# Is Music Useless?



## Xavier

_"As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless. It shows no signs of design for attaining a goal such as long life, grandchildren, or accurate perception and prediction of the world. Music appears to be a pure pleasure technology, a cocktail of drugs that we ingest through the ear to stimulate a mass of pleasure circuits at once. Compared with vision, language, social reasoning, and physical know-how, music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged"_

**************************

The above is an excerpt from the book "How The Mind Works" by neuroscientist Steven Pinker.

*1.* Do you think he's right?

*2.* In light of his remarks do you think musicians and critics sometimes take themselves too seriously?

I have to say that no matter how many times I'm lifted to the heights of aesthetic experiences by my favorite composers (Wagner, Debussy, Brahms, Schoenberg et al) I always quietly acknowledge to myself that it's still... _only music_. I understand that the pleasure is biologically pointless and that no higher purpose is being served by it.

Now, let's be very clear and not miss the boat here:

What Pinker is saying is that music never contributed anything to the propagation of the species. To a biologist, that is what counts. Biologists use the word "adaptive" to describe a trait that is cultivated by evolution. Anything that increases an individual's chances of passing its genes along to the next generation is adaptive. Music, Pinker argues, is not adaptive. He sees no evidence that having rhythm or being a good singer ever helped a person survive or generate more offspring. He believes that music is something humans invented and then cultivated because it tweaks our brains and bodies in a pleasurable way. In other words, humans invented music because they enjoyed it.

Again, the evolutionary status of music is a separate question from *the value* of music. Pinker recognizes this, and as an evolutionary psychologist he's only interested in the former. He makes no pretense to explain or even comment on the aesthetic, spiritual, or metaphysical qualities (or any qualities at all) of music. He is a scientist who studies brain function; he comments only on the measurable energy in the brain generated in response to measurable stimuli. The responses may occur in different locations in the brain, with differing intensities, but the cultural significance of the stimuli is irrelevant to Pinker's interests and cannot be identified based on the measured response. For that matter, responses occurring in the same area of the brain, with similar intensities, may be equated even if the stimuli are of entirely different kinds or characters. So there is no point in asking him for thoughts on the ability of a Beethoven quartet or a Schubert sonata or a Mozart opera to inspire higher thoughts or exalted emotions, since those are not measurable by his methods and really not of much interest in the context of his research.

Of course most people love music and feel it is far from useless or devoid of value. But we're ultimately going to have to look at the available evidence rather than getting grumpy or righteously indignant because some godless scientist is infringing on one of our sacred cows.


----------



## Sid James

Well, in a literal sense, he is right. Music does not feed my body the way food does. It does not shelter me like my house. Nor does it have a practical or utilitarian purpose, like build a house or stuff of the sort.

But in a broader sense, he is on shaky ground. Yes, music is useless compared to water, food or shelter like the essentials of life, but these are only physical factors. As you suggest, the emotional and maybe psychological and spiritual aspects of what music gives us is hard to define.

Maybe he's doing a backlash against things like _The Mozart Effect_, a theory I think now discredited, which said classical music can make children's reasoning or cognitive function better.

If taken to an extreme, this can be like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan which banned music. That was for ideological reasons, but I think they may have thought along these lines. Music is of no practical use - in terms of their views of religion - so we just ban it. I'm reflecting on this writer mentioning _pleasure_ and_ drugs. _Those words speak to me to a kind of puritanism, that we have to purge these from our lives. Eg. like in Palestrina's day, he had to compose music to focus on and clearly project the text, the music should not obscure the text of the mass, according to Vatican then. This aspect of frivolity being bad has plagued many composers - Brahms even got it for his Hungarianism gypsy finales to his concertos and chamber works. Too frivolous, we can't have people enjoying themselves in the concert hall as in a tavern. How low, how lowbrow and vulgar!

So I guess Mr. Pinker might avoid Brahms for these reasons...and virtually the whole classical canon (except - maybe - church music, but even there you get stuff which is far from puritan or of any practical use).

But then again. As Shakespeare wrote 'If music be the food of love, play on.' How many of us where conceived, I wonder, to music playing in the background? So maybe it does have a practical purpose in that way! :lol:


----------



## ZombieBeethoven

Hmmm I had not considered this. Music is useless. I shall now stop listening to music. 



PS Many of my attempts at humor on the internet rely on irony. Unfortunately, I have not discovered an appropriate font to identify irony much less distinguish it from sarcasm.


I am not familiar with Pinker but since you identify him as a neuroscientist and a biologist, I assume he could also be described as an academic. Often academics have spent time at universities. Pinker may have spent too much time in the classroom and not enough time with other students at social gatherings. I vaguely remember that in my college days that dancing could lead to mating. Dancing was often accompanied by music. In fact, the mating was sometimes accompanied by music. I also wonder how many musicians would have mated less frequently had music not existed...


----------



## ZombieBeethoven

"But we're ultimately going to have to look at the available evidence rather than getting grumpy or righteously indignant because some godless scientist is infringing on one of our sacred cows." 
If Pinker, the godless scientist, has in fact infringed on sacred cows, I will have to be deeply concerned about his views on the reproductive process. Perhaps we should all be concerned about what kind of biology is being practiced at universities. Save the cows, lock up the neuroscientists!


----------



## Sid James

I actually wonder whether music can lead to living a longer life. Studies show that things like pets can contribute to better health, esp. psychological health/wellbeing. Companionship can as well, married people live longer (on the whole) than single people. But I think it would be difficult to scientifically quantify the complex role music plays in our lives. All its facets, from dancing at a disco, to listening to a classical concert, to a rock concert indeed, or background music at a supermarket (or in an elevator!), to music for ceremonies like weddings and funerals. Music is intrinsically part of our lives. Would it be fair to say its like the air we breathe, but in a way of adding value to our lives, not literally in terms of biological survival?


----------



## Chrythes

Well, according to this video it seems that music can be very beneficial on neurological level.


----------



## joen_cph

One could certainly argue that on a sociological level, music - at least in its original form, on a"tribal" or folksy level - sustains a collective consciousness and loyalty with the group. 

Likewise that dancing and music inspires creativity as well as relaxation, physically as well as mentally.


----------



## Conor71

Isnt music a form of communication though above all else? I think it could be argued that those with good communication skills have a better chance of passing on their genes than those who dont? Big Rock stars seem to have no problems passing on their genes to others so music can also lead to power = alpha male status


----------



## Abracadabra

Xavier said:


> _What Pinker is saying is that music never contributed anything to the propagation of the species. To a biologist, that is what counts. Biologists use the word "adaptive" to describe a trait that is cultivated by evolution. Anything that increases an individual's chances of passing its genes along to the next generation is adaptive. Music, Pinker argues, is not adaptive. He sees no evidence that having rhythm or being a good singer ever helped a person survive or generate more offspring. He believes that music is something humans invented and then cultivated because it tweaks our brains and bodies in a pleasurable way. In other words, humans invented music because they enjoyed it.
> _


_

I have absolutely no need to "defend" music as being useful. However, I'm in total disagreement with Pinker's conclusions if he says that music never contributed anything to the propagation of the species. Where is his evidence for this?

My first question to Pinker would be to ask, "What about romance?" Do romantic feelings contribute to the propagation of the species? Clearly they aren't necessarily required as we well know that there people who will gladly partake in the act of procreation without any romantic feelings whatsoever. None the less, that doesn't take away from the fact that "romantic feelings" do play a role in inciting some people to procreate. Therefore to say that romance doesn't play a role in procreation would be absurd, IMHO.

And I would passionately argue that point without intent to resign. :tiphat:

Having said that, I'm now in a position to argue that music can and does incite romantic feelings within some people (potentially within many people). And the people being romantically inspired by the music don't themselves need to be musicians or have musical talents or inclinations of any kind.

So with that in mind I would suggest that Mr. Pinker has been spending too much time thinking and not enough time listening to music. 

I would also venture to suggest that Mr. Pinker himself must not be romantically stimulated by music. Perhaps he's not a romantic man at all, for all I know. In that case it would be no surprise that he fails to recognize the power of romantic feelings and how music can stimulate those feelings and desires.

Some scientists seem to be so in-human at times that I seriously wonder what their lives must truly be like. 

Can a species procreate without music? Sure, that's pretty much a given.

However, to claim that music then plays no role at all in procreation is, IMHO, nothing short of absurd.

That's my view on that. :tiphat:

In fact, if you can produce a single counter-example to Pinker's claim then you will have proven him wrong. Therefore, if you have ever successfully seduced someone using music as the stimulus, into an act that could result in procreation, then you have already proven this man wrong.

The "you" in my statement above is generic of course. Although, I can assure you that I have been that "you" on several occasions.

So I already have my proof that Pinker is wrong. _


----------



## aleazk

Yes. Now, use it!


----------



## Moira

No, music is not useless on a purely biological level. 

It brings pleasure which affect our hormonal systems, inclines one towards dance, or at least movement, and thus promotes health and well-being. 

It has significant impacts on social and spiritual levels and it is recognised that somehow the social and spiritual effects do have an impact on the biological. 

So music is actually good for one biologically. 

Now I acknowledge that the extent to which music is biologically useful may be limited, except when used as a fitness tool for dancing.


----------



## Arsakes

'Survival' term really is an absurd word for the current situation of humankind. We don't live in the Stone Age or post-apocalypsic WW3! ...
This biological explaination for music and its neurons is out of place. It seems current scientist have stagnated in visuals and aren't able (dor don't want) to see any depth and think about non-materialistic things! 

Also it's wonderful that they ignore the individual pleasure and social aspects of Music.


----------



## Jaws

There is a difference in biology between the playing of music and listening to it. Playing it or singing is good for mental health. Listening alone is not so good. However I do think that getting drunk seems to be more important for the survival of the human species, as this seems to lead to more accidental pregnancies than any amount of listening to Carmina Burana.......


----------



## LordBlackudder

Music does effect survival because people march to war to a drum and gather in millions to the adhan.

Even though it might be indirect the music still plays a part. It is used to assemble people to train in time to kill others. Or more often it is used a display of beauty and peace.

It has prevented many wars from occurring, through the music industry, globalization, spreading a peaceful message, or being a mutual language.

Even though the effects of music is indirect it still creates peace or war and life or death. If it was to not exist maybe people would be more barbaric as there is less expression of peace and play.


----------



## KRoad

Music allows us an escape from the mundane. It provides us with an aural foundation or substratum upon which to anchor our fantasies and spiritual aspiration. It allows us, within the confines of the space between the left and right headphone, to soar with angels. And, as we ascend ever higher, transported as it were upon the winged notes of our favoured composers, we come to touch the very face of God! Clearly, music IS useless!


----------



## mmsbls

Pinker was trying to answer a question that's different from what most people here assume he was discussing. Evolutionary biologists try to understand how traits of various species developed. Traits that developed through modification of genetic material (DNA) _and_ natural selection are said to be adaptive. Traits that did not develop through that mechanism may be exceedingly useful for a variety of reasons, but they are not an adaptive trait.

The question is whether there were mutations or other modifications in hominid genetic material that gave rise to physical features in the brain that enabled music ability _and did that ability_ cause those early individuals to produce more offspring. Anything that humans have done _much after_ that brain functionality developed has no effect on the question of whether music developed as an evolutionary adaptation.

For example, athletic ability clearly increases the chance that an individual will mate. Nevertheless, no one suggests that arms, hands, and legs evolved because of sports. The ability to play sports is a byproduct of adaptations that evolved for other reasons (to procure food, for example). Similarly, science has vastly increased individuals lifespans and even allowed certain people to procreate who could not have in the past. But biologists do not believe that the advanced functions of the brain evolved because they allowed humans to do science. Pinker believes that music is a byproduct of brain features that evolved for other reasons (i.e. not to create or enjoy music).


----------



## Philip

Musical ability will definitely increase the chance an individual will mate.


----------



## Couchie

The uselessness of art is its defining quality... has this person really never read Wilde?


----------



## NightHawk

I see it as a pointless argument: music happens where there are homo sapiens - period. I believe that it is necessary, I believe it staves off madness through its ability to lift us out of reality and into ecstasy. I believe that it has attended the Great Rites of Passage from the most prehistoric of cultures and in doing so has become wired into our spiral double helix. babble babble babble.


----------



## Chopinator

Pinker is like many scientists today: he lives in a world of theory, not actuality. In theory, music will not cause the human population to procreate and serves no purpose. In actuality, and as mentioned before me, music can be used in many ways for procreation (seduction for example).

Besides this, I believe music can help people stay out of depression and other mental disorders. I don't think a depressed person is going to want to mate and help build on the human population.


----------



## Abracadabra

mmsbls said:


> Pinker was trying to answer a question that's different from what most people here assume he was discussing. Evolutionary biologists try to understand how traits of various species developed. Traits that developed through modification of genetic material (DNA) _and_ natural selection are said to be adaptive. Traits that did not develop through that mechanism may be exceedingly useful for a variety of reasons, but they are not an adaptive trait.
> 
> The question is whether there were mutations or other modifications in hominid genetic material that gave rise to physical features in the brain that enabled music ability _and did that ability_ cause those early individuals to produce more offspring. Anything that humans have done _much after_ that brain functionality developed has no effect on the question of whether music developed as an evolutionary adaptation.
> 
> For example, athletic ability clearly increases the chance that an individual will mate. Nevertheless, no one suggests that arms, hands, and legs evolved because of sports. The ability to play sports is a byproduct of adaptations that evolved for other reasons (to procure food, for example). Similarly, science has vastly increased individuals lifespans and even allowed certain people to procreate who could not have in the past. But biologists do not believe that the advanced functions of the brain evolved because they allowed humans to do science. Pinker believes that music is a byproduct of brain features that evolved for other reasons (i.e. not to create or enjoy music).


Having devoted my entire life to the science, both in career as well as personal interest, I fully understand what you are saying here. However, what you are saying is not as well-established, nor as well-defined as many scientists would like to believe.

The very notion of a concept of an "Adaptive Trait" in genetics is truly nothing more than an abstract man-made ideal itself. Mankind (especially in the tradition of the western sciences) attempts to understand the world via a process of reductionism and classification. This is the core essence of western science. This method has indeed been very fruitful. None the less, it's still nothing more than a man-made idealism.

To argue over what actually constitutes an "adaptive genetic trait" especially concerning things so far removed from actual genetics (such as the influence that music might have on human behavior) is really to do nothing more than lose sight of true limitations of this process of reductionism and classification.

Where the overkill comes into play is when scientists like Pinker try to take this process of reductionism to absurdly extreme levels, like as if it could actually have meaning when taken to those extremes.

The true nature of reality is not as cut-and-dried as some of these scientists would like to believe. There simply do not exist the kinds of concrete lines in nature that these scientists would like to draw. What these kinds of things truly amount to is nothing more than the fact that some scientists simply don't recognize the limitations of this process of reductionism. They seem to have become lost in some delusion that they can carry this sort of thing out without limit. Many of them actually believe that's possible. They have this extremely naive notion that, given enough time, scientists will eventually be able to discover every fine line that they define via their reductionist method.

IMHO, that's just reductionism idealized in the pipe dreams of scientists who potentially are seeking a very well-defined deterministic world and have become convinced that such a world can actually exist. They believe that the only thing left to do is for us to discover precisely where all these concrete lines of reductionism occur.

I think Biologists need to learn a lesson from the Quantum Physicists. Those kinds of precise concrete lines simply do not exist, nor can they exist in the world in which we live. Our very science of physics has revealed this to as quite blatantly.

I think some of these Biologists are actually still living in a Newtonian Classical World.

The idea that "Music" can even be concrete related to "Genes" in some absolute definite way is, IMHO, utterly absurd. And if it can't even be concretely related to "genes", then it's even more absurd to proclaim that is could be classified as be associated with an "Adaptive Trait".

In short, this biologist is simply assuming far more than could ever be well-established, even using the scientific method to the hilt.

It's just "Bad Science" IMHO.

He's taking the reductionist ideal and basically "projecting" that ideal onto ideas that he could never quantitatively verify using the scientific method.

In short, he's basically just speculating based on what he considers to be "logical reasoning".

The only real question at this point is to ask yourself whether you feel that his reasoning has merit enough to accept that it might potentially hold some truth.

I'm personally am not impressed by his "logical reasoning". I see far too many flaws in it and other potential explanations and scenarios that could conflict with his conclusion yet also be reasonably true.

Therefore, I conclude that he's simply jumping to opinionated conclusions that can't even be scientifically confirmed anyway.

And my conclusion has absolutely nothing at all to do with any misunderstanding of the concept of evolutionary adaptations.

My stance is to simply take the position that the concept of evolutionary adaptations has it's place, but trying to carry it out to the effect that music might have on human behavior and therefore on their procreation is simply beyond the scope of this theory.

This would be like me giving you two numbers, say 12, and 3 and asking you to multiply them together. And you giving me back an answer like,...

36.000000000000000000000000000000000000001

My question to you would be, "Where the heck did you come up with that kind of precision from the numbers I gave you? It's ridiculous. You weren't given numbers that would allow you to carry out calculations to such extreme decimal places.

And that's basically the same thing that Pinker is doing with his adaptive evolution theories. He's simply trying to carry them out to extremes that aren't warranted based on the information he could possible obtain.

It's just bad science. Just like giving me back the number 36.000000000000000000000000000000000000001 when I had asked you to multiple together 12 and 3 would be bad mathematics.


----------



## Abracadabra

Chopinator said:


> Pinker is like many scientists today: he lives in a world of theory, not actuality. In theory, music will not cause the human population to procreate and serves no purpose. In actuality, and as mentioned before me, music can be used in many ways for procreation (seduction for example).
> 
> Besides this, I believe music can help people stay out of depression and other mental disorders. I don't think a depressed person is going to want to mate and help build on the human population.


Exactly. Basically the same thing I just said in my long-winded post above, but said much more eloquently. 

It's not only "just theory" but it's even "bad theory".


----------



## Philip

Abracadabra, mmsbls is a physicist.


----------



## brianwalker

This only proves that evolution is false.


----------



## Abracadabra

Philip said:


> Abracadabra, mmsbls is a physicist.


Good. Then the points I've made should be well-received and clearly understood.


----------



## mmsbls

@Abracadabra: I have some sympathy for your assessment of the kinds of research that led to Pinker's statement about music. The field of evolutionary psychology is in its infancy, and I believe that researchers make conclusions that have less evidential support than we scientists generally would like to see. I am not an evolutionary psychologist and not qualified to judge their research, but I do know that many evolutionary biologists have strongly criticized evolutionary psychology especially for the assumptions made in their work. I suspect that as the field progresses researchers will gain more evidence for certain theories and probably better understand the problems with other theories. 

My comment was simply to say that I believed Pinker's statement was a technical assessment that music is not an adaptive evolutionary trait and not a general statement about the biological usefulness of music to humans. I have little idea whether music is an adaptive trait (as defined by biologists). 

The issue of reductionism is extremely complicated and confusing. I consider myself a reductionist, but critiques of reductionism that I have read seem to have relatively little to do with my beliefs. Quantum physics shows that the universe is not deterministic, but it strongly supports my (and other physicists I know) view of reductionism. I think the important issue here is whether evolutionary biologists can ever get the evidence necessary to establish enough support for specific theories of adaptation. As a scientist. I am always strongly wary of people suggesting that we'll never know certain things. Maybe, but science has shown that we can know so vastly more than many have previously thought so I would never bet on our inability to learn specific things.


----------



## clavichorder

Threads like are the type Polednice tended to make, and I don't miss that aspect of his presence on the forum, I have to say, however wonderful he is in other respects...


----------



## MaestroViolinist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_therapy
"...uses music and all of its facets-*physical*, emotional,..." Well obviously that's not "adaptive" but it's something to do with the physical effect of Music.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect
Surely music that makes you smarter would be a physical effect?


----------



## Abracadabra

@mmsbls, I feel that we probably share much agreement on many points. I would like to clarify that my response to your quote was not aimed directly at you. I was simply bouncing off some of the ideas that you had brought up.

I would also like to offer comments on the following ideas. Again, just to comment on the ideas themselves, and not in any way intended as an argument of personal views.



mmsbls said:


> The issue of reductionism is extremely complicated and confusing. I consider myself a reductionist, but critiques of reductionism that I have read seem to have relatively little to do with my beliefs.


I too see much value in reductionism. The power of reductionism is undeniable. I don't question that in the slightest. I also don't support all critiques of reductionism. But at the same time, I do recognize that it has limitations and cannot be carried out to arbitrary lengths, especially not in physics as Quantum Mechanics so vividly reveals.

I personally feel that the limitation of reductionism is also obvious in something as abstract as 'Adaptive Genetics'. Especially in light of the fact, that biologists themselves have already acknowledged that genes aren't the sole mechanism that results in human behavior. Even they acknowledge the affects of environmental and social experiences, etc. So in a sense, by that very recognition, they have already themselves made the concept of "Adapted Genetics" an invalid stand-alone concept when it comes to assessing human behavior.

In other words, it would be impossible to even try to use a reductionist approach to "Adaptive Genetics" to explain human behavior when other factors have already been acknowledge to play a role. So to even speak about "Adaptive Genetics" in any sort of absolute way like that is meaningless (it's bad biology). Except for perhaps in certain situations. Like where a gene is recognized to prevent a certain disease, for example. In that case environmental and social experiences don't really play a role. But then again we're not talking about human behavior, we're talking about immunity of disease. In that case talking about "Adaptive Genetics" makes sense.

But does it really even make any sense to speak about "Adaptive Genetics" with respect to human behavior and music? That very topic is already dependent upon environmental and social effects and thus is automatically removed from the concept of "Pure Adaptive Genetics".

I'm no biologist, but gee whiz, even I can see this. So I have difficulty taking someone like Pinker seriously when he tries to relate music with the concept of "Adaptive Genetics".

It just appears to be "bad biology", IMHO.



mmsbls said:


> Quantum physics shows that the universe is not deterministic, but it strongly supports my (and other physicists I know) view of reductionism.


Well, let's not confuse determinism with reductionism.

Quantum physics actually shows that reductionism is impossible beneath the quantum level. This is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr debated passionately to their deaths.

Albert Einstein holding out for more reductionism in the sense of possible "hidden variables" that could make it possible to violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Niels Borh arguing for an abstract notion of a "Complementarity Property of Nature" that can never be reduced.

Both of these men died before John Stewart Bell found a way to experimentally settle this debate. It turns out that Einstein's reductionist dreams of hidden variables is not possible. And thus Niel's Bohr's abstract notions of a "Complementarity Property of Nature" seems to be supported. In any case, reductionism has met a dead end in QM.

Determinism, on the other hand, comes in two flavors. Local and non-local determinism.

Local determinism is the common sense classical notion of cause and effect limited by the propagation speed of light. In other words, classical determinism is that which can be explained using classical physics and Relativity.

