We don't know if tight budgeted exploration/exploitation agents find flowers beautiful. As humans we've been so much in bioeconomical surplus that we've investe

We don't know if tight budgeted exploration/exploitation agents find flowers beautiful. As humans we've been so much in bioeconomical surplus that we've invested in exploration of meta-patterns, that allowed us exploitation despite the variability of the environment (temporal, multi-instance, multi-agent compressibility), and maybe beauty is a proxy for this function, and as such mostly only a human experience? Or maybe beauty is merely something that inspires replication and preservation, and being on the receiving end of this is a good adaptation from any living being's perspective? If compressibility was the only normativity, smoothest objects would be the most beautiful, a sine wave would be the most interesting symphony, but they are in fac the most banal, most unbeautiful things. Smooth object are highly compressible but also highly exhaustible, unlike organic objects. Any painter of a natural subject knows that organic structures are far from that kind of symmetry, and actually a painting loses verisimilitude if you are too symmetrical and formulaic.