Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jun8 | Hacker News Reader

Excellent piece that touches on a diverse variety of thoughts! Each of the thirteen would make for a good conversation in cafe with one or two friends while drinking good coffee and sharing lemon and poppyseed muffins.

The question posed in the first definition is perhaps the most interesting, i.e. why are flowers beautiful? Flowers appeared ~130 mya while mammals appeared ~225 mya, so this cannot be coded in our "reptilian brain."

I like the answer posed "natural selection went too far", the only answer we currently have. To push the analogy, these traits that we take to define our humanity are probably our brains "hallucinating," trying to optimize some unnecessary group of functions. Why are flowers beautiful? Why do we believe in God? These are probably unintended consequences of our evolutionary brain. Yet these "bugs" define us and are the source of all that we find great about us.

View on HN

They can also be unintended consequences in the evolution of the flowers. As I understand it, they are beautiful because they are trying to attract the attention of their pollinators.

Some flowers are plain-looking because they are beautiful in infrared or ultraviolet, for example. That is, they are beautiful to their intended non-human audience. The fact that other flowers are beautiful also in the human visible spectrum is either a fortunate accident for us (if it is a wild flower) or a deliberate choice by their pollinators (if it is a domesticated flower that people plant on purpose).

Good point about coevolution. Of course all thoughts on this subject are (currently) speculation.

Here's a quote by Georgia O'Keefe: “Whether the flower or the color is the focus I do not know. I do know the flower is painted large to convey my experience with the flower – and what is my experience if it is not the color?” I don't think color is the whole story: As I write this I have a vase of yellow tulips in front of me. My wife and I are particularly fond of this particular combination, any other flower of the same yellow color won't do.

I imagine the answer to "why are flowers beautiful" is probably linked to a different question: why do humans have superior color vision vs. almost all other mammalian creatures?

A dominant theory is that natural selection favored individuals with extended long wave (red) perception. Better color perception enhanced locating high-quality food resources and avoiding toxic plants. Human vision also resolves finer detail than many mammals.

Flowers are worth noticing, after all, they're precursors to fruit which may be edible when ripe. Appreciating the form and color of flowers isn't a random phenomenon. In its present-day form, like most things human, the "beauty of flowers" is a complex phenomenon arising out of interacting biological, social and environmental factors.

Isn't the human liver also very good at breaking down toxins?

We should resist the temptation to create "evolutionary just-so stories" to explain human behaviors.

Specifically in regards to flowers, I believe the vast majority of flowering plants are not fruiting, so there would need to be some other case here. More likely not having to do with humans, and more to do with attracting pollinators.

> why do humans have superior color vision vs. almost all other mammalian creatures?

Why limit to mammals? Female birds of paradise are way more likely to mate with the male birds of paradise that do exhibit the most harmonious colors (to our human eyes: so female birds of paradise happens to share the same taste as humans when it comes to harmony of colors).

Flowers aren't beautiful. We experience flowers as triggering a subjective sensation we label beauty. Which is not the same thing.

I'm fascinated by how our brains get from "A beautiful woman" (feel free to modify according to gender and sexuality) to "A beautiful building."

Beautiful humans - whose attributes aren't necessarily physical - are mostly just high quality potential mating partners.

A beautiful building will have proportion, texture, and rhythm. But it's quite a reach to get from one to the other, even if you start from "symmetrical faces are attractive."

Somehow the experience became abstracted. Or certain features did.

And then you get music, which is even more abstract.

How does all of this work? I have no idea. It's fascinating, but hugely under-researched.

> Flowers aren't beautiful. We experience flowers as triggering a subjective sensation we label beauty. Which is not the same thing.

By that logic, isn't everything subjective? I mean, everything we experience triggers a subjective sensation on which we put labels.

The notion of beauty can be rationalized to some degree: that's the goal of composition. Let me give you one notable example: unity in diversity.

Clouds, flowers, trees (vegetation really), mountains, all follow this rule, and are generally subjects considered pleasant. The principle can be used to give a strong identity to an artwork, while keeping it interesting.

I let you ponder about how this principle manifests itself in music.

That's to say, I don't think it's under-researched. Instead, I think that the "everything goes" mentality we've had for a while now, especially in visual arts, has concealed the idea of the existence of such principles from everyday people. But they're still well-known, at least as soon as we demand strong technical skills from artists.

> Flowers appeared ~130 mya while mammals appeared ~225 mya, so this cannot be coded in our "reptilian brain."

Why not?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com