscious  consumers are not very interested. They really don't have a choice however.
Mwah- I, like most of the consumers who are now aware of how much science goes into our food, feel a bit disgusted by this. particularly the fact that the pink color of my Dannon yogurt comes from mashed up insects. However, coming from a Biotechnology school, I know that somehow chemicals are added to our food all the time, and that most of the time, they are not harmful. If a certain chemical is derived naturally or synthesized in a lab, it is still that same chemical. And either way, we can all agree that we still enjoy that taste anyway.
3. The main ways of knowing and areas of knowledge that are in this article are perception and our five senses. If a consumer did not realize that the food contained added chemicals, and that really these chemicals are what gave the food the taste, the consumer would enjoy every bite of a McDonald's french fry and probably lick every cm of his greasy fingers afterward. However, if suddenly this knowledge entered his brain, he may scooch the fries over to the other side of the table. Also, if a lab scientist didn't use all the correct dyes when making the very real smelling and tasting chemical, the consumer would pick up on the off color and decide that there is something wrong with the food and not eat it when in fact, it still tastes and smells exactly the same.
4. Some knowledge issues-
The consumers are not allowed to know exactly what chemicals and artificial flavors are added to the food. I, being a vegetarian, can still not know for sure if there is some animal products in a McDonald's french fry. Does the consumer have the right to be informed of what goes into his food? Even so, to what extent will the role of the brain and perception play in determining of a consumer enjoys the food? Once a consumer discovers what's inside, will that change his perception of the taste forever?
5. The big knowledge problem is that the consumers are left not really knowing what is inside the food. The chemicals are a mystery, and the consumer has no choice but to consume them.
6. So in conclusion, to what extent does a consumer's emotion and perception determine the taste of the food?
3.