Non-local determinism is a different kind of determinism, yet still a quite valid concept. It simply ignores the Relativistic speed limits. This kind of determinism is explain by Dr. Richard Feynman in his "sum over histories" approach to QED.

In fact, I was actually thinking quite deeply about this very thing earlier today as I was walking through the woods. In some ways I can actually see how it works (thanks to Dr. Feynman's ideas and explanations).

So there's a difference between reductionism and determinism (Especially when allowing for non-local determinism as Dr. Feynman describes)

Feynman's determinism can survive even where reductionism fails.



mmsbls said:


> I think the important issue here is whether evolutionary biologists can ever get the evidence necessary to establish enough support for specific theories of adaptation. As a scientist. I am always strongly wary of people suggesting that we'll never know certain things. Maybe, but science has shown that we can know so vastly more than many have previously thought so I would never bet on our inability to learn specific things.


Well, as I had already stated earlier, the biologist themselves have already rendered "certain theories" of genetic adaptation to be meaningless when they acknowledged and recognized that human behavior is not solely produced by genetics alone.

Based on that alone it would seem to me that Pinker's attempt to correlate music and human behavior with the concept of "Adaptive Genetics" is already misplaced.

He's attempting to correlate things that don't necessarily have a direct correlation in nature. Kind of like Einstein's hopes and dreams of finding hidden variables.

In fact, human development may very well be more like Dr. Feynman's "Sum over histories" idea. In other words, genetics may not play as big of a role as biologists like Pinker might think. Instead the human condition may be guided by a far more complex "Sum over histories" approach where genes actually play a small role in a far more complex field of effects, and environment and social experiences plays a larger role than biologists like Pinker realizes.

In fact, today we know for certain this has indeed become modern truth. Genes play a very small role in human procreation and survival today. Almost no role at all actually. Evolution by natural selection is over for humans. It has now become evolution by technological selection.

Well, if technology today can clearly override "Adaptive Genetics", then could not social experiences have overridden "Adaptive Genetics" in the past?

With this realization in mind does the concept of "Adaptive Genetics" even have much meaning at all?

It's just a concept made up by reductionistic scientists. 

Obviously it's a concept that has some merit in primitive matters of evolution. And we even use this concept in medicine and genetic engineering.

But trying to make a connection between music, procreation and adaptive genetics?

Isn't that taking things a bit far?

(Sorry for the long-winded ramble. This isn't really aimed at anyone, including mmsbls, even though I bounced off his quotes. I just felt like rambling on about these particular concepts.) :tiphat:

Thank you to those who enjoyed reading my concerns.
My apologies to those who suffered through it in anguish.
To those who skipped over this post altogether, GREAT MOVE!


----------



## MaestroViolinist

Abracadabra said:


> To those who skipped over this post altogether, GREAT MOVE!


Thank you!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Music is entertainment. People live for entertainment.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Music is entertainment. People live for entertainment.


Best post so far.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

I hesitate to demur from the view of Prof Pinker and I think this is thread is more about semantics than music.

There is a distinction between _use _and _effect _- ie, music may not have a _use _in the sense that a hammer has a use, but it has an _effect _(listeners' heightened mood and shifts in emotional states, for example). This propensity to create effects is value-neutral, for example a change in emotional state may be to one of depression, anxiety or irritation.


----------



## Abracadabra

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Music is entertainment. People live for entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> ComposerOfAvantGarde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best post so far.
Click to expand...

I agree. :tiphat:

It also makes more sense than Pinker's theory. :lol:


----------



## science

Whatever music's purpose is to us now, way way back when we evolved musical ability and enjoyment, it served a purpose - as part of a host of behaviors (including religion) that helped us to form larger cooperating groups than could be held together by kin selection and reciprocity alone. Individuals skilled in these behaviors (including music and religion) survived and reproduced more often because they could gain status within their groups, and such groups defeated other groups in wars. 

Pinker would like to think we're nicer than this, but the unfortunate fact is that for at least five million years the biggest threats our ancestors faced were each other, and the ones that managed to kill rather than be killed became our ancestors, and in that struggle the ability to form and control groups was crucial. 

Once agricultural societies and their complexity appeared, things began to lose their original purposes, but still today groups form most easily when they have special music, and all political groups or aspiring political groups identify themselves in part with special music.

This is just my theory, but then, I think I'm probably right.


----------



## GraemeG

Abracadabra said:


> It's just bad science.


Yup. A remarkable common mistake, seemingly made by statisticians, economic rationalists, and indeed anyone these days who wants to give their theories credence.
"If I can't measure it, it's not significant."
(Incedentally, a very different attitude to "I measured it and don't like the results.")
The blinkeredness is self evident. But you'd think people might think a bit first before they broadcast their narrow-mindedness to the world.
cheers,
GG


----------



## mmsbls

I have recently read several papers on the evolution of music, and although I understand the issues a bit better, I still have little sense of whether Pinker is correct. There appears to be a need for more quantitative data about music production and reception, and interestingly, these studies seem relatively straightforward but have not been done. Many here have suggested that music helps individuals mate or helps groups survive better. Some biologists believe music is an adaptive trait due to sexual or group selection, but there appear problems with each approach. This paper gives reasons to believe music is adaptive through sexual selection, and this paper discusses sexual, group, and caregiving selection. The letter paper suggests that sexual and group selection theories have significant problems and states that the caregiver model may have the best evidence.


----------



## mmsbls

@Abracadabra: I'm confused by your position. You certainly seem to believe that Pinker is wrong and doing bad science. But Pinker's view is simply that music is not an evolutionary adaptive trait. As best I can tell, you agree with that. So do you think that music did evolve as an adaptive trait through natural selection or do you agree with Pinker that it did not?


----------



## Abracadabra

mmsbls said:


> @Abracadabra: I'm confused by your position. You certainly seem to believe that Pinker is wrong and doing bad science. But Pinker's view is simply that music is not an evolutionary adaptive trait. As best I can tell, you agree with that. So do you think that music did evolve as an adaptive trait through natural selection or do you agree with Pinker that it did not?


I'm saying that it doesn't even make any sense to even attempt to try to make a meaningful correspondence between music and adaptive genetics one way or the other.

In other words, to even suggest that speaking of these two concepts has any scientific merit in terms of a meaningful scientific theory is itself a misguided notion, IMHO.

Consider this:

Music itself has a very wide range of diversity and can easily incite people to behave in dramatically different ways. Therefore to even speak about music as having a specific affect on human behavior that could be consistent enough to end up having an effect on adaptive genetics would be meaningless.

Does that mean that music is "useless" in terms of the evolution of a species? No. It simply means that it would be impossible to scientifically quantify such a correspondence in a concrete and meaningful way.

I confess that I haven't read Pinker's actual theories or position. So I really don't know what his position actually is. But what he should be doing is just rejecting the very idea that the concept of "music" in general could even be related to adaptive genetics in any meaningful scientific way.

Like GraemeG had posted "If I can't measure it, it's not significant.", is really BAD science.

So not being able to measure it, and concluding that it has no effect are two entirely different things.

I'm saying that it's absurd to even discuss the matter as being scientifically meaningful. :tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls

Abracadabra said:


> Music itself has a very wide range of diversity and can easily incite people to behave in dramatically different ways. Therefore to even speak about music as having a specific affect on human behavior that could be consistent enough to end up having an effect on adaptive genetics would be meaningless....
> It simply means that it would be impossible to scientifically quantify such a correspondence in a concrete and meaningful way.
> 
> I confess that I haven't read Pinker's actual theories or position. So I really don't know what his position actually is. But what he should be doing is just rejecting the very idea that the concept of "music" in general could even be related to adaptive genetics in any meaningful scientific way.
> 
> Like GraemeG had posted "If I can't measure it, it's not significant.", is really BAD science.


After having read a significant number of papers related to evolutionary psychology, I'm willing to say that I'm not convinced that there is enough evidence for a variety of evolutionary psychology claims. Since I'm not a researcher in the field, I recognize my serious limitations. For us it's fun to think and speculate about these ideas, but as far as I can tell, all of us are too ignorant about this field to properly evaluate claims.

Scientists have good reasons to believe they understand the conditions in the universe less than one second after the Big Bang, the detailed structure and nuclear reactions in the core of stars, and properties of particles much smaller than the nucleus of atoms. Scientists had no idea they could know these things just decades before they were understood. What's amazing about reality is how much we seem to be able to learn about it. Maybe we can't learn everything, but I would never suggest that something is impossible to know. Is it possible that you are not aware of the data evolutionary scientists have and what the exact nature of their claims are? You have admitted that you know essentially nothing about Pinker's information and claims.

I don't believe that evolutionary psychology involves claims along the lines of "If I can't measure it, it's not significant." I think they would say they acquire significant data and make claims based on these data. The question is whether there truly is enough data to support the theories. Other evolutionary biologists will debate that question for some time to come. Incidentally, my name is on many peer-reviewed scientific papers that could be roughly classified as "We couldn't measure it, so we have excluded it's existence." Those papers are fairly standard and not considered unusual. Scientists in my field certainly do not consider that work "bad science".


----------



## superhorn

People can certainly survive without music . But let's face it; music makes life so much more enjoyable.
It makes existence more than just a daily grind to earn a living . And yes, it is definitley very good for us physically.
Studies have shown how beneficial it is for kids to learn musical instruments or sing in choruses in school.
It helps their mental development and improves their academic performance . Kids who do are far less likely to drop out of school, use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior . It can even reduce teenage pregnancy rates !


----------



## Abracadabra

mmsbls said:


> my name is on many peer-reviewed scientific papers that could be roughly classified as "We couldn't measure it, so we have excluded it's existence." Those papers are fairly standard and not considered unusual. Scientists in my field certainly do not consider that work "bad science".


Well, this is where we will have to agree to disagree then.

Especially in terms of readily accepting the position you've just described without questioning it in depth. I question these types of claims, and in doing so, I often find that they are without merit.

The problem I see has to do with being able to establish that something can be measured in a definite concrete way first. Only then does it make sense to proclaim that if you then can't measure it, it must not exist.

Where I see so many scientists failing is precisely on this point. They fail to first demonstrate that they "could" measure something if it did exist.

It's my position that they haven't convinced me that they could measure the effect that music might have on adaptive genetics. Therefore, for them to proclaim, "We can't measure it so it must not exist", is meaningless. They'd have to demonstrate convincingly why they believe that they could measure such a thing the first place.

In the physical sciences things are quite a bit different and more straight-forward (or at least this is true in many cases). For example, if you claim that your automobile produces pure oxygen as its exhaust a physicist can analyze the gasses being emitted by your car, and demonstrate that no oxygen is present in the fumes.

You might say, "But they only reason they can say that is because they can't measure it!"

But no, that's false. They can measure the presence of oxygen. Therefore if they aren't finding it when they have demonstrated clearly that they could find it if it were there, then they have demonstrated that it's not present.

However, if they have no way of detecting oxygen, then they can't say that it doesn't exist just because they can't measure it.

So not being able to measure something is not itself convincing. You first must be able to show clearly that you could measure it if it were present.

This may seem like a subtle argument, but that's my position. The biologists haven't convinced me that they could measure the affects that music might have on adaptive genetics so the mere fact that they can't measure it is totally meaningless to me. It's a weak and meaningless argument in that situation.

That's my position on that.

Music itself is not merely one thing. Nor would it produce a single effect. Therefore what would you even look for to determine if music were affecting adaptive genetics?

Music to one tribe might mean "Prepared for war". Music for another tribe might mean, "Worship the gods and prepare to marry a monogamous mate". Music to yet another tribe might signal that it's time to fire up another bamboo bowl of cannabis and pass the peace pipe around.

How could anyone claim to be able to measure (or not measure) such an ill-defined thing?

It's certainly not as simple as proclaiming that we can't detect oxygen in exhaust fumes, and therefore no oxygen must exist because we know we can measure it if it were present.

I'm just saying that these biologists and geneticists haven't convinced me that they can measure these things well enough to proclaim that since they can't measure them they must not exist.

So I hope I've succeeded in conveying to you the reasons why I'm not convinced of these kinds of claims. :tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls

Abracadabra said:


> Well, this is where we will have to agree to disagree then.
> 
> Especially in terms of readily accepting the position you've just described without questioning it in depth. I question these types of claims, and in doing so, I often find that they are without merit.
> 
> The problem I see has to do with being able to establish that something can be measured in a definite concrete way first. Only then does it make sense to proclaim that if you then can't measure it, it must not exist.


You and I agree about this. Papers that suggest something does not exist rely on the fact that the _thing itself_ could, in practice, be measured. All my papers did that, and every paper I've read along those lines goes to some length describing how such _things_ could be measured. As I said, papers along those lines are fairly common in some fields.



Abracadabra said:


> Where I see so many scientists failing is precisely on this point. They fail to first demonstrate that they "could" measure something if it did exist.


I have not seen "so many" scientists failing to demonstrate that point, but of course, I read papers in very few fields. I have very often seen non-experts dismissing theories because they do not understand what data exists, what data is possible, or how the data effect theories. Evolutionary biology is not my field, and I do not understand enough about the relationship between various data and adaptations. You may know much more than I. I certainly do not believe it is impossible to get data that would inform the status of music as a potential adaptation. On the other hand, I only know of a few interesting studies that show potentially interesting data.


----------



## Xavier

Re: original Pinker quote

I'd say it is an almost stereotypical example of asking the wrong questions and therefore getting the wrong answers, if any at all. It all seems rather circular to me; if you select beforehand what is of importance, then you are clearly going to disregard what does not conform to your earlier decision. No need to worry, though: I have no intention of becoming 'grumpy or righteously indignant'. The quotation and the ideas, such as they are, are simply not worth that expenditure of energy; pity, perhaps, but I shall leave that to others. 

It is strange, moreover, how 'godless scientists' and the more reactionary elements of, say, the Roman Catholic Church all seem utterly obsessed with reproduction, as if nothing else were of consequence. That is certainly not a point of view that has ever attracted, nor even occurred to me, and I am pretty sure that I could say the same of most other people I know, some of them a little more open-minded, cultured even, than Steven Pinker.


----------



## Abracadabra

mmsbls said:


> I have not seen "so many" scientists failing to demonstrate that point, but of course, I read papers in very few fields. I have very often seen non-experts dismissing theories because they do not understand what data exists, what data is possible, or how the data effect theories. Evolutionary biology is not my field, and I do not understand enough about the relationship between various data and adaptations. You may know much more than I. I certainly do not believe it is impossible to get data that would inform the status of music as a potential adaptation. On the other hand, I only know of a few interesting studies that show potentially interesting data.


Well, in truth, you probably have a really good point there. I'm probably over-reacting to the claims being made by many "non-experts".

It's wrong of me to say that "so many" scientists are failing to recognize these things. I confess to being guilty as charged on that one.

However, having said that I do have a particular bone to pick with some professional geneticists in particular. And perhaps this is why I've become so irate toward biologists in general.

If I may, I would like to explain what has me so upset. :devil:

I've watched video lectures, and documentaries where very respected geneticists (and other biologists) have made claims basically along the lines as follows:

"Our scientific understanding of life, physics, and the human condition, through our study of genetics and evolution has led us to the _scientifically sound conclusion_ that when we die we cease to exist. There simply is not scientific reason, evidence, or provision, for anything else to happen".

Ok, not all biologists and geneticists take this stance. But many do. And this basic philosophy is actually gaining momentum in the sciences, (especially in the fields of biology and genetics). The reason being simply because geneticists have firmly discovered that the human condition is truly nothing more than the result of physical information (i.e. DNA). Their purely secular view is that DNA gives rise to structure, structure gives rise to a brain, a brain gives rise to consciousness, and thus our very essence can be nothing other than this secular view of "information" giving rise to consciousness.

In short, there are actually quite many scientists who basically proclaim that science "supports" a purely secular view of life and that the very notion of anything beyond that is "unscientific" and has no merit whatsoever. They even go as far to suggest that it's actually "stupid" to believe in such nonsense.

Now, I'm not a religious person. In fact, I personally have extreme problems with religions that originated in the Middle East. But I am a spiritual person and I see a lot of wisdom in many of the Eastern Mystical philosophies.

I'm also well-educated in the sciences and I understand why the biologists and geneticists are "wrong". Not necessarily wrong in their ultimate conclusions (reality may indeed be non-spiritual and purely secular), but they are "wrong" in their conclusions that science has already pretty much sealed the deal. That is where they are wrong.

One of their strongest arguments against a 'spiritual' essence to life is simple "If such a thing existed we would have been able to measure or detect it by now. And since we can't measure it, it therefore must not exist." But actually according to physics that's a very poor argument that can't truly be supported via what is actually known in modern physics today.

For example, there are actually some biologist, neuroscientists, and "quantum information scientists" who have already recognized that cells in the human brain can function as quantum computers. Something that evolution has already created even though we haven't been able to design one yet ourselves.

How is this important? And how does it related back to the idea that if we can't measure it it must not exist?

Well, according to Quantum Mechanics, quantum computers can communicate over vast distances using quantum entanglement with basically no measurable exchange of radiation of physical particles of any kind.

What does this mean? Well it means that if our brains are connected to some external mind via these quantum computers that connection would indeed be undetectable by us no matter how we attempted to detect it.

In other words, just because we couldn't measure the exchange of information would not mean that the information is not being exchanged.

Then the biologists will say, "Well where would all these entangled particles come from and why wouldn't we be able to detect them?"

Well, according to modern physics there is far more "Dark Matter" in the universe than there is normal matter. In fact, this totally undetectable Dark Matter is believed to be most dense where galaxies form, etc. In other words, we are living in a bath of extremely dense Dark Matter which is entirely undetectable to us in any physical way that we are currently aware of "save for its gravitational affects".

Well, there's the answer of where these "entangled" particles could indeed reside and yet be totally undetectable (non-measurable). And for all we now it could be the nature of Dark Matter to be highly entangled in terms of quantum physics.

So there you go. There are sound scientific arguments that could be made for how, where, and why tons of information could exist all around us and even within our brains, and yet be totally undetectable by any scientific means that we are currently aware of. 

Ok, I'll grant you that this may seem "far-fetched". But that's beside the point. I'm not claiming that this proves that "consciousness may exist all around us", but I have shown why there could be scientific reasons why such "information" could both exist and be exchanged on a continual basis without us being able to detect it or measure it in any way.

So my point (the only point that I'm trying to make) is that just because we can't measure it, or detect it, doesn't mean that it's "non-scientific", or that it doesn't exist, or that it's "stupid" to consider it in light of what geneticists know about the evolution of DNA.

For all we know it could have been the "Cosmic Consciousness of Dark Matter" that brought and guided DNA into its evolutionary existence. 

I'm not saying that's what happened. But I am saying that it's simply wrong to believe that we could "rule it out" scientifically.

On the contrary, the truth is that we know very little about the true nature of reality. And the true nature of Dark matter. For all we know Dark Matter itself could be highly organized in structure and basically have consciousness.

Not only do things like quantum entanglement and dark matter potentially exist (places where information could be stored and exchanged beyond our ability to detect or measure), but modern physicists are even proposing extra hidden dimension of actual spacetime. They are proposing the possibility of multiple universes, that may even exist "right next door to ours" (i.e. basically existing in what we would consider the same place, but just in another dimension that we can't detect or measure).

There are even physicists who are proposing extra dimensions of time itself. There's lots of room for information to exist and be exchanged in ways that geneticists with their limited view of physical DNA aren't even coming close to considering.

So yes, I question some of their conclusions. 

And now you know why I become so irate. They are dismissing my Mystical Views of the universe in the name of science without sufficient evidence. :lol:

I'm just an irate spiritualist. You'll have to excuse me. :tiphat:


----------



## Abracadabra

Xavier said:


> It is strange, moreover, how 'godless scientists' and the more reactionary elements of, say, the Roman Catholic Church all seem utterly obsessed with reproduction, as if nothing else were of consequence.


That's a very good point. :cheers:


----------



## mmsbls

Xavier said:


> It is strange, moreover, how 'godless scientists' and the more reactionary elements of, say, the Roman Catholic Church all seem utterly obsessed with reproduction, as if nothing else were of consequence. That is certainly not a point of view that has ever attracted, nor even occurred to me, and I am pretty sure that I could say the same of most other people I know, some of them a little more open-minded, cultured even, than Steven Pinker.


I have worked with hundreds of scientists, most of whom were are non-religious (i.e I assume godless). None of them seemed remotely obsessed with reproduction. Of course, I've worked with physical scientists who have no special reason to be especially interested in reproduction. On the other hand, biologists do have a special reason to be interested - reproduction is one critical feature of organisms. Reproduction is even more critical to the study of evolution. I certainly hope they are more interested in reproduction than the rest of us (whether they are godless or not). Would you say it's strange that oceanographers are obsessed with water?


----------



## Xavier

@ Xavier



> Here's another thought-provoking quote by Pinker:
> 
> "In a gathering of today's elite, it is perfectly acceptable to laugh that you barely passed Physics for Poets and Rocks for Jocks and have remained ignorant of science ever since, despite the obvious importance of scientific literacy to informed choices about personal health and public policy. But saying that you have never heard of James Joyce or that you tried listening to Mozart once but prefer Andrew Lloyd Webber is as shocking as blowing your nose on your sleeve or announcing that you employ children in your sweatshop, despite the obvious *un*importance of your tastes in leisure-time activity to just about anything..."
> 
> -- from How The Mind Works


Nonsense, straightforwardly.

The ignorance of 'serious' music, call it what you will, even amongst people who claim to value the arts is staggering in our society. It is considered quite acceptable for visual art students, literary critics, et al., never to have heard a Mozart opera. And again, why should the prosaic world of 'informed choices about personal health' necessarily be elevated over imparting some value to whatever fraction of three scores year and ten we might happen to be allotted? Such words do not sound remotely thought-provoking to me, merely a tepid reheating of CP Snow.


----------



## Sid James

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Music is entertainment. People live for entertainment.


LIFE IS MUSIC, MUSIC IS LIFE...!!!

