How can evolution explain body symmetry?

I think this is a good point. I hope I'm not deviating from your point by saying, ...We can learn a lot about symmetric design by looking at things designed by humans. So much of what we design is symmetric. Cars, spoons, even milk cartons (I'm eating breakfast). Why are these things symmetric?A lot of the principles are the same between evolved body symmetry and designed symmetry. And often times designed symmetry is easier to understand for the layperson. Maybe it's useful to embark on this path a bit within this thread.

I found that interesting. Thanks for the info. I think Brad does a lot of studying on (judging from the photos he uploads), and I think this was one of the most believable things presented within Wolfram's texts (yes I realize it's most likely not his original idea). I found this quote interesting. I wonder if, for the visual system, visual symmetry of a scene / object affords a computational advantage in object identification and classification. It seems like a reasonable suggestion.Either way, the question of "why are symmetric things 'attractive' (and not just symmetric, but also 'balanced,' such as the judgement of the writing of Chinese characters) seems like an important one in understanding "sexual selection" and some human design principles. It screams 'computational principles' to me, and 'computational principles' translate to 'macroscopic evolutionary pressures'--since computational principles are the very foundations of behavior, and macroscopic behavior is one driving force of evolutionary pressure.

If you can get a response to your own work, then (to me) there's no winning or losing; at least for those who are doing science, rather than trying to advance an idea. For me, it's so hard to "see in all directions," so feedback on my own work, especially by some of the knowledgeable people here, is great. Especially since I'm quite isolated given the language barrier that exist (for me) here in Japan.Just like you've said before (and seemed to hint at here), all we can ask is to be considered. Sometimes it gets hard to remember that here. I guess to some arguing is a matter of "winning and losing," not about understanding. Of course, coming partially from the behavioral / psychology side, this is always a big problem. "Folk psychology" is so ingrained in people's minds, it's often our everyday language hinders the research process.Of course, that doesn't mean I'm willing to pay the overhead to move to a "new language of science." Language is what it is--an imperfect, ad-hoc system. Creating new languages will never eliminate what makes a language messy--nativization into human beings. I don't know if you noticed, but I've been harping on the difference between declarative and non-declarative memory lately. Here's just another instance of the importance of that difference. I'll check back again later sometime. I've got 12 other things on my plate, still working through the information on the Baldwin thread, etc. So for now, I have no idea. I'll look to catch up on it later.Ben