Just something I've noticed : Trees tend to be quasi symmetrical, making them very aesthetically pleasing and open to artistic interpretation. They have the potential to be very artistically expressive. I have a theory as to why this is so:
The human face and body are also quasi-symmetrical. Studies have found that higher symmetry tends to be indicative of higher genetic quality, and more symmetrical people are rated as being more beautiful. This would make one think that a perfectly symmetrical person would be the most attractive option possible, but something happens when a face is graphically altered to be perfectly symmetrical, it ends up looking fake and not as attractive. It's as if the imperfections in our symmetry make us human and our quirks can make us somewhat more attractive in some ways.
I find the same is true with trees. A perfectly symmetrical tree does not look natural; not only does it not look natural, but it also tends to be very boring. A tree that is close to being symmetrical, but not quite perfect, tends to look quite attractive and healthy, but still kind of boring. It's the trees that lean to one side or the other, or have a branch missing that are more interesting; they may not be more beautiful, but they tend to be more expressive. This seems to go back to the comparison to humans, a person that is missing a limb or in a pose that distorts their symmetry is much more interesting to look at. A person or tree in a pose that is highly symmetrical tends to suggest stability, as opposed to an asymmetrical pose that suggests instability, change or motion.
So, trees and faces/people have geometrical similarities; the same could be said about many objects. And that brings me to another point, that the human mind tends to see many objects as faces or people; we anthropomorphize things all the time. When you yell at your car because it won't start, you're anthropomorphizing; you're pretending your car can hear you, something it is obviously not capable of. I think in the case of trees, it is especially easy to anthropomorphize because of the geometrical similarities and also the biological similarities; we are both living things that come in slightly different varieties (1) and have 'trunks' and 'limbs.'
When combined, the similarities of trees to people and the socially primed cognitive mechanisms involved in processing such objects may be what leads to the aesthetic and psychosocial primacy afforded to trees over, say, squares.
1. I think this is an important determinant of the anthropomorphizability of an object; if something comes in many slightly differentiated varieties, it may activate cognitive capacities used to differentiate people, who also tend to differ slightly from one another. With this, the object is now being processed as socially salient and our brains may imbue it with a capacity of agency (theory-of-mind attribution). Contrary to this would be squares; you don't really find squares to be all that anthropomorphizable because they are always the same (maybe color or size differences, but mostly the same).
As a psychology student, the nature of consciousness is not only a source of personal pondering, but an area of interest in my academic studies. It was in my Intro to Cognitive Science class that I was first introduced to the notion of consciousness as an emergent property. This has remained my favorite way of considering consciousness.
An emergent property is that which is more than the sum of its parts, but rather more of a product of intricate functional interactions of many simpler properties or parts. A good example is a computer: many simple parts (transistors), serve simple functions (binary logic gates) which, when combined in an organized manner, give emergence to a functionality that is far greater than the sum of its parts.
Consciousness can be thought of in the same way. Our brains utilize binary coding of information similar to that of computers. Instead of transistors that produce 1's and 0's , we have neurons that either fire or do not fire. The rate at which a neuron fires corresponds to the strength of the signal it is carrying. Our neurons are intricately interlaced, connecting and communicating with one another via dendritic synapses (akin to a computer's logic gates).
Our brains have about 100 billion neurons. This sounds like enough to give rise to some pretty astounding processes already, but the real processing power of our brains comes from the fact that each of these neurons are directly connected to an average of 7,000 other neurons via dendritic synapses. Meaning that if any one random neuron fired a signal to another neuron it's connected to, there are 7.0 × 1014 (that's 700 trillion) possible ways this ONE signal could happen. Now consider that each synapse fires at an average of 200 times per second, and that each synapse can perform processes independent of others. That makes for an average of 1.4 × 1017 (14 quadrillion) processes per second.
It's not just about brute processing power though. It's also about the organization and connection of the simple parts and their functions that gives rise to higher products, or higher forms of emergent properties such as consciousness. These functional connections are what make consciousness an emergent property, and gives us our subjective, phenomenological experience of life.
"Chandelier cells," which are the most intricately intertwined neurons found in the human brain, are found in the neocortex, an area of the brain involved in higher functioning and higher forms of consciousness. These more intricately connected cells are able to perform more meaningful processes due to their organization and give rise to more complex forms of emergent consciousness. Because of their high levels of innervation, chandelier cells are able to combine and incorporate more individual information processes together in a way that allows them to interact and give rise to a product of processes and not just a summation of processes.
Sebastian Seung is working on a project to map the connections of the brain's synapses in an attempt to reveal the working brain as it gives rise to consciousness. He calls it the "connectome." I think he's on to something.
"I've been visualizing the conceptualization process, that's the hard part."
~Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Waterson