CoAg, this 'evidence' is from ancient times, before you where born. It proves what people are talking about here, the primordial aspect of music+tribalism=life. Now there's a formula for ya! :lol:


----------



## science

Abracadabra said:


> Well, in truth, you probably have a really good point there. I'm probably over-reacting to the claims being made by many "non-experts".
> 
> It's wrong of me to say that "so many" scientists are failing to recognize these things. I confess to being guilty as charged on that one.
> 
> However, having said that I do have a particular bone to pick with some professional geneticists in particular. And perhaps this is why I've become so irate toward biologists in general.
> 
> If I may, I would like to explain what has me so upset. :devil:
> 
> I've watched video lectures, and documentaries where very respected geneticists (and other biologists) have made claims basically along the lines as follows:
> 
> "Our scientific understanding of life, physics, and the human condition, through our study of genetics and evolution has led us to the _scientifically sound conclusion_ that when we die we cease to exist. There simply is not scientific reason, evidence, or provision, for anything else to happen".
> 
> Ok, not all biologists and geneticists take this stance. But many do. And this basic philosophy is actually gaining momentum in the sciences, (especially in the fields of biology and genetics). The reason being simply because geneticists have firmly discovered that the human condition is truly nothing more than the result of physical information (i.e. DNA). Their purely secular view is that DNA gives rise to structure, structure gives rise to a brain, a brain gives rise to consciousness, and thus our very essence can be nothing other than this secular view of "information" giving rise to consciousness.
> 
> In short, there are actually quite many scientists who basically proclaim that science "supports" a purely secular view of life and that the very notion of anything beyond that is "unscientific" and has no merit whatsoever. They even go as far to suggest that it's actually "stupid" to believe in such nonsense.
> 
> Now, I'm not a religious person. In fact, I personally have extreme problems with religions that originated in the Middle East. But I am a spiritual person and I see a lot of wisdom in many of the Eastern Mystical philosophies.
> 
> I'm also well-educated in the sciences and I understand why the biologists and geneticists are "wrong". Not necessarily wrong in their ultimate conclusions (reality may indeed be non-spiritual and purely secular), but they are "wrong" in their conclusions that science has already pretty much sealed the deal. That is where they are wrong.
> 
> One of their strongest arguments against a 'spiritual' essence to life is simple "If such a thing existed we would have been able to measure or detect it by now. And since we can't measure it, it therefore must not exist." But actually according to physics that's a very poor argument that can't truly be supported via what is actually known in modern physics today.
> 
> For example, there are actually some biologist, neuroscientists, and "quantum information scientists" who have already recognized that cells in the human brain can function as quantum computers. Something that evolution has already created even though we haven't been able to design one yet ourselves.
> 
> How is this important? And how does it related back to the idea that if we can't measure it it must not exist?
> 
> Well, according to Quantum Mechanics, quantum computers can communicate over vast distances using quantum entanglement with basically no measurable exchange of radiation of physical particles of any kind.
> 
> What does this mean? Well it means that if our brains are connected to some external mind via these quantum computers that connection would indeed be undetectable by us no matter how we attempted to detect it.
> 
> In other words, just because we couldn't measure the exchange of information would not mean that the information is not being exchanged.
> 
> Then the biologists will say, "Well where would all these entangled particles come from and why wouldn't we be able to detect them?"
> 
> Well, according to modern physics there is far more "Dark Matter" in the universe than there is normal matter. In fact, this totally undetectable Dark Matter is believed to be most dense where galaxies form, etc. In other words, we are living in a bath of extremely dense Dark Matter which is entirely undetectable to us in any physical way that we are currently aware of "save for its gravitational affects".
> 
> Well, there's the answer of where these "entangled" particles could indeed reside and yet be totally undetectable (non-measurable). And for all we now it could be the nature of Dark Matter to be highly entangled in terms of quantum physics.
> 
> So there you go. There are sound scientific arguments that could be made for how, where, and why tons of information could exist all around us and even within our brains, and yet be totally undetectable by any scientific means that we are currently aware of.
> 
> Ok, I'll grant you that this may seem "far-fetched". But that's beside the point. I'm not claiming that this proves that "consciousness may exist all around us", but I have shown why there could be scientific reasons why such "information" could both exist and be exchanged on a continual basis without us being able to detect it or measure it in any way.
> 
> So my point (the only point that I'm trying to make) is that just because we can't measure it, or detect it, doesn't mean that it's "non-scientific", or that it doesn't exist, or that it's "stupid" to consider it in light of what geneticists know about the evolution of DNA.
> 
> For all we know it could have been the "Cosmic Consciousness of Dark Matter" that brought and guided DNA into its evolutionary existence.
> 
> I'm not saying that's what happened. But I am saying that it's simply wrong to believe that we could "rule it out" scientifically.
> 
> On the contrary, the truth is that we know very little about the true nature of reality. And the true nature of Dark matter. For all we know Dark Matter itself could be highly organized in structure and basically have consciousness.
> 
> Not only do things like quantum entanglement and dark matter potentially exist (places where information could be stored and exchanged beyond our ability to detect or measure), but modern physicists are even proposing extra hidden dimension of actual spacetime. They are proposing the possibility of multiple universes, that may even exist "right next door to ours" (i.e. basically existing in what we would consider the same place, but just in another dimension that we can't detect or measure).
> 
> There are even physicists who are proposing extra dimensions of time itself. There's lots of room for information to exist and be exchanged in ways that geneticists with their limited view of physical DNA aren't even coming close to considering.
> 
> So yes, I question some of their conclusions.
> 
> And now you know why I become so irate. They are dismissing my Mystical Views of the universe in the name of science without sufficient evidence. :lol:
> 
> I'm just an irate spiritualist. You'll have to excuse me. :tiphat:


I wouldn't want to "dismiss" anything unfairly, but given the superabundance of claims that are made by people seeking control over me, I figure I'd better remain as skeptical as I can. Better to dismiss some spirituality prematurely, I figure, than to surrender my intellectual and moral judgement prematurely.

But now we are very far from the discussion. The issue is that the human brain like our other organs is a product of evolution. Just as we can ask what the conditions were that led to our glands' abilities to secrete various hormones, we can ask what conditions led our brains to appreciate music. We don't necessarily have to show the whole process from DNA to embryological development to neurological structure and function to an appreciation for polyphony. Anyway the question isn't why some people like rap and others like smooth jazz, but why people in general are interested in rhythm and melody.

No matter what the answers turn out to be - sadly, I think this probably needs explicit affirmation - they cannot possibly take anything away from our enjoyment of music.


----------



## science

Xavier said:


> @ Xavier
> 
> Nonsense, straightforwardly.
> 
> The ignorance of 'serious' music, call it what you will, even amongst people who claim to value the arts is staggering in our society. It is considered quite acceptable for visual art students, literary critics, et al., never to have heard a Mozart opera. And again, why should the prosaic world of 'informed choices about personal health' necessarily be elevated over imparting some value to whatever fraction of three scores year and ten we might happen to be allotted? Such words do not sound remotely thought-provoking to me, merely a tepid reheating of CP Snow.


I can't disagree with him. If I start a thread here expressing a preference for Webber's music over Mozart's, I would be flamed off the site. We can hardly even admit to enjoying Strauss' waltzes here. My experience among elite company is not much different: you don't need to know much about Shakespeare, Michelangelo, or Bach, but you'd better agree that they're better than Dan Brown, Thomas Kinkade, or Kenny G.


----------



## Xavier

> "In a gathering of today's elite, it is perfectly acceptable to laugh that you barely passed Physics for Poets and Rocks for Jocks and have remained ignorant of science ever since, despite the obvious importance of scientific literacy to informed choices about personal health and public policy. But saying that you have never heard of James Joyce or that you tried listening to Mozart once but prefer Andrew Lloyd Webber is as shocking as blowing your nose on your sleeve or announcing that you employ children in your sweatshop, despite the obvious unimportance of your tastes in leisure-time activity to just about anything"


I think the point made here by Pinker is quite reasonable, *Xavier*

Public policy is a matter of earth-shattering importance, when one considers that the average life expectancy in Zimbabwe is 40 and a baby born in Afghanistan has a greater than 10% chance of dying before it reaches the age of 1. In other words, "we happen to be allotted" sounds very deterministic: in fact, human policy decisions have great power to influence life expectancy etc so we should not see these matters as being questions of "allottment" by some higher power but rather as being ones in which individual and social choices have huge significance.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

Music is only as useless as life itself.


----------



## Abracadabra

science said:


> I wouldn't want to "dismiss" anything unfairly, but given the superabundance of claims that are made by people seeking control over me, I figure I'd better remain as skeptical as I can. Better to dismiss some spirituality prematurely, I figure, than to surrender my intellectual and moral judgement prematurely.


I absolutely agree with you on that. :tiphat:

I wasn't suggesting that anyone should actually _embrace_ a spiritual view of the world. I was just arguing that to teach people that it has been scientifically ruled out is wrong. Specifically because that's simply not true based on everything we currently know (and know that we don't yet know). 

But yes, you're absolutely right. There isn't any scientific reason to draw conclusions one way or the other based on what we currently know. I agree.



science said:


> But now we are very far from the discussion. The issue is that the human brain like our other organs is a product of evolution. Just as we can ask what the conditions were that led to our glands' abilities to secrete various hormones, we can ask what conditions led our brains to appreciate music. We don't necessarily have to show the whole process from DNA to embryological development to neurological structure and function to an appreciation for polyphony. Anyway the question isn't why some people like rap and others like smooth jazz, but why people in general are interested in rhythm and melody.


Well, I'm not so sure that we are all that far from the discussion.

You say, "The issue is that the human brain like our other organs is a product of evolution." But that is a purely secular view that may not ultimately be truth. That's the assumption that may potentially be incorrect. Especially if there is any truth to the fact that it has evolved to the point where it can indeed act as a "quantum computer". If that's true (and I'm not saying that it is), but if it is true, then the brain my have actually evolved to become something more than merely the product of evolution. By that, I simply mean that if it does have quantum computing power, at that point other things could influence in addition to how it had evolved up to that point. And that could be true, even without a concept of "spirituality".



> No matter what the answers turn out to be - sadly, I think this probably needs explicit affirmation - they cannot possibly take anything away from our enjoyment of music.


That's an interesting point right there. If music does indeed have an affect of causing some people to "enjoy life", then one could argue that without music they might not enjoy life. And if they aren't enjoying it they might not have as much passion and determination to live and procreate, etc.

So actually if you can prove that music adds to the enjoyment of life (and your own experience in that can serve as your proof), then you have sufficient reason to argue that music can contribute to a desire to live and procreate. 

So you've given a good argument why, for you at least, music may very well have an influence on adaptive genetics.

~~~~

Another question I would have for people like Pinker is "Who cares anyway?"

As others have already pointed out, adaptive genetics is no longer in effect anyway. In other words, the process of evolution by natural selection is over in our modern technological times anyway. People who would have naturally died are being kept alive to procreate via medicine and technology. People who can't naturally procreate are being helped to procreate via modern technology.

The very concept of "adaptive genetics" would no longer be in affect anyway. Our technological intervention has totally disrupted the principle of "adaptive genetics" (evolution by natural selection). Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is anyone's guess, but clearly it's a true thing.

So whether music could have an affect on "adaptive genetics" wouldn't apply to us in today's modern world anyway. We are no longer evolving by _natural selection_, we are now evolving by _technological intervention_. :tiphat:


----------



## science

Abracadabra said:


> I absolutely agree with you on that. :tiphat:
> 
> I wasn't suggesting that anyone should actually _embrace_ a spiritual view of the world. I was just arguing that to teach people that it has been scientifically ruled out is wrong. Specifically because that's simply not true based on everything we currently know (and know that we don't yet know).
> 
> But yes, you're absolutely right. There isn't any scientific reason to draw conclusions one way or the other based on what we currently know. I agree.
> 
> Well, I'm not so sure that we are all that far from the discussion.
> 
> You say, "The issue is that the human brain like our other organs is a product of evolution." But that is a purely secular view that may not ultimately be truth. That's the assumption that may potentially be incorrect. Especially if there is any truth to the fact that it has evolved to the point where it can indeed act as a "quantum computer". If that's true (and I'm not saying that it is), but if it is true, then the brain my have actually evolved to become something more than merely the product of evolution. By that, I simply mean that if it does have quantum computing power, at that point other things could influence in addition to how it had evolved up to that point. And that could be true, even without a concept of "spirituality".
> 
> That's an interesting point right there. If music does indeed have an affect of causing some people to "enjoy life", then one could argue that without music they might not enjoy life. And if they aren't enjoying it they might not have as much passion and determination to live and procreate, etc.
> 
> So actually if you can prove that music adds to the enjoyment of life (and your own experience in that can serve as your proof), then you have sufficient reason to argue that music can contribute to a desire to live and procreate.
> 
> So you've given a good argument why, for you at least, music may very well have an influence on adaptive genetics.
> 
> ~~~~
> 
> Another question I would have for people like Pinker is "Who cares anyway?"
> 
> As others have already pointed out, adaptive genetics is no longer in effect anyway. In other words, the process of evolution by natural selection is over in our modern technological times anyway. People who would have naturally died are being kept alive to procreate via medicine and technology. People who can't naturally procreate are being helped to procreate via modern technology.
> 
> The very concept of "adaptive genetics" would no longer be in affect anyway. Our technological intervention has totally disrupted the principle of "adaptive genetics" (evolution by natural selection). Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is anyone's guess, but clearly it's a true thing.
> 
> So whether music could have an affect on "adaptive genetics" wouldn't apply to us in today's modern world anyway. We are no longer evolving by _natural selection_, we are now evolving by _technological intervention_. :tiphat:


Starting from "who cares?" - I do! It's fun to learn stuff, and if we can figure out something like why we've evolved musical behavior, that would be fascinating, wonderful stuff.

I don't think the idea that we've evolved is an assumption. It's hard to describe the abundance of evidence for evolution, and there is no reason (disallowing special pleading) to propose that out of all of biology one organ is an exception. But then, the sentence "the brain my have actually evolved to become something more than merely the product of evolution" doesn't make any sense to me, so it's possible we're using words differently, misunderstanding each other. I'm not sure how quantum computing power (or modern technology) would put an end to differential reproduction, and implicitly that means selection of some sort (whether to call it "natural" might in some cases be a semantic distraction), and that means evolution.


----------



## PetrB

Q: Is Music Useless?

A: Sure.


----------



## Arsakes

Q: Are Music and Arts, History, Philosophy and Literature Useless?

A: (In the idiots' point of view) Yes.


----------



## mmsbls

Abracadabra said:


> You say, "The issue is that the human brain like our other organs is a product of evolution." But that is a purely secular view that may not ultimately be truth. That's the assumption that may potentially be incorrect. Especially if there is any truth to the fact that it has evolved to the point where it can indeed act as a "quantum computer". If that's true (and I'm not saying that it is), but if it is true, then the brain my have actually evolved to become something more than merely the product of evolution. By that, I simply mean that if it does have quantum computing power, at that point other things could influence in addition to how it had evolved up to that point.


I'm not sure what it means for something to evolve to become more than the product of evolution. Something can change to be more than the product of evolution (e.g. artificial limbs), but how can something evolve to be more than the product of evolution? If a physical trait is governed at least in part by genes, variation in those genes along with selection can influence further evolution. Whether the brain can act as a quantum computer or just a conventional computational device, natural selection from whatever influences the brain and its effect on reproduction can act to change gene frequencies that influence the development of the brain.



Abracadabra said:


> Another question I would have for people like Pinker is "Who cares anyway?"
> 
> As others have already pointed out, adaptive genetics is no longer in effect anyway. In other words, the process of evolution by natural selection is over in our modern technological times anyway.


I think Pinker and others are not concerned here with the present evolution of the brain's music ability but rather the origin of this ability tens of thousands of years ago. I would say that scientists and others intensely curious about reality tend to care about how reality came to be as it is. I certainly do.


----------



## Hesoos

For me music is vital. One day without music and I feel nervous and sick.


----------



## Abracadabra

science said:


> Starting from "who cares?" - I do! It's fun to learn stuff, and if we can figure out something like why we've evolved musical behavior, that would be fascinating, wonderful stuff.


I think you're missing the point. In fact, based on Pinker's conclusions we had no evolutionary reason to evolve musical behavior. So, if that's true, then we haven't learned anything about why such behavior came to be. At least not from Pinker's studies from the perspective of adaptive genetics.

However, there are many theories that music actually came to be from a mere need to communicate and express our feelings. I've read arguments that babies actually use "musical concepts" in the way they attempt to gain attention via melodic expression, because prior to having actually learned language they cannot yet express themselves lyrically.

I guess for me it just doesn't seem to be all that big of a mystery. Music to me, appears to be nothing more than a natural extension of our already obvious abilities to make sounds and intentionally manipulate them for the purpose of communication. In other words, all music amounts to is a playful and artistic way of using our natural abilities.

So on the contrary, what would truly be an extreme mystery to me if we had never explored or used those obvious natural abilities. Even birds "sing" melodically. Are they doing that intentionally, or is it just a result of what they have available to use?

For me no explanation is required to explain why music exists. Just the opposite would be true. If it didn't exist, now that would be a mystery that needed to be explained, IMHO.



> I don't think the idea that we've evolved is an assumption. It's hard to describe the abundance of evidence for evolution, and there is no reason (disallowing special pleading) to propose that out of all of biology one organ is an exception.


I never meant to suggest that it was. I'm totally convinced that we have indeed evolved from slim, and that we are basically nothing more than sophisticated primates. I'm totally in acceptance of all of that.



> But then, the sentence "the brain my have actually evolved to become something more than merely the product of evolution" doesn't make any sense to me, so it's possible we're using words differently, misunderstanding each other.


Yes, I'm certain that you are not fully understanding my position for sure. 



> I'm not sure how quantum computing power (or modern technology) would put an end to differential reproduction, and implicitly that means selection of some sort (whether to call it "natural" might in some cases be a semantic distraction), and that means evolution.


I never said that selection of some sort was no longer in effect. But I think it should be clear that if modern technology is being used to override "natural selection" then the concept of "Adaptive Genetics" is no longer going to hold at least not within the context of how it is postulated to work in standard biological theories.

I hardly think that "Engineered Genetics" would be the same concept as "Adaptive Genetics". And although we're not quite into engineered genetics yet, even to help people live and procreate who otherwise "naturally" couldn't, then how could that be called "natural"?

In biology the term "Natural" selection is actually used to mean that the genes are naturally adapting to the environment because they are being selected by that environment based on whether or not they can "naturally" survive in that environment.

So if you now have a species that being technologically manipulated to survive when they wouldn't "naturally" survive because of their own "Adaptation" to the environment, then how could they be considered, "Adaptive Genetics"?

So it's more than just a choice of personal subjective semantics. In biology the term "Natural" means something very specific, especially when referencing a concepts like "Adaptive Genetics". External interventions that interrupt the natural adaptation of genes would blow that theory to smithereens, and it would no longer be a meaningful theory.

Note: I'll address the concept of "evolving to become something more than the product of evolution" in my response to mmlbls since he addresses that same issue.


----------



## Abracadabra

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what it means for something to evolve to become more than the product of evolution. Something can change to be more than the product of evolution (e.g. artificial limbs), but how can something evolve to be more than the product of evolution? If a physical trait is governed at least in part by genes, variation in those genes along with selection can influence further evolution.


Yes, I see what you are saying, and I confess that I'm going far beyond those limitations.

Current biological "evolution" assumes that the evolution of DNA itself is the sole mechanism at work. In other words, the only thing that is actually evolving is DNA.

It's come to my attention that other things can evolve beyond that. But I confess that this is truly cutting-edge theories. At least as cutting edge as "string theory" is in physics. So it's no surprise that people aren't prepared to understand where I'm coming from.

I'll try to explain a little bit better by bouncing off your next comment.



> Whether the brain can act as a quantum computer or just a conventional computational device, natural selection from whatever influences the brain and its effect on reproduction can act to change gene frequencies that influence the development of the brain.


Yes, that's true. The role that DNA plays in the evolution of our species and all other species on planet earth is never going to be diminished, and it will continue to play a significant role as long as DNA exist. So I agree that this is a given.

However, you say, "Whether the brain can act as a quantum computer or just a conventional computational device,..."

This sentence leads me to believe that you most likely are not aware of the special powers that quantum computers may potentially be capable of. A quantum computer is not merely a "fast" conventional computer, nor is it merely an extremely "small" conventional computer. A quantum computer is actually a different kind of computer entirely capable of performing "non-classical tasks". And it is this feature that opens up a potential for truly amazing and awesome possibilities. Possibilities that seem every bit as bizarre to us as parallel universes, and hidden dimensions and "spooky action at a distance", etc.

What this does (or has the theoretical capability of doing) is to opening new doors to possible links and effects that go far beyond the conventional affect of mundane classical physics. In short, what I'm actually saying is that evolution based "solely on the structure of DNA" may have actually evolved to become something that depends on things beyond the physical DNA. And that dependency can be made possible via this "quantum computing connection".

So in that sense the evolution of our brains may have evolved beyond the mere evolution of DNA and now has become entangled with other aspects of the universe with which it is currently evolving.

So in short, the overall cosmic evolution may not be as mundane and limited as the biologists have come to believe. They are assuming that it's limited to the evolution of physical DNA. Period. But that may be a mistaken limitation. That's what I'm saying. 



> I think Pinker and others are not concerned here with the present evolution of the brain's music ability but rather the origin of this ability tens of thousands of years ago. I would say that scientists and others intensely curious about reality tend to care about how reality came to be as it is. I certainly do.


Well, in that case isn't Pinker merely saying, 'Music wasn't driven by a need to survive?"

In other words, he's basically saying that he can't find any evidence that the evolution of genetics or DNA was affected in any way by the existence of music. At least not in humans.

But what about the birds?

Birds sing melodies specifically to attract mates to procreate with. Surely even Pinker would have to conclude that music played a very large role in the adaptive genetics of the birds.

So maybe music is for the birds?

And not for humans after all. :lol:

~~~~


----------



## science

Abracadabra said:


> Well, in that case isn't Pinker merely saying, 'Music wasn't driven by a need to survive?"


Yes, he was saying that.

On other points, I feel we're too far apart to communicate successfully. I cannot understand your idea that if the brain were a quantum computer then its development and behavior are no longer subject to selection (and I still don't see what difference it makes whether the selection is natural, artificial, or otherwise - though even if our brains are quantum computers it seems like "natural" would have been the correct description until recently). I think mmsbls and I see eye to eye on this, or close enough, and he can express himself at least as well, and knows more about all of this than I do, so I'll bow out.


----------



## mmsbls

I basically agree with member science on these issues. I do find it difficult to understand much of what you say here because so much seems shrouded in mystery rather than explicitly described. We simply may view the world in such different ways that discussion is not easy (as member science suggests).



Abracadabra said:


> Current biological "evolution" assumes that the evolution of DNA itself is the sole mechanism at work. In other words, the only thing that is actually evolving is DNA.
> 
> It's come to my attention that other things can evolve beyond that.


Replicators evolve in the presence of environmental selection. DNA are the replicators of biological species. You mention other things evolving but never say what those things are.



Abracadabra said:


> However, you say, "Whether the brain can act as a quantum computer or just a conventional computational device,..."
> 
> This sentence leads me to believe that you most likely are not aware of the special powers that quantum computers may potentially be capable of. A quantum computer is not merely a "fast" conventional computer, nor is it merely an extremely "small" conventional computer. A quantum computer is actually a different kind of computer entirely capable of performing "non-classical tasks". And it is this feature that opens up a potential for truly amazing and awesome possibilities. Possibilities that seem every bit as bizarre to us as parallel universes, and hidden dimensions and "spooky action at a distance", etc.


The term "special powers" is rather vague. Do the printing press, cars, and TVs have special powers? Both quantum and conventional computers are tools that obey natural laws. They have different properties, and both have "amazing" properties by most people's standards. Quantum physics is non-intuitive, but so is much physics (even old physics) such as the direction of the torque vector, fields such as the electric field, virtual particles that carry the various forces, time dilation in relativity, etc. These are all properties of reality that physicists learn and use in calculations or in design of tools. You may view a quantum computer brain as bizarre or awesome, but it would be a phenotypic trait like any other. Why so much mystery?



Abracadabra said:


> Well, in that case isn't Pinker merely saying, 'Music wasn't driven by a need to survive?"
> 
> In other words, he's basically saying that he can't find any evidence that the evolution of genetics or DNA was affected in any way by the existence of music. At least not in humans.
> 
> But what about the birds?
> 
> Birds sing melodies specifically to attract mates to procreate with. Surely even Pinker would have to conclude that music played a very large role in the adaptive genetics of the birds.


As member science stated, you have correctly described Pinker's view. Elsewhere in this thread you have suggested that scientists should not even consider whether music can be an adaptive trait.



Abracadabra said:


> The idea that "Music" can even be concrete related to "Genes" in some absolute definite way is, IMHO, utterly absurd. And if it can't even be concretely related to "genes", then it's even more absurd to proclaim that is could be classified as be associated with an "Adaptive Trait".


Yet above you state that Pinker ought to believe just that. Humans may be more complex than birds, but if music can be an adaptive trait in birds, scientists should consider whether it is an adaptive trait in humans as well.


----------



## Tero

I have not followed the discussion completely. But basically your
ability to process music must be related to something physical.
Behavior can be inherited. Not all of what you inherit is in the DNA
itself but in the way the proteins produced by DNA interact. Though
coded, they have alifr of their own beyond DNA.

I gess it is a bit of a scary thought to some that your feelings are
some sort of molecular activity in neurons.


----------



## kv466

I can make one fair assessment: Music is far more useful than this thread is.


----------



## Abracadabra

mmsbls said:


> Yet above you state that Pinker ought to believe just that. Humans may be more complex than birds, but if music can be an adaptive trait in birds, scientists should consider whether it is an adaptive trait in humans as well.


It's precisely because humans are more complex than birds.

Birds singing to attract mates is pretty simplistic and easy to recognize, because birds really can't do much else except perhaps dance (which clearly they also do to attract a mate). The mere fact that these clearly do these things to attract a mate is what makes it so simple.

We can even observe birds and see that they only perform such dances or songs when they are convinced that a mate is within range to see or hear them.

Humans on the other hand are far more complex creatures. We may use song and dance to attract a mate (in fact we know for sure that people do this), however, humans may also sing or dance just for the pure enjoyment of singing or dancing. Therefore it becomes far more difficult (or even impossible) to say whether they are singing and dancing to attract a mate or whether they are just doing it for the mere enjoyment of the act.

Moreover, how far does one take this concept of "Adaptive genetics"? If driving an expensive sports car give you an advantage to procreate over driving a mundane sedan, then does owning an expensive sports car play a role in adaptive genetics?

The problem with trying to keep up this idea of "Adaptive Genetics" in humans becomes nonsense after a certain point. It makes perfect sense on very "Low Levels" of biology where a particular culture survives because they had genes to resist a disease and another culture didn't, etc. But taking it to extremes like "Does music have a measurable affect on Adaptive Genetics in humans" is just pushing the concept too far.

This is what I mean about some scientists getting carried away with things. That's why I gave the math example of giving a person two numbers like 12 and 3 and asking them to multiply them together and they hand you back an answer like 36.000000000000000001.

It's just ridiculous. They're trying to carry out the idea of multiplication beyond the scope of what they have to work with. They're taking an intellectual idea beyond it's useful range.



mmsbls said:


> You mention other things evolving but never say what those things are.


You're right, this is not the place to discuss such things. I'm addressing cutting edge ideas that have to do with quantum information and quantum computing and I can't really expect people on a classical music forum to be on top of that type of cutting edge science. So I apologize for even bringing that up. This is not the venue to try to discuss such things.


----------



## Philip

Quantum physics is simple. 

Unfortunately, people like to fantasize about it.


----------



## Abracadabra

Philip said:


> Quantum physics is simple.


I agree, there are really only a very small handful of laws that basically govern all of quantum behavior.

The only significant thing to understand is that quantum computers operate via update rule #1 whilst classical computers operate via update rule #2.

And that really should be all that needs to be said to anyone who understands quantum physics. From that they should immediately understand the profound significance of the discovery that our brains are capable of performing as quantum computers.

:tiphat:


----------



## Romantic Geek

mmsbls said:


> @Abracadabra: I'm confused by your position. You certainly seem to believe that Pinker is wrong and doing bad science. But Pinker's view is simply that music is not an evolutionary adaptive trait. As best I can tell, you agree with that. *So do you think that music did evolve as an adaptive trait through natural selection or do you agree with Pinker that it did not?*


Sorry, I'm a little late to this conversation. But let me just tell you how ridiculous this post is.

Do you think shovel evolved as an adaptive trait? Do you think bows and arrows evolved as an adaptive trait? I'm guessing your answer is no because shovel and bows and arrows are not part of a human. Music is not part of a human like an ear or a thumb. Music is the byproduct of the ability to intuit music which concerns the ability to intuit sound, and THAT is what is at stake.

So the answer to your question, is the ability to intuit music an evolutionary trait? If you think speech is, then yes. If you don't think speech is evolutionary, no. As far as I'm concerned, most living mammals have the ability to intuit sound and thus for me, as long as we've been known as _homo sapiens_, yes I do believe we have always had the ability to intuit music.


----------



## mmsbls

Romantic Geek said:


> Sorry, I'm a little late to this conversation. But let me just tell you how ridiculous this post is.
> 
> Do you think shovel evolved as an adaptive trait? Do you think bows and arrows evolved as an adaptive trait? I'm guessing your answer is no because shovel and bows and arrows are not part of a human. Music is not part of a human like an ear or a thumb. Music is the byproduct of the ability to intuit music which concerns the ability to intuit sound, and THAT is what is at stake.


I know coming late to a thread can be difficult. You are correct that music itself is not the trait we are considering. My earlier post discussed that:



mmsbls said:


> The question is whether there were mutations or other modifications in hominid genetic material that gave rise to physical features in the brain that enabled music ability _and did that ability_ cause those early individuals to produce more offspring.


We have used a verbal shortcut in discussing that trait.



Romantic Geek said:


> So the answer to your question, is the ability to intuit music an evolutionary trait? If you think speech is, then yes. If you don't think speech is evolutionary, no. As far as I'm concerned, most living mammals have the ability to intuit sound and thus for me, as long as we've been known as _homo sapiens_, yes I do believe we have always had the ability to intuit music.


Some evolutionary psychologists believe that language is an adaptive trait; others do not. In particular Pinker believes that language _is_ an adaptive trait, but he believes that music _is not_ an adaptive trait. It's not obvious to me (or others) that if one is evolutionarily adaptive then the other is as well. In my opinion both questions seem rather difficult to answer definitively at this time.


----------



## Romantic Geek

mmsbls said:


> We have used a verbal shortcut in discussing that trait.


Maybe I'm being too philosophical (but hey, that's what I'm getting my degree in  ), but even in the circumstance I've highlighted, the verbal shortcut doesn't apply. We don't music. We don't have music. I know what you're getting at, but from what I was seeing here, people were for the most part not understanding this shortcut or misunderstanding it.



> Some evolutionary psychologists believe that language is an adaptive trait; others do not. In particular Pinker believes that language _is_ an adaptive trait, but he believes that music _is not_ an adaptive trait. It's not obvious to me (or others) that if one is evolutionarily adaptive then the other is as well. In my opinion both questions seem rather difficult to answer definitively at this time.


I'm not sure how you can say language is adaptive and music is not when there is a lot of evidence that the two are very much related to each other. In fact, most early languages were very tonal.


----------



## Abracadabra

Romantic Geek said:


> I'm not sure how you can say language is adaptive and music is not when there is a lot of evidence that the two are very much related to each other. In fact, most early languages were very tonal.


Truly. In fact, I've hear several music scholars suggest that the vocal utterings of pre-lingual babies as actually being a "musical" attempt to communicate with their mothers. Their argument being that "music is innate in all of us".

Of course those are just opinions, but still many musical scholars feel that this is a strong argument that music is innate in all humans.

I would also suggest that the very concept of "music" is rather subjective, and precisely where language leaves off and music begins is not a ridge line. In fact, it may be an entirely arbitrary line in terms of physics and nature.

This is what I was saying about these biological "scientists" claiming to be able to measure things that can't even be clearly quantified. How can you measure something when you don't even have definition for it that can be that concrete.

How could language be considered adaptive and music not when the difference between the two is almost entirely subjective?


----------



## mmsbls

Romantic Geek said:


> We don't music. We don't have music. I know what you're getting at, but from what I was seeing here, people were for the most part not understanding this shortcut or misunderstanding it.


Yes, I agree. Evolution is much more complicated than many think.



Romantic Geek said:


> I'm not sure how you can say language is adaptive and music is not when there is a lot of evidence that the two are very much related to each other. In fact, most early languages were very tonal.


I earlier indicated that I think this question is over our heads here at TC. I certainly do not have a strong view on the question. Still, it's fun to think a bit about these issues.


----------



## mmsbls

Philip said:


> Quantum physics is simple.





Abracadabra said:


> I agree, there are really only a very small handful of laws that basically govern all of quantum behavior.


Well, come on. None of my colleagues who have spent years studying quantum physics would say that it's simple. Even Feynman famously said, "Anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics, does not understand quantum mechanics."


----------



## Philip

I said quantum physics, not quantum mechanics.


----------



## Abracadabra

mmsbls said:


> Well, come on. None of my colleagues who have spent years studying quantum physics would say that it's simple. Even Feynman famously said, "Anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics, does not understand quantum mechanics."


Perhaps you misunderstood what Dr. Feynman meant?

Richard Feynman didn't win his Nobel prize in Quantum Electrodynamics because he "Didn't understand quantum mechanics". Clearly he understood it very well.

What you need to realize is that there are two different ways of "understanding" quantum mechanics.

One way is to understand the mathematical rules and descriptions. That is what Dr. Feynman understood. I too understand the mathematics of quantum mechanics.

The other way is to "understand" it intuitively. And that is something that no one has yet been able to do exactly. Except possibly David Bohm (or even Niels Bohr), that all depends on what you accept as "understanding".

In fact, even proponents of the "Many Worlds" interpretation of QM claim to "understand it". But their "understanding" of it requires that you "understand" how the universe can continually split into infinitely many parallel universes every nanosecond or faster. :lol:

Is that truly an intuitive understanding?

David Bohm claims to "understand" QM through an idea of non-local "hidden variables" (not Einstein's Hidden Variables that were local).

But is a picture of a "non-local" universe truly intuitive?

Niels Bohr claimed to "understand" QM intuitively through an abstract idea of complementarity and he was even happy with the idea of "Complementarity-at-a-distance" to embrace quantum entanglement. But is that truly an "intuitive understanding", or just an abstract idea that can't truly be intuitively understood?

One thing all of these men understood was the mathematical formalism of "Quantum Mechanics".

And that's all I claim to understand. And it is indeed "simple" at its core. It only becomes complex when you try to mathematically apply it to complex systems of quantum particles interacting with each other. 

But that's not required to understand the core of the theory.

I can certainly say that I understand "Quantum Mechanics" (i.e. the mathematical description) well enough to recognize the profound difference between what a Classical computer can do and what a Quantum computer can do. The difference is profound mathematically speaking.

Do I "intuitively understand" how a quantum computer works? Well, yes and no. I understand it _intuitively_ in terms of David Bohm's non-local hidden variables model. But can anyone truly understand "non-locality" _intuitively_? I don't think so. At least no better than I can imagine a 4-dimensional cube.

But then again, I have a pretty good idea of what a 4-dimensional cube might be like too. But I confess it's not truly "intuitive". Even though I've worked with the concept of 4-dimensional cubes quite a bit in mathematics, I can't say that I can truly wrap my mind around one "fully" in an intuitive sense. 

But I can understand the mathematical description of it.

And in a similar manner I can understand the mathematical description of QM. Just as Dr. Feynman obviously did. Only I'm quite sure that his ability to work out complex quantum systems in detail far exceeded mine.


----------



## Philip

Hey hey. This conversation is getting is a little too nit-picky for my taste... Let's just say that if we are here wasting our time on the internet, regardless of our understanding of QM, it's obviously not because we're working on the latest breakthrough in the field of physics. Let's cease stroking our massive egos for a minute.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Abracadabra said:


> Truly. In fact, I've hear several music scholars suggest that the vocal utterings of pre-lingual babies as actually being a "musical" attempt to communicate with their mothers. Their argument being that "music is innate in all of us".
> 
> Of course those are just opinions, but still many musical scholars feel that this is a strong argument that music is innate in all humans.
> 
> I would also suggest that the very concept of "music" is rather subjective, and precisely where language leaves off and music begins is not a ridge line. In fact, it may be an entirely arbitrary line in terms of physics and nature.
> 
> This is what I was saying about these biological "scientists" claiming to be able to measure things that can't even be clearly quantified. How can you measure something when you don't even have definition for it that can be that concrete.
> 
> How could language be considered adaptive and music not when the difference between the two is almost entirely subjective?


It's not just music scholars. Linguists are also a big advocate of this.

I don't think it's that subjective. There is a lot of scientific data in the worlds of music cognition and cognitive science that suggest this is not as subjective as one may seem.


----------



## Abracadabra

Philip said:


> Hey hey. This conversation is getting is a little too nit-picky for my taste... Let's just say that if we are here wasting our time on the internet, regardless of our understanding of QM, it's obviously not because we're working on the latest breakthrough in the field of physics. Let's cease stroking our massive egos for a minute.


Who said anything about "working" on a theory? I'm just a retired physicist who happens to be "following" these things as a hobby. I'm not claiming to have made any breakthroughs or to be "working" on anything. Although I confess that every once in a while I do get the urge to jump back into the game. 

In fact this information is available even on some common TV series. There are several episodes of "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman that touch on some of this stuff. Although I confess that most of my knowledge and understanding comes from watching video lectures and books that most non-physicists don't watch or read. But still, hints of this research are out there in shows like "Through the Wormhole" and others. So the general ideas are readily available to non-physicists. But those kinds of shows aren't going to explain in detail how advances in the study of quantum information and quantum computing fit in. So if it's not your hobby (or career) to follow these things chances are you're not going to know much about them. What would that have to do with "ego", we can't all follow everything.

If you think that I'm claiming to be making these breakthroughs myself you have totally misunderstood my posts. I never meant to imply that these are "my theories". Of course, just as anyone who is knowledgeable about any cutting-edge theories I obviously have my own personal opinions of which theories appear to me to have more merit than others. That should be understandable.


----------



## Philip

Abracadabra said:


> Although I confess that most of my knowledge and understanding comes from watching video lectures and books that most non-physicists don't watch or read.


Exactly.



Abracadabra said:


> If you think that I'm claiming to be making these breakthroughs myself you have totally misunderstood my posts. I never meant to imply that these are "my theories".


That honestly never occurred to me.


----------



## Min

*music=sounds=nothing*



Moira said:


> No, music is not useless on a purely biological level.
> 
> It brings pleasure which affect our hormonal systems, inclines one towards dance, or at least movement, and thus promotes health and well-being.


I think Pinker must be tripping himself up over the fact that music does not, in itself, *constitute* the production of anything that's biologically "useful". At least sex has the natural potential to produce offspring, and hunting has the natural potential to produce a meal. Music, in itself, has no potential to produce any kind of material or bio-material...um, stuff.

Also, I suspect that Pinker has little or no kinesthetic-sensible response to music, which would go a very long way to explaining why he views music as biologically useless.


----------



## 38157

I used to have this debate with myself in my mind when I decided I'd like to pursue a career in music - I'd think to myself "composers and performers work as hard as anyone, but they produce nothing to eat, drink or wear. Why do I want to do it? Is it a genuine contribution to society?" To answer that last question, I think that yes, it is a genuine contribution. First you must come to terms with that all musicians/composers are mere clowns and their work is entertainment. Some entertainment is quite specialist to appeal to a smaller audience, but nonetheless, art is first and foremost supposed to be entertaining to _someone_ in _some way_. Entertainment is necessary to relieve the stress that accumulates over a period of time, thus enabling a person to remain healthy, and, from the point of view of the establishment, entertainment is necessary to maintain an efficient workforce. Of course music itself is useless and has no inherent value whatsoever, but to argue that there's no biological benefit to it is a moot point. The organisation of sound is a useful social construct which has the potential to have positive psychological (and thus biological - I don't make any distinction between mind and body, because they are "both" part of the same thing) effects on a person, thus it is useful (and it does, indirectly, aid sexual reproduction in humans - how many people do you think ****** a guitarist because they thought he was a fashionable and "sensitive" artist?), even if its benefits don't come only from the mere fact that it's music.

IN SUMMATION: Pinker is right, but his argument is a waste of time.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

All art is quite useless.

-Oscar Wilde


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

On the other hand...

Why Music Matters...


One of my parents’ deepest fears, I suspect, is that society would not properly value me as a musician, that I wouldn’t be appreciated. I had very good grades in high school, I was good in science and math, and they imagined that as a doctor or a research chemist or an engineer, I might be more appreciated than I would be as a musician. I still remember my mother’s remark when I announced my decision to apply to music school—she said, “you’re wasting your SAT scores!” On some level, I think, my parents were not sure themselves what the value of music was, what its purpose was. And they loved music: they listened to classical music all the time. They just weren’t really clear about its function. So let me talk about that a little bit, because we live in a society that puts music in the “arts and entertainment” section of the newspaper, and serious music, the kind your kids are about to engage in, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment, in fact it’s the opposite of entertainment. Let me talk a little bit about music, and how it works.

One of the first cultures to articulate how music really works were the ancient Greeks. And this is going to fascinate you: the Greeks said that music and astronomy were two sides of the same coin. Astronomy was seen as the study of relationships between observable, permanent, external objects, and music was seen as the study of relationships between invisible, internal, hidden objects. Music has a way of finding the big, invisible moving pieces inside our hearts and souls and helping us figure out the position of things inside us. Let me give you some examples of how this works.

One of the most profound musical compositions of all time is the Quartet for the End of Time written by French composer Olivier Messiaen in 1940. Messiaen was 31 years old when France entered the war against Nazi Germany. He was captured by the Germans in June of 1940 and imprisoned in a prisoner-of-war camp.

He was fortunate to find a sympathetic prison guard who gave him paper and a place to compose, and fortunate to have musician colleagues in the camp, a cellist, a violinist, and a clarinetist. Messiaen wrote his quartet with these specific players in mind. It was performed in January 1941 for four thousand prisoners and guards in the prison camp. Today it is one of the most famous masterworks in the repertoire.

Given what we have since learned about life in the Nazi camps, why would anyone in his right mind waste time and energy writing or playing music? There was barely enough energy on a good day to find food and water, to avoid a beating, to stay warm, to escape torture—why would anyone bother with music? And yet—even from the concentration camps, we have poetry, we have music, we have visual art; it wasn’t just this one fanatic Messiaen; many, many people created art. Why? Well, in a place where people are only focused on survival, on the bare necessities, the obvious conclusion is that art must be, somehow, essential for life. The camps were without money, without hope, without commerce, without recreation, without basic respect, but they were not without art. Art is part of survival; art is part of the human spirit, an unquenchable expression of who we are. Art is one of the ways in which we say, “I am alive, and my life has meaning.”

In September of 2001 I was a resident of Manhattan. On the morning of September 12, 2001 I reached a new understanding of my art and its relationship to the world. I sat down at the piano that morning at 10 AM to practice as was my daily routine; I did it by force of habit, without thinking about it. I lifted the cover on the keyboard, and opened my music, and put my hands on the keys and took my hands off the keys. And I sat there and thought, does this even matter? Isn’t this completely irrelevant? Playing the piano right now, given what happened in this city yesterday, seems silly, absurd, irreverent, pointless. Why am I here? What place has a musician in this moment in time? Who needs a piano player right now? I was completely lost.

And then I, along with the rest of New York, went through the journey of getting through that week. I did not play the piano that day, and in fact I contemplated briefly whether I would ever want to play the piano again. And then I observed how we got through the day.

At least in my neighborhood, we didn’t shoot hoops or play Scrabble. We didn’t play cards to pass the time, we didn’t watch TV, we didn’t shop, we most certainly did not go to the mall. The first organized activity that I saw in New York, on the very evening of September 11th, was singing. People sang. People sang around fire houses, people sang “We Shall Overcome”. Lots of people sang America the Beautiful. The first organized public event that I remember was the Brahms Requiem, later that week, at Lincoln Center, with the New York Philharmonic. The first organized public expression of grief, our first communal response to that historic event, was a concert. That was the beginning of a sense that life might go on. The US Military secured the airspace, but recovery was led by the arts, and by music in particular, that very night.

From these two experiences, I have come to understand that music is not part of “arts and entertainment” as the newspaper section would have us believe. It’s not a luxury, a lavish thing that we fund from leftovers of our budgets, not a plaything or an amusement or a pass time. Music is a basic need of human survival. Music is one of the ways we make sense of our lives, one of the ways in which we express feelings when we have no words, a way for us to understand things with our hearts when we can’t with our minds. 

Some of you may know Samuel Barber’s heart wrenchingly beautiful piece Adagio for Strings. If you don’t know it by that name, then some of you may know it as the background music which accompanied the Oliver Stone movie Platoon, a film about the Vietnam War. If you know that piece of music either way, you know it has the ability to crack your heart open like a walnut; it can make you cry over sadness you didn’t know you had. Music can slip beneath our conscious reality to get at what’s really going on inside us the way a good therapist does.

Very few of you have ever been to a wedding where there was absolutely no music. There might have been only a little music, there might have been some really bad music, but with few exceptions there is some music. And something very predictable happens at weddings—people get all pent up with all kinds of emotions, and then there’s some musical moment where the action of the wedding stops and someone sings or plays the flute or something. And even if the music is lame, even if the quality isn’t good, predictably 30 or 40 percent of the people who are going to cry at a wedding cry a couple of moments after the music starts. Why? The Greeks. Music allows us to move around those big invisible pieces of ourselves and rearrange our insides so that we can express what we feel even when we can’t talk about it. Can you imagine watching Indiana Jones or Superman or Star Wars with the dialogue but no music? What is it about the music swelling up at just the right moment in ET so that all the softies in the audience start crying at exactly the same moment? I guarantee you if you showed the movie with the music stripped out, it wouldn’t happen that way. The Greeks. Music is the understanding of the relationship between invisible internal objects.

I’ll give you one more example, the story of the most important concert of my life. I must tell you I have played a little less than a thousand concerts in my life so far. I have played in places that I thought were important. I like playing in Carnegie Hall; I enjoyed playing in Paris; it made me very happy to please the critics in St. Petersburg. I have played for people I thought were important; music critics of major newspapers, foreign heads of state. The most important concert of my entire life took place in a nursing home in a small Midwestern town a few years ago.

I was playing with a very dear friend of mine who is a violinist. We began, as we often do, with Aaron Copland’s Sonata, which was written during World War II and dedicated to a young friend of Copland’s, a young pilot who was shot down during the war. Now we often talk to our audiences about the pieces we are going to play rather than providing them with written program notes. But in this case, because we began the concert with this piece, we decided to talk about the piece later in the program and to just come out and play the music without explanation.

Midway through the piece, an elderly man seated in a wheelchair near the front of the concert hall began to weep. This man, whom I later met, was clearly a soldier—even in his 70’s, it was clear from his buzz-cut hair, square jaw and general demeanor that he had spent a good deal of his life in the military. I thought it a little bit odd that someone would be moved to tears by that particular movement of that particular piece, but it wasn’t the first time I’ve heard crying in a concert and we went on with the concert and finished the piece.

When we came out to play the next piece on the program, we decided to talk about both the first and second pieces, and we described the circumstances in which the Copland was written and mentioned its dedication to a downed pilot. The man in the front of the audience became so disturbed that he had to leave the auditorium. I honestly figured that we would not see him again, but he did come backstage afterwards, tears and all, to explain himself.

What he told us was this: “During World War II, I was a pilot, and I was in an aerial combat situation where one of my team’s planes was hit. I watched my friend bail out, and watched his parachute open, but the Japanese planes which had engaged us returned and machine gunned across the parachute cords so as to separate the parachute from the pilot, and I watched my friend drop away into the ocean, realizing that he was lost. I have not thought about this for many years, but during that first piece of music you played, this memory returned to me so vividly that it was as though I was reliving it. I didn’t understand why this was happening, why now, but then when you came out to explain that this piece of music was written to commemorate a lost pilot, it was a little more than I could handle. How does the music do that? How did it find those feelings and those memories in me?”

Remember the Greeks: music is the study of invisible relationships between internal objects. The concert in the nursing home was the most important work I have ever done. For me to play for this old soldier and help him connect, somehow, with Aaron Copland, and to connect their memories of their lost friends, to help him remember and mourn his friend, this is my work. This is why music matters.

What follows is part of the talk I will give to this year’s freshman class when I welcome them a few days from now. The responsibility I will charge your sons and daughters with is this:

"If we were a medical school, and you were here as a med student practicing appendectomies, you’d take your work very seriously because you would imagine that some night at two AM someone is going to waltz into your emergency room and you’re going to have to save their life. Well, my friends, someday at 8 PM someone is going to walk into your concert hall and bring you a mind that is confused, a heart that is overwhelmed, a soul that is weary. Whether they go out whole again will depend partly on how well you do your craft.

You’re not here to become an entertainer, and you don’t have to sell yourself. The truth is you don’t have anything to sell; being a musician isn’t about dispensing a product, like selling used cars. I’m not an entertainer; I’m a lot closer to a paramedic, a firefighter, a rescue worker. You’re here to become a sort of therapist for the human soul, a spiritual version of a chiropractor, physical therapist, someone who works with our insides to see if they get things to line up, to see if we can come into harmony with ourselves and be healthy and happy and well.

Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I expect you not only to master music; I expect you to save the planet. If there is a future wave of wellness on this planet, of harmony, of peace, of an end to war, of mutual understanding, of equality, of fairness, I don’t expect it will come from a government, a military force or a corporation. I no longer even expect it to come from the religions of the world, which together seem to have brought us as much war as they have peace. If there is a future of peace for humankind, if there is to be an understanding of how these invisible, internal things should fit together, I expect it will come from the artists, because that’s what we do. As in the concentration camp and the evening of 9/11, the artists are the ones who might be able to help us with our internal, invisible lives.”

Karl Paulnack ~Music Director Boston Conservatory


----------



## Min

Abracadabra said:


> ...isn't Pinker merely saying, 'Music wasn't driven by a need to survive'?


I think that Pinker misunderstands the nature of music a human sonic behavior. Would Pinker say that play is non-adaptive? I think that Pinker admits that play is adaptive, by play being the practice of whatever general adaptive sensibilities of which the species or local population in question most generally must make use. What we current humans known for certain about humans (by current humans' self-contemporaneity) is that humans' set of general adaptive sensibilities vastly outstrip that of any other species.

In Clarke's science fiction novel, _Childhood's End_, the Overlords have no musical sense, in that Clarke accords them little more than merest abstractions of the human "five senses". In the opening of his own book, _Musicophelia_, neurologist Oliver Sacks describes the musical observations of these Overlords:



> What an odd thing it is to see an entire species---billions of people---playing with, listening to, meaningless tonal patterns, occupied and preoccupied for much of their time by what they call 'music.' This, at least, was one of the things about human beings that puzzled the highly cerebral alien beings, the Overlords, in Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End. Curiosity brings them down to the Earth's surface to attend a concert, they listen politely, and at the end, congratulate the composer in his 'great ingenuity'―while still finding the entire business unintelligible. They cannot think what goes on in human beings when they make or listen to music, because nothing goes on in them. They themselves, as a species, lack music[ality].
> 
> We may imagine the Overlords ruminating further, back in their spaceships. This thing called 'music,' they would have to concede, is in some way efficacious to humans, central to human life. Yet it has no concepts, makes no propositions; lacks images, symbols, the stuff of language. It has no power of representation. It has no necessary relation to the world.


This banal-yet-intellectual utilitarianism of Clarke's Overlords might well be said to lack a sense of play. Yet, Clarke accords them a sense of curiosity and exploration. The question, then, is what in which their sense of curiosity and exploration consists, or from whence it comes―by what is it ever inspired?

Clarke's intention in conceiving of these Overlords quite appears to have been to represent by them some static state of "absolute adaptive superiority": the possession of a superior adaptive objectivity and explorative efficiency. To the extent to which, and manners in which, Clarke conceived of the Overlords as so "superior" in this way, they did not, in fact, represent what it means to be the subjectively-sensibly adaptive natural organic beings that were and are any and all of Clarke's readers―including Clarke himself.

So, these Overlords' estimation of music as having "no necessary relation to the world" is quite the estimation of music for kinds of beings that, if those beings actually were to exist, might very well themselves have no necessary relation to the world.

In fact, the Overlords may be nothing more useful than the Blank Slate Theory of animal intelligence. This is a theory which, in essence, says that intelligence is a Black Box with nothing inside it, hence we can make of it whatever we please. This is human adaptive generalism writ simple, Platonic, joyless save for a constant but very mild sense of pleasantness, and an entirely irrelevant sense of curiosity. And, to think that Pinker wrote a groundbreaking book arguing that the Blank Slate theory is wrong.

The question, of course, is what use is human musical sensibility to human adaptive generalism? Pinker seems to answer that music has no use to human adaptive generalism. But, such an answer begs the question as to the nature of sonic tonality? Is tonality an artifact: is it alien to the natural, physical world? And, are recursive patterns likewise alien to the natural world? Not even song birds seem able to create harmonically recursive patterns at a level of complexity even of the structure of their own feathers. Humans, by contrast, seem keen to observe recursive complexity wherever they sense it, including in the fundamental dynamics of the physical world. These are the very dynamics the curious and careful study of which allows humans to explore both inner and outer space itself, whether for high-tech communications, astronomical science, or vehicular exploration. If music is biologically useless to humans, then so is the human qualitative level of play and curiosity.

Clarke's Overlords may recognize these recursions in human artifactual musics, but somehow get on technologically gloriously despite having no subjective appreciation for any recursions whatever. Instead, these ostensibly rational Overlords have some static version of curiosity that just finds one confounding puzzle after another. So, instead of actually ever sensing what actually is going on with sensible beings that otherwise are their equals, the Overlords relegate each human puzzle to some quirk of a theorized ultimately randomly arbitrary evolutionary process. And, to think that this is the process that, like a feather in a black box, against which these entirely fictionally fanciful Overlords alone have _succeeded in overcoming_.

Pinker seems to say that he finds music, and the human enjoyment of it, to be anomalous on all measures but one: the measure of an effectively mind-psyche-dualist pleasure. Perhaps the two clearest of those "all other" measures are that the non-human animals do not create human music, and that making and enjoying human music is strictly unnecessary to the survival of incurious brutes. Yet, Pinker had begun by sincerely wondering why we 'divert time and energy to making plinking noises.' Humans enjoy, and are curious about, a truly vast variety of things. What really would be anomalous, then, is if the one thing to which humans were aesthetically indifferent were sounds.


----------



## Min

science said:


> Whatever music's purpose is to us now, way way back when we evolved musical ability and enjoyment, it served a purpose - as part of a host of behaviors (including religion) that helped us to form larger cooperating groups than could be held together by kin selection and reciprocity alone. Individuals skilled in these behaviors (including music and religion) survived and reproduced more often because they could gain status within their groups, and such groups defeated other groups in wars.
> 
> Pinker would like to think we're nicer than this, but the unfortunate fact is that for at least five million years the biggest threats our ancestors faced were each other, and the ones that managed to kill rather than be killed became our ancestors, and in that struggle the ability to form and control groups was crucial.
> 
> Once agricultural societies and their complexity appeared, things began to lose their original purposes, but still today groups form most easily when they have special music, and all political groups or aspiring political groups identify themselves in part with special music.
> 
> This is just my theory, but then, I think I'm probably right.


The theory you espouse here seems to me to imply that human artifactial music is alien to the human aesthetic-sensibility continuum of sounds.

Our general sonic aesthetic sensibilities (which, in my view, includes human artifactual-aesthetic sonics) provokes and refreshes our senses; Language often does not, or at least not nearly so powerfully when it counts the most. Language is the reduction of our cognitive and productive load, in order to ensure a high degree of semantic precision and communicative dependability. This explains why language in the sonic form tends to be comprised of a very limited number of functional sounds; and is why these functional sounds in natural sonic languages typically are, in terms of human sonic affect, of maximally reduced general physiological and psychological impact. We don't sing, shout, or bawl our lectures, we speak them.

The problem is that, back in the middle bulk of the last century, when our audiences were bored, we had tended to assume that it was the fault of the audience. Some in the audience thought so, too.

So, back then, you just _thought_ that you were bored with the particular subject on which your professor was droning; and he just _thought_ that you lacked either or both the intelligence or earnestness to pay attention. As Will Smith's character in _Men in Black_, Agent J, found, his school teacher really was an alien. :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic

Music is not useless to me. Pure and simple.


----------



## Varick

Pinker is correct as well as the rest of the evolutionary scientists. When distilled down to the necessities and history of the survival and evolution of the homo-sapien, you will find that music is nowhere to be found, nor needed.

This does not discredit the PROFOUND VALUE that music has to homo-sapiens.

I basically break it down to two things.

1. It does nothing but validate my favorite quote about music by Beethoven: _"Music is a higher revelation than philosophy."_

and

2. This for me personally is yet another proof of God. Evolutionary scientists can account for almost *everything* else that man has or does innately or behaviorally. Music baffles them (not on a personal level, but evolutionary wise) because they can find no origin of it. I have come to only one logical conclusion of it's origin.

V


----------



## Lovemylute

Pinker says, "Music appears to be a pure pleasure technology, a cocktail of drugs that we ingest through the ear to stimulate a mass of pleasure circuits at once."

I disagree. I think that there is vastly more to music than mere pleasure. It stimulates the mind and it allows us to experience the world in unique ways and to feel emotions that we may not otherwise have felt. This does not merely give us pleasure, but it can actually change the way that we perceive the world, it can change the way that we act and the things that we do. Music can make us more creative, especially if we play/compose it, but also just by listening to it, which can certainly affect other things that we do in our lives. It can also make us more altruistic (allowing us to feel more compassion for our fellow humans), more sensitive to our surroundings and to other people, through the expansion of emotional experience that it provides. Music profoundly influences some people, certainly not just by giving them pleasure, and for Pinker to suggest a purely hedonistic understanding of music demonstrates that he just doesn't "get" it!


----------



## Cosmos

"All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde


----------



## Blake

Cosmos said:


> "All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde


Don't know. If I didn't have my music... no telling the danger society would be in.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Music, like arts in general, is useless (as a survival mechanism) but not valueless (as a significant contributor to the human spirit). Of course, a deaf person might take issue with this comment.


----------



## hpowders

If music is indeed useless, then TC is useless. Last I looked TC is alive, bustling and healthy.


----------



## Fugue Meister

My answer would be; not for Humans... we've made it since we've existed so there must be something to that. The cheesy way to say it is "It exalts the soul".


----------



## Serge

Is food useless? No. Can it be harmful? You betcha, if overtaken. Well, the same thing with music except that it can never hurt you.


----------



## KenOC

Varick said:


> 2. This for me personally is yet another proof of God. Evolutionary scientists can account for almost *everything* else that man has or does innately or behaviorally. Music baffles them (not on a personal level, but evolutionary wise) because they can find no origin of it. I have come to only one logical conclusion of it's origin.


I enjoy Big Macs, though their usefulness in an evolutionary sense escapes me. Still, I would hesitate to put Big Macs forward as a proof of God.


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> Well, the same thing with music except that it can never hurt you.


Speak for yourself. Music can fuel happiness, and it can also fuel depression like no other. Before my extensive stay in a psych ward with electroconvulsive therapy and the works, I was sitting in my car every night for an hour - with a razor blade and my iPod.


----------



## Serge

Yes, Big Mac. I need to get myself one of those!


----------



## Serge

arcaneholocaust said:


> Speak for yourself. Music can fuel happiness, and it can also fuel depression like no other. Before my extensive stay in a psych ward with electroconvulsive therapy and the works, I was sitting in my car every night for an hour - with a razor blade and my iPod.


Well, I didn't mean it literally, of course. There surely are exceptions. But then again, you are the one responsible for the selection.

For anti-depression treatment, try something strong, like Faith No More, maybe. But wait, that's non-classical. A dead end?


----------



## Serge

arcaneholocaust said:


> Speak for yourself. Music can fuel happiness, and it can also fuel depression like no other. Before my extensive stay in a psych ward with electroconvulsive therapy and the works, I was sitting in my car every night for an hour - with a razor blade and my iPod.


I kid, I kid. But Bruckner is great anytime.


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> Well, I didn't mean it literally, of course. There surely are exceptions. But then again, you are the one responsible for the selection.
> 
> For anti-depression treatment, try something strong, like Faith No More, maybe. But wait, that's non-classical. A dead end?


I wasn't listening to classical at that point. It was all a selection of dark folk or rock songs with lyrics that I could delude myself into considering a personal description of my life.

Edit: And some film score stuff...which conveniently reminded me of scenes which I could delude myself into considering a personal description of my life.


----------



## Serge

Many of us are in dark places. We just have got to get stronger than that, or what else?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Music is also the result of thought (LeRoi Jones, Blues People, page 152). These thoughts can be anything from an expression of sadness to joy, mystery, God, etc. Ask anyone who can play the blues and you will find out that far from useless, it is a means of expression, a way to get feelings out, and a way to relax and make oneself feel better.

To quote Johnny Winter, 


> I make my living feeling rotten
> But I feel good when I play blues


----------



## Serge

Yes, the other, creative side of music, as of any other art, is probably overlooked here.

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread yet.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> Music is also the result of thought (LeRoi Jones, Blues People, page 152). These thoughts can be anything from an expression of sadness to joy, mystery, God, etc. Ask anyone who can play the blues and you will find out that far from useless, it is a means of expression, a way to get feelings out, and a way to relax and make oneself feel better.


I think music can also be simply, play. Although it'll probably get me shot around here, that's how I see most of Bach's secular keyboard music -- "just" play.

Is there a reason we speak of "playing" music?


----------



## Serge

OK, but "play" is very important, isn't it? For God's sakes, I've been playing Plants vs Zombies all day today!


----------



## mtmailey

Certain music is useless like some hip-hop/rap rock and roll.They use music to control people in some cases.I use classical music to cheer me up & to relax.


----------



## Serge

mtmailey said:


> Certain music is useless like some hip-hop/rap rock and roll.They use music to control people in some cases.I use classical music to cheer me up & to relax.


You seem to be just too narrow-minded right there. The music is not just about you. And what do you mean "to control": like secret messages?

I get this a lot in life and on the internet in particular: me me me me...


----------



## SixFootScowl

KenOC said:


> I think music can also be simply, play. Although it'll probably get me shot around here, that's how I see most of Bach's secular keyboard music -- "just" play.
> 
> Is there a reason we speak of "playing" music?


Whelp, I guess you have a point there, but the very fact that someone is playing music implies that their brain is acting behind it, and that in essence is thought, no? Unless the person playing is posessed! (Robert Johnson perhaps?)


----------



## Guest

Xavier said:


> _"As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless._


He's right. Nothing to see here...move along.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Pinker was trying to answer a question that's different from what most people here assume he was discussing. Evolutionary biologists try to understand how traits of various species developed. Traits that developed through modification of genetic material (DNA) _and_ natural selection are said to be adaptive. Traits that did not develop through that mechanism may be exceedingly useful for a variety of reasons, but they are not an adaptive trait.
> 
> The question is whether there were mutations or other modifications in hominid genetic material that gave rise to physical features in the brain that enabled music ability _and did that ability_ cause those early individuals to produce more offspring. Anything that humans have done _much after_ that brain functionality developed has no effect on the question of whether music developed as an evolutionary adaptation.
> 
> For example, athletic ability clearly increases the chance that an individual will mate. Nevertheless, no one suggests that arms, hands, and legs evolved because of sports. The ability to play sports is a byproduct of adaptations that evolved for other reasons (to procure food, for example). Similarly, science has vastly increased individuals lifespans and even allowed certain people to procreate who could not have in the past. But biologists do not believe that the advanced functions of the brain evolved because they allowed humans to do science. Pinker believes that music is a byproduct of brain features that evolved for other reasons (i.e. not to create or enjoy music).


Ah, but you miss the point, which was to deliberately misinterpret what Pinker wrote about in order to provoke indignation at the 'quote out of context'.

A good post that needs to be resurrected, given that someone has resurrected the thread and the indignation!


----------



## Cosmos

mtmailey said:


> Certain music is useless like some hip-hop/rap rock and roll.They use music to control people in some cases.I use classical music to cheer me up & to relax.


Big no no. Both genre are forms of expression. How sad a world would be without rock and roll!


----------



## Varick

KenOC said:


> I enjoy Big Macs, though their usefulness in an evolutionary sense escapes me. Still, I would hesitate to put Big Macs forward as a proof of God.


Yes but as Benjamin Franklin said, "Beer is proof that God loves us."

So there!

V


----------



## Piwikiwi

Varick said:


> Yes but as Benjamin Franklin said, "Beer is proof that God loves us."
> 
> So there!
> 
> V


Beer is prove that god is ambivalent. It's tastes delicious but makes you fat and gives you a headache.


----------



## Min

*Who are you? I really Wanna Know*



MacLeod said:


> Ah, but you miss the point, which was to deliberately misinterpret what Pinker wrote about in order to provoke indignation at the 'quote out of context'.
> 
> A good post that needs to be resurrected, given that someone has resurrected the thread and the indignation!





> Originally Posted by mmsbls View Post
> 
> Pinker was trying to answer a question that's different from what most people here assume he was discussing.
> 
> ...athletic ability clearly increases the chance that an individual will mate. Nevertheless, no one suggests that arms, hands, and legs evolved because of sports. The ability to play sports is a byproduct of adaptations that evolved for other reasons (to procure food, for example). Similarly, science has vastly increased individuals lifespans and even allowed certain people to procreate who could not have in the past. *But biologists do not believe that the advanced functions of the brain evolved because they allowed humans to do science.[/u] Pinker believes that music is a byproduct of brain features that evolved for other reasons (i.e. not to create or enjoy music).*


*

Who had the first legs in the human ancestry ? Humans got theirs' from apes, says the theory. That means apes got theirs' from some likewise lower life form, according to the theory. So, whoever got the first legs, the adaptive reason why they got them is why we humans have legs? The theory says the first legs in the theorized bio-evolutionary ancestry of humans were...fish? Why did those particular fish get legs?

Oh, wait, why did humans get language? Oopps, that's too complicated, and, as yet, undermined. Let's stick with simple things like legs. Those fish got legs probably to...what? Probably?! And, if that 'probably' had nothing to do with walking per se, but with, oh, I don't know, getting the parasitic tiny fish off their bellies?

Humans have upper forelimb things ('handlike' things), in the first place, not for the human hand's level of dexterity, but for...swinging from trees? No, we have to go back to the first animal in the line that got such things??? So, is human dexterity not a biological adaptation?

We sure inherit human hands biologically, genetically, and they sure help us adapt to our world. And, we sure inherit an instinct to play in any way that we find to in order to develop our adaptive capacities.

Football and tennis are cultural constructs, but the play instinct that underlies all such 'sports' is not a cultural construct. Most pieces of music largely are cultural constructs, but it has not been determined that they are entirely so, else even birds chirps are purely cultural constructs in terms of bird culture: learned by input, and not by any sensibility toward sounds. Do not even songbirds biologically inherit any particular sensibilities toward sounds (sensibilities toward particular sounds)? As if their particular range of hearing is a cultural construct?

I could easily think that the hairs on my legs are vestigial, or even mutational, non-adaptive features of my legs. But, my bones are not made of rubber like what Harry Potter once got for his arm. So, I figure that the "bones" of my sonic sensibilities (which I guess include a human-level length of gestalt memory, and thus recursion-recognition ability) are fairly adaptive as biologically inherited. Hence, I love far more patterns of sounds (gestalts) than any songbird seems to have any sense about, and so do most humans, which is why we humans can and do create such patterns.

No bird seems to have any sense of the recursive patterns comprising the structure of one of its own feathers. I take it that this is why songbirds not only do not create a human-level of sonic play/prowess, but is why they don't create much of anything that humans call art, technology, culture, and science.

What animal, in the theorized bio-evolutionary ancestry of humans, got the first hearing? Is the human ability to hear not biologically adaptive for humans beyond the ways in which that animal's hearing is adaptive for that animal? Maybe I'm missing some concepts in Pinker's view that would make his view seem reasonable to me. "biologists do not believe that the advanced functions of the brain evolved because they allowed humans to do science." Until then, I guess I haven't achieved my biologically non-adaptive potential. As if Pinker, despite having Asperger's syndrome (I'm autistic BTW, so I'm not criticizing Asperger's), cannot possibly be pathologically linguistic.

I'm pathologically emotive and sensory, the latter of which I suppose is why I can sense the very general cognitive benefits to me of sounds as such, especially the highly recursive sonic artifacts called human music.

Does the fact that humans find so many uses for music have to mean that human musical sense is a lucky coagulation of various "genuine" adaptations? If our musicality, as such, merely borrows upon our adaptations, then isn't music a form of robbery, or, at least, parasitism? Like the vampire who drinks his own blood? Or the hungry person who eats himself one limb at a time?

...

Pinker says something very telling when he says that "compared with language, vision, social reasoning[,] and physical know-how, music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged.'"

What does Pinker think he thinks he means (not a typo) by "biological cause and effect" when he says that "music is useless in terms of biological cause and effect"?

What is the human adaptive equation; and what does music, or musical sensibility, have to do with it? And what, as part of the final analysis, comprises the human level of "physical know how"?

When Pinker says that music is useless in terms of biological cause and effect, I suspect that the particular conception of biological cause and effect (henceforth BiCE) which he has in mind is one which, unknown to him, is an over-simplistic conception of biological cause and effect (BiCE). Any prosthetic technology―everything from the ovoid rocks that pass for prehistorically primitive hand axes to space shuttles and carbon fiber―most certainly are useless in terms merely of the core features of BiCE. But, is BiCE ever limited to its own core features? 
If biological cause and effect (BiCE) is limited to its core features, then by what means do we ever think up any prosthetic technologies? In other words, if BiCE consists merely in its own core features, then how is it that we have anything beyond language, dance, purely vocal forms of music, and some kind of exclusively non-prosthetic "physical know how"?

Even apes can make sounds by using sticks to beat on relatively reverberating objects; and even certain kinds of birds know to hold sticks in their beaks to probe for bugs. And, if music is defined structurally without regard for species preference of recursive complexity, then many species of birds produce music by inventing complex series of chirps in which one particular tone of chirp dependably is followed by another particular tone of chirp.

The exact extent to which the sonic pleasures experienced by parrots, parakeets, and other birds matches that of humans' pleasure at human artifactual musics is irrelevant to the question of whether these birds have their own version of musical sensibility. The main difference is that humans can do so much more both musically and technologically.

In fact, given that sonic play is the most readily available form of play to any animal with vocal chords, and that, in being specifically sonic, it is the most "omnipresent" and spatially expansive form of play, musical sensibility in the specifically human animal easily serves as the first and most constant means for humans to fulfilling their curiosity-driven capacity for general exploration and engineering.

Human adaptive generalism is quite the general, and sensory-broad-based, thing. So, in keeping with Pinker's view, human pleasure at human crafted musics can well be absent without much diminishing human adaptive generalism. But, just how many of the easiest ways in which that generalism is expressed can together be absent in a human before that human's adaptive generalism is, by definition, reduced?

To borrow a line from the Cap'n Crunch commercial, the crunch always gives you away.*


----------



## mtmailey

They use music to control people they put in the music what they want people to do of course some people will do as the singers/rappers say do& certain music really have no purpose.Certain rap & rock music does have meaning to them.


----------



## EdwardBast

Music might be useless for survival, but I want to live, not merely survive.


----------



## Serge

Honestly, I just don't understand how I could possibly write off all of the great music created just because it's not in the "classical music" realm. That said, of course commercial music will try to exploit people. That's where they are getting their money from. Listen carefully!


----------



## KenOC

Music is useful and becoming more so. I foresee the day, not far off, when music will be streamed into our brains and our hormonal responses monitored to help us become more productive and obedient citizens. Music as punishment will be another aspect. What music, played loudly and incessantly, would be your equivalent of Orwell's Room 101? The Ministry of Joy (MinJoy) knows!

Music useless? Piffle!


----------



## Varick

Piwikiwi said:


> Beer is prove that god is ambivalent. It's tastes delicious but makes you fat and gives you a headache.


Big Mac's are delicious and will make you fat as well if eaten too much. Everything in moderation my friend, including moderation.

V


----------



## Serge

Interestingly, music is just airwaves transferred to our brains through eardrums and then neurons. So, effectively, both the airwaves and the eardrums could be by-passed with some kind of a chip installed in our heads. And, if you ask me, I'd rather get that instead of all the expensive equipment that I have to buy now.


----------



## Min

Serge said:


> Interestingly, music is just airwaves transferred to our brains through eardrums and then neurons. So, effectively, both the airwaves and the eardrums could be by-passed with some kind of a chip installed in our heads. And, if you ask me, I'd rather get that instead of all the expensive equipment that I have to buy now.


I think that most people would prefer real-air music. For me, I often prefer live music (in person, not heard via radio programming) over that from earphones-playback or speaker system-playback, since with live music there's so much more dimensionality. Same piece live and in person over same piece recorded playback. I really notice the richness of live.


----------



## mtmailey

EdwardBast said:


> Music might be useless for survival, but I want to live, not merely survive.


There are plenty of people who use music to survive like those in classical music.Some composers only income source is music.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

If music was useless, we would not be on this forum. Of course it's not useless - all human cultures have their own unique forms of music. Music brings people together and allows them to connect with each other - I don't think any human being is indifferent to it. It is one of our greatest arts, if not the greatest, imo.


----------



## Serge

Is music useless? Is life meaningful?

The Malaysian Boeing 777 MH17 crash site. Sorry, just thought I had to share somehow.


----------



## Lukecash12

Music contributed to the development of culture, hence better tools, larger brains, agriculture and animal husbandry, erecting structures, planning to store grain, improved sociological systems capable of sustaining settlements and more well organized nomadic tribes. Survival became less of an essential question and as other diversions like music came more into question our situation improved more and more.

So all that Mr. Pinker has proved is his ignorance of physical anthropology. The earliest flutes were found in Neanderthalensis caves, and as the instruments improved so did living conditions. It is absolutely essential for the human brain to have abstract diversions in order for new ideas to develop. This is something ingrained in humans and even in the worst living conditions it isn't unusual to find music and games. Entertainment generates motivated people.


----------



## KenOC

Lukecash12 said:


> Music contributed to the development of culture, hence better tools, larger brains, agriculture and animal husbandry...


Larger brains are thought to be good, and we all know that CM fans have the largest brains of all. Animal husbandry, though, is a constant danger in CM, and we don't talk about that much around here. Tom Lehrer found that out.


----------



## Lukecash12

KenOC said:


> Larger brains are thought to be good, and we all know that CM fans have the largest brains of all. Animal husbandry, though, is a constant danger in CM, and we don't talk about that much around here. Tom Lehrer found that out.


Hmmm... did you guys know that neuron connections and the relative size of different portions of the brain can have a lot more to do with exemplary brain function than total size? Neanderthalensis, for example, had a brain as much as 120 cubic centimeters larger than the average today. Their frontal lobes were smaller, however, and brains are stimulated by diverse activities and diverse language, forming new neuron pathways. So, while Neanderthals had larger brains they would have trouble understanding metaphors or even fairly simple comparisons, for example, and language devices are key to sociology.

Of course, you were joking. I just had to geek out some more.


----------



## KenOC

Lukecash12 said:


> Hmmm... did you guys know that neuron connections and the relative size of different portions of the brain can have a lot more to do with exemplary brain function than total size?


Brain to total mass ratio! Sadly, ants have us beat to all heck. Maybe there's great ant music? If we had little teeny microphones...


----------



## Lukecash12

KenOC said:


> Brain to total mass ratio! Sadly, ants have us beat to all heck. Maybe there's great ant music? If we had little teeny microphones...


Actually, ants have proportionately smaller brains, I believe. They seem to have more of their nervous system throughout their bodies than in one place, which isn't uncommon for insects. I do think I remember hearing that dolphins had proportionately larger brains as well as brains that are simpler a good deal larger.


----------



## KenOC

Lukecash12 said:


> Actually, ants have proportionately smaller brains, I believe.


See Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio


----------



## Lukecash12

KenOC said:


> See Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio


Oh sweet, thanks.


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> Music contributed to the development of culture, hence better tools, larger brains, agriculture and animal husbandry, erecting structures, planning to store grain, improved sociological systems capable of sustaining settlements and more well organized nomadic tribes. Survival became less of an essential question and as other diversions like music came more into question our situation improved more and more.
> 
> So all that Mr. Pinker has proved is his ignorance of physical anthropology. The earliest flutes were found in Neanderthalensis caves, and as the instruments improved so did living conditions. It is absolutely essential for the human brain to have abstract diversions in order for new ideas to develop. This is something ingrained in humans and even in the worst living conditions it isn't unusual to find music and games. Entertainment generates motivated people.


At what point can we say that the apparently important features of a culture are (or were) actually essential to its survival in evolutionary terms? Flutes found in ancient caves might tell us that the cave dwellers liked to make music, but not necessarily that the making of music was an evolutionary necessity.

I was earlier dismissive of the thread because it was posted to prompt indignation...which it has. However, it's clear that there is a genuine debate to be had about whether music has served any evolutionary purpose.

Trouble is, reading one paragraph of Pinker and a little bit of Wiki around the subject is not going to put me in a position to claim that he is ignorant of physical anthropology, or to agree with the given quote that music is useless. Some scientists devote a large part of their working lives to studying how the mind works - who am I to chide or cheer the potted conclusions posted in the OP by a mischief-making TC member?


----------



## Lukecash12

MacLeod said:


> At what point can we say that the apparently important features of a culture are (or were) actually essential to its survival in evolutionary terms? Flutes found in ancient caves might tell us that the cave dwellers liked to make music, but not necessarily that the making of music was an evolutionary necessity.
> 
> I was earlier dismissive of the thread because it was posted to prompt indignation...which it has. However, it's clear that there is a genuine debate to be had about whether music has served any evolutionary purpose.
> 
> Trouble is, reading one paragraph of Pinker and a little bit of Wiki around the subject is not going to put me in a position to claim that he is ignorant of physical anthropology, or to agree with the given quote that music is useless. Some scientists devote a large part of their working lives to studying how the mind works - who am I to chide or cheer the potted conclusions posted in the OP by a mischief-making TC member?


Meh, sometimes I could care less about the OP's intent. So long as there is something fun to think about.

The reasons that we can prove that music has been essential using physical anthropology, are pretty interesting:

1. From what we know about brain development when people are stimulated with entertaining diversions new neural pathways are made. When new neural pathways are made people either begin to make new associations or associations are reaffirmed making processes occur more quickly.
2. Music stimulates people to think about meter, pitch, and general variations in pattern. This involves higher abstract problem solving processes.
3. Interestingly enough, there is this phenomenon that has been found relatively recently in genetics. Maybe someone here who is involved in the field or has read about this can tell me exactly what it's called, but I think I may be able to explain the basic concept. There is actually this process that occurs during the life of a multi-cellular organism, especially so with those that rely on more advanced brains. What happens is the genetic code compresses itself during the thing's life so that by the time it mates there is a sizable amount of genetic code original to it, not it's parents. So far I've only been able to understand it using Mendellian explanations, but there are some very interesting implications that I will get into in #4.
4. Considering 1 & 2, this interesting process of the individual creating something new from it's own code during it's life, seems to suggest that people stimulated by cultural diversions such as music could pass on more prolific abstract thinking at an accelerated rate.
5. Looking at the fossil record up until written history, we can find that music and other such forms of play grow more sophisticated alongside the practical tools. The diversions didn't stay the same, rather they grew in sophistication relative to technology.
6. Upon further inspection of history in general, it is very easy to notice a trend in technological advancements, that as time goes on we invent new things at a rate that continues to accelerate. And as time goes on our entertainment becomes more diverse and sophisticated. There seems to be a direct relation and this much has been clear to people studying child development. The child that was stimulated with all kinds of colors and sounds, had more different languages spoken around him/her, played more different games, and heard a greater variety of music (especially complex music such as Western classical or Hindustani/Carnatic classical), tends to grow into a person with more prodigious mental abilities. There seems to be a direct relation here.

So, in conclusion: Much like it is considered beneficial to read your children books, talk to them, and play games with them all before they can even walk or talk, music can be part of developing not just a healthy but a prodigious brain. While it isn't immediately important to survival to be able to read, play games, or write/play/listen to music, it appears that such stimulation can help in other areas of life such as abstract thinking and planning, thus drastically improving living conditions. Not only would survival rates increase, but culturally adept individuals were probably better able to mate as their talents surely would have been found attractive. This can be observed today in societies where there are people that still live very simple nomadic lives, how that men who are talented storytellers, musicians, etc. tend to be popular and attract mates.


----------



## Guest

Either Stephen Pinker is an idiot, or a poor writer, or he's being misinterpreted or misrepresented. I can't see there's anything exceptional you've written that a scientist of Pinker's reputation wouldn't be aware of.

Of course, the other possibility is that I've been fooled into thinking that Pinker is a scientist with a worthy reputation.


----------



## Lukecash12

MacLeod said:


> Either Stephen Pinker is an idiot, or a poor writer, or he's being misinterpreted or misrepresented. I can't see there's anything exceptional you've written that a scientist of Pinker's reputation wouldn't be aware of.
> 
> Of course, the other possibility is that I've been fooled into thinking that Pinker is a scientist with a worthy reputation.


What exactly is Pinker's area of expertise? He may not necessarily be familiar with the fossil record, child development, etc. Apparently it says on wiki (personally I don't like to use wiki but they seemed good enough for something this simple) that he is into experimental psychology, cognitive science, and linguistics. It also says he is into children's language development, and has formulated a general theory of language acquisition (sounds like a tall order).


----------



## Guest

Good question. I know of Pinker from reading about him in the same way that I know about most other scientists who have a public profile - through the media more than through their work.

For example, a book review that refers to the opposing camps in the 'value of music' debate at

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/jul/02/featuresreviews.guardianreview14

Or this one...

http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~rik/courses/cogs260_s10/readings/Patel10_music_evolution.pdf


----------



## CypressWillow

_"Now, let's be very clear and not miss the boat here:

What Pinker is saying is that music never contributed anything to the propagation of the species."_

And that's a BAD thing???????


----------



## CypressWillow

StlukesguildOhio said:


> On the other hand...
> 
> Why Music Matters...
> 
> One of my parents' deepest fears, I suspect, is that society would not properly value me as a musician, that I wouldn't be appreciated. I had very good grades in high school, I was good in science and math, and they imagined that as a doctor or a research chemist or an engineer, I might be more appreciated than I would be as a musician. I still remember my mother's remark when I announced my decision to apply to music school-she said, "you're wasting your SAT scores!" On some level, I think, my parents were not sure themselves what the value of music was, what its purpose was. And they loved music: they listened to classical music all the time. They just weren't really clear about its function. So let me talk about that a little bit, because we live in a society that puts music in the "arts and entertainment" section of the newspaper, and serious music, the kind your kids are about to engage in, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with entertainment, in fact it's the opposite of entertainment. Let me talk a little bit about music, and how it works.
> 
> One of the first cultures to articulate how music really works were the ancient Greeks. And this is going to fascinate you: the Greeks said that music and astronomy were two sides of the same coin. Astronomy was seen as the study of relationships between observable, permanent, external objects, and music was seen as the study of relationships between invisible, internal, hidden objects. Music has a way of finding the big, invisible moving pieces inside our hearts and souls and helping us figure out the position of things inside us. Let me give you some examples of how this works.
> 
> One of the most profound musical compositions of all time is the Quartet for the End of Time written by French composer Olivier Messiaen in 1940. Messiaen was 31 years old when France entered the war against Nazi Germany. He was captured by the Germans in June of 1940 and imprisoned in a prisoner-of-war camp.
> 
> He was fortunate to find a sympathetic prison guard who gave him paper and a place to compose, and fortunate to have musician colleagues in the camp, a cellist, a violinist, and a clarinetist. Messiaen wrote his quartet with these specific players in mind. It was performed in January 1941 for four thousand prisoners and guards in the prison camp. Today it is one of the most famous masterworks in the repertoire.
> 
> Given what we have since learned about life in the Nazi camps, why would anyone in his right mind waste time and energy writing or playing music? There was barely enough energy on a good day to find food and water, to avoid a beating, to stay warm, to escape torture-why would anyone bother with music? And yet-even from the concentration camps, we have poetry, we have music, we have visual art; it wasn't just this one fanatic Messiaen; many, many people created art. Why? Well, in a place where people are only focused on survival, on the bare necessities, the obvious conclusion is that art must be, somehow, essential for life. The camps were without money, without hope, without commerce, without recreation, without basic respect, but they were not without art. Art is part of survival; art is part of the human spirit, an unquenchable expression of who we are. Art is one of the ways in which we say, "I am alive, and my life has meaning."
> 
> In September of 2001 I was a resident of Manhattan. On the morning of September 12, 2001 I reached a new understanding of my art and its relationship to the world. I sat down at the piano that morning at 10 AM to practice as was my daily routine; I did it by force of habit, without thinking about it. I lifted the cover on the keyboard, and opened my music, and put my hands on the keys and took my hands off the keys. And I sat there and thought, does this even matter? Isn't this completely irrelevant? Playing the piano right now, given what happened in this city yesterday, seems silly, absurd, irreverent, pointless. Why am I here? What place has a musician in this moment in time? Who needs a piano player right now? I was completely lost.
> 
> And then I, along with the rest of New York, went through the journey of getting through that week. I did not play the piano that day, and in fact I contemplated briefly whether I would ever want to play the piano again. And then I observed how we got through the day.
> 
> At least in my neighborhood, we didn't shoot hoops or play Scrabble. We didn't play cards to pass the time, we didn't watch TV, we didn't shop, we most certainly did not go to the mall. The first organized activity that I saw in New York, on the very evening of September 11th, was singing. People sang. People sang around fire houses, people sang "We Shall Overcome". Lots of people sang America the Beautiful. The first organized public event that I remember was the Brahms Requiem, later that week, at Lincoln Center, with the New York Philharmonic. The first organized public expression of grief, our first communal response to that historic event, was a concert. That was the beginning of a sense that life might go on. The US Military secured the airspace, but recovery was led by the arts, and by music in particular, that very night.
> 
> From these two experiences, I have come to understand that music is not part of "arts and entertainment" as the newspaper section would have us believe. It's not a luxury, a lavish thing that we fund from leftovers of our budgets, not a plaything or an amusement or a pass time. Music is a basic need of human survival. Music is one of the ways we make sense of our lives, one of the ways in which we express feelings when we have no words, a way for us to understand things with our hearts when we can't with our minds.
> 
> Some of you may know Samuel Barber's heart wrenchingly beautiful piece Adagio for Strings. If you don't know it by that name, then some of you may know it as the background music which accompanied the Oliver Stone movie Platoon, a film about the Vietnam War. If you know that piece of music either way, you know it has the ability to crack your heart open like a walnut; it can make you cry over sadness you didn't know you had. Music can slip beneath our conscious reality to get at what's really going on inside us the way a good therapist does.
> 
> Very few of you have ever been to a wedding where there was absolutely no music. There might have been only a little music, there might have been some really bad music, but with few exceptions there is some music. And something very predictable happens at weddings-people get all pent up with all kinds of emotions, and then there's some musical moment where the action of the wedding stops and someone sings or plays the flute or something. And even if the music is lame, even if the quality isn't good, predictably 30 or 40 percent of the people who are going to cry at a wedding cry a couple of moments after the music starts. Why? The Greeks. Music allows us to move around those big invisible pieces of ourselves and rearrange our insides so that we can express what we feel even when we can't talk about it. Can you imagine watching Indiana Jones or Superman or Star Wars with the dialogue but no music? What is it about the music swelling up at just the right moment in ET so that all the softies in the audience start crying at exactly the same moment? I guarantee you if you showed the movie with the music stripped out, it wouldn't happen that way. The Greeks. Music is the understanding of the relationship between invisible internal objects.
> 
> I'll give you one more example, the story of the most important concert of my life. I must tell you I have played a little less than a thousand concerts in my life so far. I have played in places that I thought were important. I like playing in Carnegie Hall; I enjoyed playing in Paris; it made me very happy to please the critics in St. Petersburg. I have played for people I thought were important; music critics of major newspapers, foreign heads of state. The most important concert of my entire life took place in a nursing home in a small Midwestern town a few years ago.
> 
> I was playing with a very dear friend of mine who is a violinist. We began, as we often do, with Aaron Copland's Sonata, which was written during World War II and dedicated to a young friend of Copland's, a young pilot who was shot down during the war. Now we often talk to our audiences about the pieces we are going to play rather than providing them with written program notes. But in this case, because we began the concert with this piece, we decided to talk about the piece later in the program and to just come out and play the music without explanation.
> 
> Midway through the piece, an elderly man seated in a wheelchair near the front of the concert hall began to weep. This man, whom I later met, was clearly a soldier-even in his 70's, it was clear from his buzz-cut hair, square jaw and general demeanor that he had spent a good deal of his life in the military. I thought it a little bit odd that someone would be moved to tears by that particular movement of that particular piece, but it wasn't the first time I've heard crying in a concert and we went on with the concert and finished the piece.
> 
> When we came out to play the next piece on the program, we decided to talk about both the first and second pieces, and we described the circumstances in which the Copland was written and mentioned its dedication to a downed pilot. The man in the front of the audience became so disturbed that he had to leave the auditorium. I honestly figured that we would not see him again, but he did come backstage afterwards, tears and all, to explain himself.
> 
> What he told us was this: "During World War II, I was a pilot, and I was in an aerial combat situation where one of my team's planes was hit. I watched my friend bail out, and watched his parachute open, but the Japanese planes which had engaged us returned and machine gunned across the parachute cords so as to separate the parachute from the pilot, and I watched my friend drop away into the ocean, realizing that he was lost. I have not thought about this for many years, but during that first piece of music you played, this memory returned to me so vividly that it was as though I was reliving it. I didn't understand why this was happening, why now, but then when you came out to explain that this piece of music was written to commemorate a lost pilot, it was a little more than I could handle. How does the music do that? How did it find those feelings and those memories in me?"
> 
> Remember the Greeks: music is the study of invisible relationships between internal objects. The concert in the nursing home was the most important work I have ever done. For me to play for this old soldier and help him connect, somehow, with Aaron Copland, and to connect their memories of their lost friends, to help him remember and mourn his friend, this is my work. This is why music matters.
> 
> What follows is part of the talk I will give to this year's freshman class when I welcome them a few days from now. The responsibility I will charge your sons and daughters with is this:
> 
> "If we were a medical school, and you were here as a med student practicing appendectomies, you'd take your work very seriously because you would imagine that some night at two AM someone is going to waltz into your emergency room and you're going to have to save their life. Well, my friends, someday at 8 PM someone is going to walk into your concert hall and bring you a mind that is confused, a heart that is overwhelmed, a soul that is weary. Whether they go out whole again will depend partly on how well you do your craft.
> 
> You're not here to become an entertainer, and you don't have to sell yourself. The truth is you don't have anything to sell; being a musician isn't about dispensing a product, like selling used cars. I'm not an entertainer; I'm a lot closer to a paramedic, a firefighter, a rescue worker. You're here to become a sort of therapist for the human soul, a spiritual version of a chiropractor, physical therapist, someone who works with our insides to see if they get things to line up, to see if we can come into harmony with ourselves and be healthy and happy and well.
> 
> Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I expect you not only to master music; I expect you to save the planet. If there is a future wave of wellness on this planet, of harmony, of peace, of an end to war, of mutual understanding, of equality, of fairness, I don't expect it will come from a government, a military force or a corporation. I no longer even expect it to come from the religions of the world, which together seem to have brought us as much war as they have peace. If there is a future of peace for humankind, if there is to be an understanding of how these invisible, internal things should fit together, I expect it will come from the artists, because that's what we do. As in the concentration camp and the evening of 9/11, the artists are the ones who might be able to help us with our internal, invisible lives."
> 
> Karl Paulnack ~Music Director Boston Conservatory


I love this post and i love you for posting it.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Definitely not. Music is art and art is by no means useless, humans have created art for more than *10,000 years*. That probably sounds like a facile statement, but I find profoundness in the simplicity of the fact that before language was even developed, we felt the need to express ourselves through art.

If you want more concrete evidence, I think we can definitely state that music helps our well-being (physical and mental), it relieves stress and helps us get through difficult times.


----------



## KenOC

CypressWillow said:


> _Quotes another poster: What Pinker is saying is that music never contributed anything to the propagation of the species."_


If Darwin were here and could see the masses of groupies that have flocked around musicians since Liszt's time hoping for a gene-meld, he'd probably suspect that music has some useful role to play in propagation. Though, like me, he might be stumped about what that role is.


----------



## Stargazer

Music is as useless as a beautiful autumn day, a picturesque mountain view, a priceless oil painting, or a wonderful scent permeating the air. In short, music adds very little from a purely physical perspective, but it can impact a person both emotionally and psychologically. The reasons as to why this is can be debated, but the fact still remains. Sure, a person can live a perfectly happy and fulfilling life without music, but a person's life can be enriched that much more with it. And without all of the little things in life, this world would be quite boring, don't you think?


----------



## Lukecash12

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Definitely not. Music is art and art is by no means useless, humans have created art for more than *10,000 years*. That probably sounds like a facile statement, but I find profoundness in the simplicity of the fact that before language was even developed, we felt the need to express ourselves through art.
> 
> If you want more concrete evidence, I think we can definitely state that music helps our well-being (physical and mental), it relieves stress and helps us get through difficult times.


That's not the contention Pinker is making, though. What he was saying was that music has no evolutionary value, and I argued that music and other cultural diversions accelerated mental aptitude throughout history and the fossil record.


----------



## hpowders

To some people, apparently, music is useless. I've watched a movie, with the most beautiful background score, and when the beautiful music wells up and the talking stops, my companion uses that as an excuse to talk to me. I give her a "shhhhhh!!!" and she gets offended that I am being "rude".

Yes. To some folks music is really unimportant.


----------



## Min

Part of what we would mean in theorizing that "_music contributes nothing to humans' basic adaptive abilities_" is that those adaptive abilities seem all intact regardless whether we make, hear, or can appreciate, music.

But, the same can be said for your right arm: if you lose that arm, yet your basic human adaptive abilities all remain intact. Therefore, your right arm is biologically useless. And, we can say this for either arm: that both of them are useless.

Of course, if arms were as abstract as are the instances of the mental processes that occur in direct relation to the arts, then we could get rid of both arms and, according to this theory, conceivably be undiminished in our adaptive capacities.

But, Pinker _did_ say that music could be absent in our lives and we would be virtually undiminished in our ability to adapt to our world. But, then, how many together of the 'useless' parts of our cognitive selves, like either arm, can we, as individuals or as a species, do just as well without?


----------



## shangoyal

Come on, music is pure living in my opinion. Just being yourself, not talking, not fighting, not eating, but just meditating on abstract sounds which make sense in a very unique way to us. I would say, music appears utterly useless to us only because it is something which offers an almost indescribable experience.

Sometimes I think language is useless. And such empty research which says music is useless

I would go as far as saying that - had it not been for music, parts of my life would have been impossible for me to get through.


----------



## Min

shangoyal said:


> Come on, music is pure living in my opinion. Just being yourself, not talking, not fighting, not eating, but just meditating on abstract sounds which make sense in a very unique way to us. I would say, music appears utterly useless to us only because it is something which offers an almost indescribable experience.
> 
> Sometimes I think language is useless. And such empty research which says music is useless
> 
> I would go as far as saying that - had it not been for music, parts of my life would have been impossible for me to get through.


I relate to that last part so well!

In my case, my very autonomy as my own person, in face of pressures to conform to someone's narrow notions of "normal", has thousands of times been indispensably served by music (with exactly whatever music that I pleased at a given time).

That first part is new to me, though: the idea that "music appears utterly useless to us (mainly) because it is something which offers an almost indescribable experience." I'm not much for the use of language, though I actually depend on it in order to define myself in terms that others can understand (and not too much misunderstand). My perception is that music, and so many other sensory and empathic mediums, is far more comprehensibly useful than language.
.

As for language being useless, it does have its potential drawbacks*:*

Famed physics teacher Richard Feynman presumed to much in favor of language when he found himself in mutual antagonism with a sensitive artist friend over the potential for a pleasant visceral wonder at the physics of a flower. This artist, call him Bob, expressed displeasure at being told of those physics. "Bob" even charged such physical science with taking away a person's sense of wonder at a flower, not realizing that his own language cognition was in effect being hijacked by Feynman's well-intentioned insanity.

Feynman assumed that "Bob's" sense of things as such was defective, and that his own physicist-sense of everything was perfectly balanced. Consequently, Feynman felt antagonized by "Bob's" own antagonistic reaction to being told of the atomic details of, say, how a flower has the color that it has. Feynman then sincerely called his friend 'nutty" (



).

Despite his ultimate, but effectively abstract, good intentions, Feynman did a grave disservice to his own conviction that science is the joy of discovery. Feynman was sensitive to the delicate microscopic beauties of a flower, but not to the delicateness of his friend―nor, even, to the delicate path of discovery by which himself was so fortunate to have found those microscopic facts purely wondrous, untainted by "linguistic-aesthetic indigestion". Feynman conflated the wonder of discovery with the language used to efficiently convey to the ignorant the facts discovered.
.

So, to inquire as to how music has meaning _*while either taking the 'meaning' of language at face value or trying to make music answer to the call of language*_ is like a 'foregone race' between a high-powered, fully computer integrated, modern muscle car, and a race horse:

The car's owner decides to race against a race horse, and he personally either or both admires the horse for its grace or disdains the horse for its inferior speed and acceleration. So, he contrives what he thinks is the best way to prove his relative views about horse-and-car: The horse is to be run from starting line to finish, while he sits idling in his car on the starting line the whole time. After all, everyone who 'knows anything' knows that his car is much faster than a horse.

The reason he 'races' the horse in this manner is because he either hopes the horse will run beautifully for those to whom he wants to sell the horse, or is comfortably proud in the assumption that his car is not ready to break down upon being driven a foot beyond the starting line.

But, the simple fact is that most of the general environment in which the driver ever finds himself is far more amenable to the horse than to his car. There are no verdant fields growing lush with engine gaskets, and the branches of the trees in the orchards are never heavy with ready-to-pluck socket wrenches. In less metaphorical terms, this means, in part, that in order to engage a person productively in language, that person's independent, non-linguistic sense of things must be engaged. And, the form of language cannot impart that sense if, by whatever cause, that sense is not directly engaged.

…So, after the driver has 'proved' that his car is the winner of the race against the horse by having let the horse run the course alone, the driver stomps on the accelerator to show the spectators what they― like himself― 'already knew'.

And, just then, the car stalls a foot beyond the starting line. The driver then says to himself, "Oh #@!! Someone just hacked my car!", unaware that it was he himself who hacked the car.


----------



## Morimur

Music is about as useless as therapy, and who among us has ever been in NEED of the latter? We all need about as much music/therapy as Elvis needed an enema (or ten). Conclusion: Music serves an extremely useful purpose.


----------



## satoru

I came late into this thread, but I want to point a couple of things.

Pinker's book "How the Mind Works" was published in print in Jan of 1999. Which suggests that most of the scientific research he relied on must have been published before early half of 1998. The identification of brain area responsible for language by fMRI was reported in Jan 1997 (http://www.jneurosci.org/content/17/1/353.full). Study by fMRI on how language region are involved in other processes came after this paper. fMRI is now revealing more and more of the mystery of brain and how it works, as such our understanding is expanding.

Secondly, Pinker is throwing the word "useless" without any science behind it. What does "useful" mean in terms of biology? OED defines useful as "Of things, actions, practices, etc.: capable of being put to good use; suitable for use; advantageous, profitable, beneficial". Those mwNINF are interpretations, not experimental facts. As we have many organisms with "songs=music", we must assume that the song capabilities have some "advantages=usefulness", otherwise, the trait would disappear from population, or wouldn't develop to a sophistication some birds show. Even more, what is "biological cause and effect"?

To me, the quoted Pinker's writing is just an eye-catching gimmick, intended to capture some audience's attention, not to be dissected for fine, scientific discussion. His standpoint against the idea that "language capability had emerged in tie with music" will soon lose the ground, as more and more results coming out suggesting the deep tie between two.

I think we can dismiss the quoted statement as a premature idea which will eventually buried in history.


----------



## Guest

satoru said:


> I came late into this thread, but I want to point a couple of things.
> 
> Pinker's book "How the Mind Works" was published in print in Jan of 1999. Which suggests that most of the scientific research he relied on must have been published before early half of 1998. The identification of brain area responsible for language by fMRI was reported in Jan 1997 (http://www.jneurosci.org/content/17/1/353.full). Study by fMRI on how language region are involved in other processes came after this paper. fMRI is now revealing more and more of the mystery of brain and how it works, as such our understanding is expanding.
> 
> Secondly, Pinker is throwing the word "useless" without any science behind it. What does "useful" mean in terms of biology? OED defines useful as "Of things, actions, practices, etc.: capable of being put to good use; suitable for use; advantageous, profitable, beneficial". Those mwNINF are interpretations, not experimental facts. As we have many organisms with "songs=music", we must assume that the song capabilities have some "advantages=usefulness", otherwise, the trait would disappear from population, or wouldn't develop to a sophistication some birds show. Even more, what is "biological cause and effect"?
> 
> To me, the quoted Pinker's writing is just an eye-catching gimmick, intended to capture some audience's attention, not to be dissected for fine, scientific discussion. His standpoint against the idea that "language capability had emerged in tie with music" will soon lose the ground, as more and more results coming out suggesting the deep tie between two.
> 
> I think we can dismiss the quoted statement as a premature idea which will eventually buried in history.


Did you read the whole book?


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Did you read the whole book?


I haven't read this, but I can wholeheartedly recommend another Pinker book, a wonderful curative for those who see the world through news reports on the Internet or from their newspapers.

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels...4296&sr=1-1&keywords=pinker+the+better+angels


----------



## Min

*Tyrants of the rational*



Xavier said:


> _"As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless. . . . Compared with vision, language, social reasoning, and physical know-how, music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged"_
> 
> **************************
> 
> The above is an excerpt from the book "How The Mind Works" by neuroscientist Steven Pinker.
> 
> *1.* Do you think he's right?
> 
> I have to say that no matter how many times I'm lifted to the heights of aesthetic experiences by my favorite composers (Wagner, Debussy, Brahms, Schoenberg et al) I always quietly acknowledge to myself that it's still... _only music_. I understand that the pleasure is biologically pointless and that no higher purpose is being served by it.


Re: 1. Try this on for size:

"As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, *aesthetic pleasure* is useless. . . . Compared with vision, language, social reasoning, and physical know-how, *aesthetic pleasure* could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged."

It is possible to compartmentalize one's own senses of things, such that one arrives at the belief-concept that the function-property of aesthetic pleasure is ancillary to anything that one finds more obviously practical. In fact, those particular brains that have little sense of the connection between, or the inter-informing spectrum comprised of, its own practical/'impractical' pleasures will find it quite 'obvious' that a host of pleasures are 'strictly useless'. It is this type of brain/sensibility that, if it's person is an effective tyrant over a clan or a country, sees entirely fit to make every kind of animal into a good rat, thus failing to realize the next nearest stage of constructive infrastructure which only the normal natural individual freedom is capable of producing.

It is one thing to fancy possessing all the requisite conscious know-how to, say, colonize another planet, but quite another thing to allow for the one thing that can develop that know-how in the first place. Pinker's notion may well be merely fanciful, so it is good that he is not a tyrant.


----------



## Min

*Pure nonsense by predation*



Xavier said:


> ...the evolutionary status of music is a separate question from *the value* of music. Pinker recognizes this, and as an evolutionary psychologist he's only interested in the former.


I find this fairly absurd. If music has any adaptive value for current humans, then by what logic are we to assert that music surely cannot have had any adaptive value for the first musical humans? How does Pinker defend language as adaptive while disparaging music as non-adaptive? I think his sense of the aesthetic has been that it is pure nonsense. After all, he was moved to liken music to recreational drugs...

Of course, even in Pinker's mind, something must be adaptive. For Pinker, language is the clear champion over music in that regard, so he is going to be quite naturally lead to interpret evidence according to his notion that music is non-adaptive nonsense. So does the tyrannical parent who eschews any kind of play in his children, perhaps while himself being quite certain that all of his own pleasures are entirely justified.

Not very long ago at all, sleep itself had no clear evidence to support its necessity, and many of Pinker's ilk sincerely doubted that sleep was adaptive. This is because sleep is down-time in face of potential predation.

Likewise, anything at all that does not constitute direct response to predation and dog-eat-dog competition is so easily deemed non-adaptive. Some heads sure are overflowing with narrow-minded nonsense, but the track record of such overflows is ignored in favor of the "science now knows" line.


----------



## shangoyal

Amazingly hilarious to see that a thread called "Is Music Useless?" is so hot.


----------



## Lukecash12

shangoyal said:


> Come on, music is pure living in my opinion. Just being yourself, not talking, not fighting, not eating, but just meditating on abstract sounds which make sense in a very unique way to us. I would say, music appears utterly useless to us only because it is something which offers an almost indescribable experience.
> 
> Sometimes I think language is useless. And such empty research which says music is useless
> 
> I would go as far as saying that - had it not been for music, parts of my life would have been impossible for me to get through.


Facepalm. Figures that the title would provoke dozens of responses like this. What Pinker really meant, and maybe what the thread title should have been, is "music has no evolutionary value".


----------



## Lukecash12

Min said:


> I find this fairly absurd. If music has any adaptive value for current humans, then by what logic are we to assert that music surely cannot have had any adaptive value for the first musical humans? How does Pinker defend language as adaptive while disparaging music as non-adaptive? I think his sense of the aesthetic has been that it is pure nonsense. After all, he was moved to liken music to recreational drugs...
> 
> Of course, even in Pinker's mind, something must be adaptive. For Pinker, language is the clear champion over music in that regard, so he is going to be quite naturally lead to interpret evidence according to his notion that music is non-adaptive nonsense. So does the tyrannical parent who eschews any kind of play in his children, perhaps while himself being quite certain that all of his own pleasures are entirely justified.
> 
> Not very long ago at all, sleep itself had no clear evidence to support its necessity, and many of Pinker's ilk sincerely doubted that sleep was adaptive. This is because sleep is down-time in face of potential predation.
> 
> Likewise, anything at all that does not constitute direct response to predation and dog-eat-dog competition is so easily deemed non-adaptive. Some heads sure are overflowing with narrow-minded nonsense, but the track record of such overflows is ignored in favor of the "science now knows" line.


Pinker's main problem is that he has the process of child development backwards. He puts the second stage before the first in language acquisition. First, children identify the speaker and his/her general meaning by pitch, timbre and rhythm. This comes before any vocabulary retention, so the fundamental truth here is that when it comes to expressing ourselves we think musically. And after we develop our vocabulary we still rely on a musical understanding of the speaker to make other observations than verbatim observations.

Moreover, the fact that aside from any of those considerations music has been proven to benefit child development and it has been universally observed as an article of culture, seems to me to be demonstrable of it's participation in the advancement of society in general. Society has indisputable evolutionary value, doesn't it?


----------



## shangoyal

Lukecash12 said:


> Facepalm. Figures that the title would provoke dozens of responses like this. What Pinker really meant, and maybe what the thread title should have been, is "music has no evolutionary value".


You can't un-read it. You are owned!


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Lukecash12 said:


> That's not the contention Pinker is making, though. What he was saying was that music has no evolutionary value, and I argued that music and other cultural diversions accelerated mental aptitude throughout history and the fossil record.


Oh, I agree with you 100%, I'm actually a big fan of Steven Pinker. I didn't want to get into the whole "Pinker Statement" that many other people were addressing because there are always bound to be misunderstandings about what he actually meant by what he said, which is nothing derogatory towards music itself.

I just wanted to address the base thread title of "Is Music Useless?" as in what it means to me and is it useless to me. That's why I didn't even talk about Pinker at all in my comment. I was gonna try to clear things up about Pinker's statement as you did, but to be honest, I just didn't feel like it, haha. For the record, I agree with him, in purely evolutionary and scientific terms.


----------



## Min

*Is this Relativity???*



DiesIraeVIX said:


> "music has no evolutionary value"
> 
> For the record, I agree with him, in purely evolutionary and scientific terms.


If music currently benefits humans, then what does it mean to say that music has no evolutionary value??? What am I missing here???

And, if I am, in fact, missing something here, then why do I keep missing it????????? Does it not appear on either side of a conceptual coin???

I get a lot of things by how they are opposed, whether complementarily or antagonistically. It's how I think. You know, like symmetry. I assume that Pinker's common audience is like me in that regard.

So, if I'm missing something in the equation, is it the biological version of Relativity?...

...*"*Regardless of the motion of the observer, music originally was useless.*"* ?


----------



## Lukecash12

Min said:


> If music currently benefits humans, then what does it mean to say that music has no evolutionary value??? What am I missing here???
> 
> And, if I am, in fact, missing something here, then why do I keep missing it????????? Does it not appear on either side of a conceptual coin???
> 
> I get a lot of things by how they are opposed, whether complementarily or antagonistically. It's how I think. You know, like symmetry. I assume that Pinker's common audience is like me in that regard.
> 
> So, if I'm missing something in the equation, is it the biological version of Relativity?...
> 
> ...*"*Regardless of the motion of the observer, music originally was useless.*"* ?


Music "isn't evolutionarily important" because according to Pinker it didn't figure into who mated with whom amongst the Archaic Homo Sapiens, or Homo Sapiens Sapiens for that matter. I heartily disagree with this assessment of the archeological record. Like I said just earlier, Pinker's views on child development are outdated because he puts content and substance before general impressions in the process of language acquisition for babies. Children learn to recognize timbre, rhythm, and pitch to form mental impressions well before they learn any vocabulary. What this means is that our minds are fundamentally musical and music may very well have had a role throughout the history of human culture in developing more and more prodigious brains. As societies get more sophisticated so does the music.


----------



## science

Min said:


> The theory you espouse here seems to me to imply that human artifactial music is alien to the human aesthetic-sensibility continuum of sounds.
> 
> Our general sonic aesthetic sensibilities (which, in my view, includes human artifactual-aesthetic sonics) provokes and refreshes our senses; Language often does not, or at least not nearly so powerfully when it counts the most. Language is the reduction of our cognitive and productive load, in order to ensure a high degree of semantic precision and communicative dependability. This explains why language in the sonic form tends to be comprised of a very limited number of functional sounds; and is why these functional sounds in natural sonic languages typically are, in terms of human sonic affect, of maximally reduced general physiological and psychological impact. We don't sing, shout, or bawl our lectures, we speak them.
> 
> The problem is that, back in the middle bulk of the last century, when our audiences were bored, we had tended to assume that it was the fault of the audience. Some in the audience thought so, too.
> 
> So, back then, you just _thought_ that you were bored with the particular subject on which your professor was droning; and he just _thought_ that you lacked either or both the intelligence or earnestness to pay attention. As Will Smith's character in _Men in Black_, Agent J, found, his school teacher really was an alien. :lol:


I don't know how the theory I espoused implied that or is relevant to it at all! We must have misunderstood each other.


----------



## Min

science said:


> I don't know how the theory I espoused implied that or is relevant to it at all! We must have misunderstood each other.


Maybe both yes and no (we must have misunderstood each other).

You said:


science said:


> Whatever music's purpose is to us now, way way back when we evolved musical ability and enjoyment, it served a purpose - as part of a host of behaviors (including religion) that helped us to form larger cooperating groups than could be held together by kin selection and reciprocity alone. Individuals skilled in these behaviors (including music and religion) survived and reproduced more often because they could gain status within their groups, and such groups defeated other groups in wars.


Here you seem to me to espouse the idea that the human individual, as such, evolved a love for music as a *consequence* of the success of collective rivalry. To my way of thinking, one could as well espouse the idea that motherly love itself evolved from success at collective rivalry.

My view is that unless "music" already appealed to human individuals, as such, then I see no way that "music" could ever have effected the "purpose" of any kind of collective organization, especially the antagonistic kind.

Yes, the enigmatically human kinds of sonic aesthetic sensibility must have originated from *x*, whatever *x* actually is. But, the problem of the origin of "music" is a problem which is by no means exclusive to "music". Human aesthetic sensibility to forms, both sonic and otherwise, is enigmatic in face of all other species on Earth.

Are you certain in your own mind that your logic is not inconsistent? I allow that mine may be.


----------



## Min

Lukecash12 said:


> our minds are fundamentally musical and music may very well have had a role throughout the history of human culture in developing more and more prodigious brains. As societies get more sophisticated so does the music.


For myself, I don't see a necessary connection there. I find quite probable that the "prodigiousness" of the modern human brain would be back at square one, culturally speaking, if suddenly, inexplicably, all technology and general artifacts (including all literature, and every scap of artifactual refuse) vanished, and us moderns all found ourselves naked, houseless, and without even any ready metals to fashion into tools. How could the next generation then ever hear the complex music we grew up with, or learn what's possible technologically? How could the "prodigious" culture that we would have had prior to that inexplicable event be maintained after such an event? For me, I just find it entirely unreasonable to assume that the brains of stone age humans were essentially less evolved than ours.


----------



## Lukecash12

Min said:


> For myself, I don't see a necessary connection there. I find quite probable that the "prodigiousness" of the modern human brain would be back at square one, culturally speaking, if suddenly, inexplicably, all technology and general artifacts (including all literature, and every scap of artifactual refuse) vanished, and us moderns all found ourselves naked, houseless, and without even any ready metals to fashion into tools. How could the next generation then ever hear the complex music we grew up with, or learn what's possible technologically? How could the "prodigious" culture that we would have had prior to that inexplicable event be maintained after such an event? For me, I just find it entirely unreasonable to assume that the brains of stone age humans were essentially less evolved than ours.


See post #131, page 9:



> The reasons that we can prove that music has been essential using physical anthropology, are pretty interesting:
> 
> *1. From what we know about brain development when people are stimulated with entertaining diversions new neural pathways are made. When new neural pathways are made people either begin to make new associations or associations are reaffirmed making processes occur more quickly.*
> 2. Music stimulates people to think about meter, pitch, and general variations in pattern. This involves higher abstract problem solving processes.
> *3. Interestingly enough, there is this phenomenon that has been found relatively recently in genetics. Maybe someone here who is involved in the field or has read about this can tell me exactly what it's called, but I think I may be able to explain the basic concept. There is actually this process that occurs during the life of a multi-cellular organism, especially so with those that rely on more advanced brains. What happens is the genetic code compresses itself during the thing's life so that by the time it mates there is a sizable amount of genetic code original to it, not it's parents. So far I've only been able to understand it using Mendellian explanations, but there are some very interesting implications that I will get into in #4.
> 4. Considering 1 & 2, this interesting process of the individual creating something new from it's own code during it's life, seems to suggest that people stimulated by cultural diversions such as music could pass on more prolific abstract thinking at an accelerated rate.*
> *5. Looking at the fossil record up until written history, we can find that music and other such forms of play grow more sophisticated alongside the practical tools. The diversions didn't stay the same, rather they grew in sophistication relative to technology.*
> 6. Upon further inspection of history in general, it is very easy to notice a trend in technological advancements, that as time goes on we invent new things at a rate that continues to accelerate. And as time goes on our entertainment becomes more diverse and sophisticated. There seems to be a direct relation and this much has been clear to people studying child development. The child that was stimulated with all kinds of colors and sounds, had more different languages spoken around him/her, played more different games, and heard a greater variety of music (especially complex music such as Western classical or Hindustani/Carnatic classical), tends to grow into a person with more prodigious mental abilities. There seems to be a direct relation here.
> 
> So, in conclusion: Much like it is considered beneficial to read your children books, talk to them, and play games with them all before they can even walk or talk, music can be part of developing not just a healthy but a prodigious brain. While it isn't immediately important to survival to be able to read, play games, or write/play/listen to music, it appears that such stimulation can help in other areas of life such as abstract thinking and planning, thus drastically improving living conditions. Not only would survival rates increase, but culturally adept individuals were probably better able to mate as their talents surely would have been found attractive. This can be observed today in societies where there are people that still live very simple nomadic lives, how that men who are talented storytellers, musicians, etc. tend to be popular and attract mates.


I emboldened the portions I would like to emphasize, because I think they make a case for the brains of stone age humans being legitimately different. There is a lot that happens during early development and adolescence, and as culture progresses so does the development stage. Also, I mentioned a process of genetics not commonly known (the compression of code) that accelerates evolution, and it's relevance.


----------



## satoru

I did a search on scientific publication database for a paper which supports the claim "As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless. It shows no signs of design for attaining a goal such as long life, grandchildren, or accurate perception and prediction of the world.", and it came up empty. Does anybody know a peer-reviewed publication which supports the above statement? Thanks!


----------



## satoru

... and there is a research paper suggests that exposing yourself to "arts" lowers the mortality risk.

Scand J Public Health. 2000 Sep;28(3):174-8.
Visiting the cinema, concerts, museums or art exhibitions as determinant of survival: a Swedish fourteen-year cohort follow-up.
Konlaan BB1, Bygren LO, Johansson SE.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11045748

"We found a higher mortality risk for those people who rarely visited the cinema, concerts, museums, or art exhibitions compared with those visiting them most often. "


----------



## SixFootScowl

Benjamin Zander on The transformative power of classical music:


----------



## mmsbls

Min said:


> If music currently benefits humans, then what does it mean to say that music has no evolutionary value??? What am I missing here???





satoru said:


> I did a search on scientific publication database for a paper which supports the claim "As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless. It shows no signs of design for attaining a goal such as long life, grandchildren, or accurate perception and prediction of the world.", and it came up empty. Does anybody know a peer-reviewed publication which supports the above statement? Thanks!


I believe the issue here is not that Pinker believes music has no _present evolutionary value_. He is making a different statement. Music depends on various brain hardware and processes. I think Pinker is saying that the brain hardware and processes did not evolve because of music. A parallel would be that arms and legs did not evolve to play sports like basketball. Basketball ability today may have a significant evolutionary advantage, but the ability to play basketball did not help arms and legs to evolve.

Pinker believes that the relevant brain hardware and processes evolved without music. Once the hardware evolved music became possible. In this sense music is an exaptation (i.e. a feature or function that was not acquired through natural selection).


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Pinker believes that the relevant brain hardware and processes evolved without music. Once the hardware evolved music became possible. In this sense music is an exaptation (i.e. a feature or function that was not acquired through natural selection).


I guess this means that humans didn't develop opposable thumbs in order to clutch iPhones? My illusions are shattered.


----------



## satoru

mmsbls said:


> Pinker believes that the relevant brain hardware and processes evolved without music. Once the hardware evolved music became possible. In this sense music is an exaptation (i.e. a feature or function that was not acquired through natural selection).


Thanks for a clarification, mmsbls!

Hmm, it's easy to say the above, but backing the statement by scientific research results are very difficult, as we still don't fully understand what brain functions are needed for music yet. My friend who studies evolution of bird songs belongs to different school than Pinker, and he thinks that some brain regions are actually evolved to accommodate more sophisticated songs (=music). Let's see who's idea is closer to the truth!


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I believe the issue here is not that Pinker believes music has no _present evolutionary value_. He is making a different statement. Music depends on various brain hardware and processes. I think Pinker is saying that the brain hardware and processes did not evolve because of music. A parallel would be that arms and legs did not evolve to play sports like basketball. Basketball ability today may have a significant evolutionary advantage, but the ability to play basketball did not help arms and legs to evolve.
> 
> Pinker believes that the relevant brain hardware and processes evolved without music. Once the hardware evolved music became possible. In this sense music is an exaptation (i.e. a feature or function that was not acquired through natural selection).


You're (almost) on your own here mmsbls. The majority of posters in this thread have been so determined to be offended by the simplistic representation of Pinker's idea that no amount of contrary posting by you or anyone else on Pinker's 'side' will stem the tide. You might as well try saying that Washington _did _cut down that cherry tree.


----------



## Min

*There is no stone age human brain*



mmsbls said:


> Basketball ability today may have a significant evolutionary advantage, but the ability to play basketball did not help arms and legs to evolve.
> 
> Pinker believes that the relevant brain hardware and processes evolved without music. Once the hardware evolved music became possible. In this sense music is an exaptation (i.e. a feature or function that was not acquired through natural selection).


To adapt a line used in Mythbusters, I reject Pinker's reality and substitute my own. Here's why:

First, what we normally call "music" is nothing more than the sonic version of complex recursive patterns, as such, the non-sonic versions of which are found throughout the structures of the natural world.

Second, there is no evidence to assure that the level of aesthetic intelligence of modern humans was not possessed by stone age humans, given how the modern human brain would be put to task were it to find itself in that stone age world with none of the things with which it currently grows up being familiar culturally and technologically.

Third, the aesthetic intelligence of the modern human brain does not have an exclusively "musical" module, but, rather, consists of a spectrum from which human general adaptive intelligence draws in order to create "music".


----------



## Min

mmsbls said:


> I believe the issue here is not that Pinker believes music has no _present evolutionary value_. He is making a different statement. Music depends on various brain hardware and processes. I think Pinker is saying that the brain hardware and processes did not evolve because of music.


Songbirds already make their own kind and level of music. And, as play is virtually universal in the animal world, sonic play is merely a small step from there. If modern humans evolved from a less-than-modern-human species of humanoids, then at what stage in that evolution did "music" appear?

It seems to me that Pinker is far too modern-centric (and human-centric, and language-centric) in his notions about "music". Of course, modern humans are anomalous among all species in the amount of their time and energies spent on sonic play, and in the forms of the result of that play. But, then, this is not unique to human music, but applies to human technology in general, and to human aesthetic perception in general. Human musical behavior, or human art behavior in general, does not stand alone as anomalous.


----------



## mmsbls

Min said:


> To adapt a line used in Mythbusters, I reject Pinker's reality and substitute my own. Here's why:
> 
> First, what we normally call "music" is nothing more than the sonic version of complex recursive patterns, as such, the non-sonic versions of which are found throughout the structures of the natural world.
> 
> Second, there is no evidence to assure that the level of aesthetic intelligence of modern humans was not possessed by stone age humans, given how the modern human brain would be put to task were it to find itself in that stone age world with none of the things with which it currently grows up being familiar culturally and technologically.
> 
> Third, the aesthetic intelligence of the modern human brain does not have an exclusively "musical" module, but, rather, consists of a spectrum from which human general adaptive intelligence draws in order to create "music".


I understand that you disagree with Pinker's assertion. I neither agree nor disagree because I know far too little about the technical details that matter. I would be a bit surprised if anyone on this forum had the experimental or theoretical background and knowledge to truly understand the important issues in this debate. I could be wrong of course.


----------



## satoru

mmsbls said:


> I would be a bit surprised if anyone on this forum had the experimental or theoretical background and knowledge to truly understand the important issues in this debate. I could be wrong of course.


 Why you'd think so? I guess there are many professional scientists on this forum, more than we think.


----------



## Guest

satoru said:


> Why you'd think so? I guess there are many professional scientists on this forum, more than we think.


I'm sure there are lots of 'scientists' who listen to classical music, but the term 'scientist' is too broad. What light would an astrophysicist or a marine biologist be able to shed on whether music or language came first?

The least anyone would need to have done is actually read Pinker's book. It's not clear how many of those who've contributed so far have done so.


----------



## mmsbls

satoru said:


> Why you'd think so? I guess there are many professional scientists on this forum, more than we think.


I'm aware of a number of scientists on the forum, but the vast majority work in industry rather than pure research. Further, as MacLeod has suggested, unless one were actively working in a field related to the evolution of the brain it would be rather unlikely that one would have a reasonable background in the relevant issues.

I personally am a physicist (a former particle physicist and presently working in transportation/energy research). If you asked me about a controversy in solid state physics or issues in biofuels, I probably would not know enough to give an authoritative answer.


----------



## Serge

Yes, music is pretty much useless unless one can make a pretty good use of it.


----------



## Rhythm

I heart this quote!


Serge said:


> Yes, music is pretty much useless unless one can make a pretty good use of it.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

I don't know if music is useless or not, but it comforts me more than most things in this world and that is something.


----------



## Itullian

mmsbls said:


> I'm aware of a number of scientists on the forum, but the vast majority work in industry rather than pure research. Further, as MacLeod has suggested, unless one were actively working in a field related to the evolution of the brain it would be rather unlikely that one would have a reasonable background in the relevant issues.
> 
> I personally am a physicist (a former particle physicist and presently working in transportation/energy research). If you asked me about a controversy in solid state physics or issues in biofuels, I probably would not know enough to give an authoritative answer.


How come we can change mass to energy, but not energy to mass?


----------



## Woodduck

Fundamentally, yes. All the things human beings value most are useless. The best things in life may not be free - we do, after all, have to do something to obtain or keep anything we value - but they are the things we pursue mainly for the pleasure of the pursuit itself, whatever secondary or incidental uses they may have. Far from being means to the end of living, things such as music, art, beauty, and love are the ends to which life itself is the means, and without which life would have little value.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> Fundamentally, yes. All the things human beings value most are useless. The best things in life may not be free - we do, after all, have to do something to obtain or keep anything we value - but they are the things we pursue mainly for the pleasure of the pursuit itself, whatever secondary or incidental uses they may have. Far from being means to the end of living, things such as music, art, beauty, and love are the ends to which life itself is the means, and without which life would have little value.


Definately. _;D_

The _standard of value_ is life-- your life. Life is the antecedent concept that makes the concept of value possible.

The _purpose _of your life is your own happiness.


----------



## Serge

Woodduck said:


> Fundamentally, yes. All the things human beings value most are useless. The best things in life may not be free - we do, after all, have to do something to obtain or keep anything we value - but they are the things we pursue mainly for the pleasure of the pursuit itself, whatever secondary or incidental uses they may have. Far from being means to the end of living, things such as music, art, beauty, and love are the ends to which life itself is the means, and without which life would have little value.


Well, yeah. But try putting it in a sentence.


----------



## Woodduck

Serge said:


> Well, yeah. But try putting it in a sentence.


Putting what in a sentence?


----------



## Serge

Woodduck said:


> Putting what in a sentence?


Never mind. I thought I was talking to Mark Twain.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Serge said:


> Never mind. I thought I was talking to Mark Twain.


Woodduck has a pretty deft turn of phrase, but Twain's undeniably good too.


----------



## mmsbls

Itullian said:


> How come we can change mass to energy, but not energy to mass?


Briefly so as not to disrupt the thread, mass can change into energy and energy can change into mass. Both reactions are allowed. In fact, one popular theory asserts that all the mass in the universe came from the energy of a particular field present when our universe began.


----------



## Woodduck

Serge said:


> Never mind. I thought I was talking to Mark Twain.


That's either the nicest compliment I've ever received, or you're as inebriated as you look in your avatar.

I'll take the former (and don't try to talk me out of it). :tiphat:


----------



## science

Min said:


> Maybe both yes and no (we must have misunderstood each other).
> 
> You said:
> 
> Here you seem to me to espouse the idea that the human individual, as such, evolved a love for music as a *consequence* of the success of collective rivalry. To my way of thinking, one could as well espouse the idea that motherly love itself evolved from success at collective rivalry.
> 
> My view is that unless "music" already appealed to human individuals, as such, then I see no way that "music" could ever have effected the "purpose" of any kind of collective organization, especially the antagonistic kind.
> 
> Yes, the enigmatically human kinds of sonic aesthetic sensibility must have originated from *x*, whatever *x* actually is. But, the problem of the origin of "music" is a problem which is by no means exclusive to "music". Human aesthetic sensibility to forms, both sonic and otherwise, is enigmatic in face of all other species on Earth.
> 
> Are you certain in your own mind that your logic is not inconsistent? I allow that mine may be.


Hmmmm....

I suspect "music" began as an appreciation for rhythms and maybe tones, simply the result of having a sense of hearing and finding some sounds or patterns of sounds more pleasing than others.

But the question is, how did that kind of thing turn into the ability to effortlessly remember thousands of tunes? Unlike Pinker, I'm very impressed by human musical ability, and I figure something drove its evolution. Also unlike Pinker, I suspect the same thing of religion. I suspect that human groups that had religion and music killed groups that didn't, and within groups the individuals (probably both men and women, but perhaps especially men) who manipulated the group's religion and music most skillfully also had more children. It's a grim view of humanity but that's neither here nor there to me.

I really hope scientists with the relevant expertise figure out some ways to test theories like this, because for now it's hard to know what is a good guess and what is a just-so story.


----------



## Min

*Analogue adaptability*



mmsbls said:


> Briefly so as not to disrupt the thread, mass can change into energy and energy can change into mass. Both reactions are allowed. In fact, one popular theory asserts that all the mass in the universe came from the energy of a particular field present when our universe began.


...And human music and language are likewise inter-transformable. In fact, I would think that the ability of any species to recognize a field of sonic possibility beyond the limits of its own "linguistic" outputs comprises (or, at least, bounds) its aesthetic sonic sense.

I see not hard distinction between normative human "music" and human's total field of aesthetic sonic sensibility, but Pinker, in 1997, seems to have thought there is. It's quite difficult, I would say impossible, to define the structural limits of that music as distinct from that field. This relates well to something that evolutionary psychologist Paul W. Andrews wrote in 2002 in his paper, _Adaptationism - how to carry out an exaptationist program_:



> Learning is a process in which feedback from the environment modifies the neurological structures that give rise to behavior and cognition. Learning mechanisms are themselves adaptations that allow the organism to adaptively modulate behavior with changing environments. As adaptations they have functions (e.g., to learn a language, to fear a predator, to get along with others, etc.). However, by their very nature, learning mechanisms are somewhat flexible with respect to outcome. It is possible that a learning mechanism can be so flexible that it can develop behavioral and cognitive traits that perform tasks that are not the function of the mechanism. For instance, being able to drive a car or play the stock market must in some sense represent the output of learning mechanisms that evolved for other purposes. Moreover, neural network models suggest that a single learning mechanism may be able to generate different cognitive mechanisms, each of which exhibits good design for performing a different task


(http://calendar.ksu.edu/psych/research/documents/2002BBScomment_000.pdf )

Assuming that mass and energy are two modes of one thing, then why can't language and music be likewise? Or, as I prefer to say, for every action there immediately is an equal and opposite action (not reaction).


----------



## Min

science said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> I suspect "music" began as an appreciation for rhythms and maybe tones, simply the result of having a sense of hearing and finding some sounds or patterns of sounds more pleasing than others.
> 
> But the question is, how did that kind of thing turn into the ability to effortlessly remember thousands of tunes? Unlike Pinker, I'm very impressed by human musical ability, and I figure something drove its evolution.


Somehow, the human brain exists. LOL

Sonic natural languages all involve variations in and, occasionally, extremes of, pitch, tempo, and volume. This most essentially is because such involvement is the intelligent use of multiple sensory dimensions for the balanced maximization of all of the efficiencies and effects of which language in any case is concerned.

But, in most, if not all, sonic natural languages, every one of the definite meanings whom its agents ever may wish to abstractly communicate to their fellows can, in fact, be so communicated without involving any of the features of everyday human speech that we normally think of as musical. This de-musical-ized speech is what I shall call Basic Speech. But, it seems that this "Basic Speech" lacks any strong physiological or psychological effect of their own. So, only by acquired fairly arbitrary associations do these fairly non-musical sounds of speech become particularly meaningful to the psychological processes of any higher animal organism.

A close approximation of this minimalized, "Basic Speech" is the monotone delivered by the voice actress for Computer of the original Star Trek TV series. Computer's voice therein seems fairly indifferent to anything that "it"/"she" is saying. But, "her" un-fluid, rat-tat-tat manner of initializations and terminations, and "her" tonal constancy right to the end of each indifferently factual statement, easily can make "her" voice adversely over-stimulating to young animals which need more soft-edged sounds. In fact, the voice of Computer may be characterized as a kind of barking. When I first heard that voice as a child, it struck me as perfectly alarming and aggressive, despite the natural feminine timbre of the actress playing it. I even was alarmed at the fact that the actors playing Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and so on, seemed to be trying not to look the least alarmed at Computer's voice. I like to think that this was by some intention of the creators of the fictional Computer and its voice; that they felt some affinity for the classic Mad Scientist who, for his madly 'rational' ambitions, creates a monstrous reflection of his mad self in the form of an otherwise-ideal female companion.

But, in order properly to prosecute the distinction between music and language, we must ask just how madly to which that Mad Scientist fails to recognize his madness as such. The fact, it seems, is that to actually program a computer voice to be genuinely mono-prosodic is the sparse logic merely of not bothering to program its sonic output with any kind of fluidity. By an even more spare second logic, a physically most simple sonic output device that still produces recognizable speech sounds does not have the richness of timbre of any animal vocalization, but produces what may be called a single narrow blade of sound, comparable to a laser beam. But, to characterize the first spartan logic as genuinely wise is to be hypocritical for bothering to program human speech at all. You see, a series of monotonic beeps will do for language, as most any Morse Code expert will know.

The question, then, is why even the speech of the fictional Vulcan race, for all its superior rational faculties, does not consist of beeps?


----------



## GGluek

I have not read through all 13 pages, so some wag has probably already said this, but, judging from the number of people conceived while music is setting the mood, I would disagree that music has no part to play in the propagation of the species.


----------



## Woodduck

GGluek said:


> I have not read through all 13 pages, so some wag has probably already said this, but, judging from the number of people conceived while music is setting the mood, I would disagree that music has no part to play in the propagation of the species.


To quote Anna Russell: "Shakespeare said 'If music be the food of love, play on!' He didn't say on what, but I think it's a maaahvelous idea!"


----------



## EdwardBast

science said:


> Also unlike Pinker, I suspect the same thing of religion. I suspect that human groups that had religion and music killed groups that didn't, and within groups the individuals (probably both men and women, but perhaps especially men) who manipulated the group's religion and music most skillfully also had more children. It's a grim view of humanity but that's neither here nor there to me.
> 
> I really hope scientists with the relevant expertise figure out some ways to test theories like this, because for now it's hard to know what is a good guess and what is a just-so story.


I think Daniel Dennett addresses some of these speculations on religion and reproductive success in his _Breaking the Spell_.


----------



## science

EdwardBast said:


> I think Daniel Dennett addresses some of these speculations on religion and reproductive success in his _Breaking the Spell_.


Yes, he does a little. People like Scott Atran (mentioned first because he's my favorite) and David Sloane Wilson (because he's probably the most famous one) have been exploring it in more depth.


----------



## Min

science said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> I suspect "music" began as an appreciation for rhythms and maybe tones, simply the result of having a sense of hearing and finding some sounds or patterns of sounds more pleasing than others.
> 
> But the question is, how did that kind of thing turn into the ability to effortlessly remember thousands of tunes?
> 
> I suspect that human groups that had...music killed groups that didn't[;] and[,] within groups[,] the individuals...who manipulated the group's...music most skillfully also had more children. It's a grim view of humanity but that's neither here nor there to me.
> 
> I really hope scientists with the relevant expertise figure out some ways to test theories like this, because for now it's hard to know what is a good guess and what is a just-so story.


So, you are saying that your impressions of...what? *every* human ability? is the product of inter-human "predation" (inter-group killing, and intra-group "Machiavellianism")?

Then what of the abilities of the non-human animals? Are you saying that every ability of every life form is the result of "grim" tactics? What of social sensibilities? Is empathy evolved into existence from "grim" tactics? I'm not clear on what you are thinking. But, this sort of thing is, to my mind, a bit like using the square as the conceptual precedent for inventing the wheel, and then thinking that to "improve" the square "wheel" one must make a triangle, instead, so as to "eliminate one bump."


----------



## Ingélou

Interesting topic - but I am feeling far too tired today (after Scottish dancing last night) to read the last fourteen pages. Sorry! 

So, in a nutshell - music is not useless. It binds the clan together in rituals and community singing, so has social uses. It spurs men on to fight, so has martial uses. It enables dancing and workouts, so has physical uses. It stimulates the brain and the imagination, so has personal, mental uses. It improves mood, or helps to console, so improves family relationships. It is beautiful, so it gives a sense of purpose. :angel:

Can any of this be proved? Not really - the mind balks at the size and scope of the trials, questionnaires & control groups that would be required. But then, I can't prove my own existence - and if I say that you lot are a figment of my imagination, you can't prove that you're not, either. 

Music is not useless.


----------



## Min

mmsbls said:


> I think Pinker and others are not concerned here with the present evolution of the brain's music ability but rather the origin of this ability tens of thousands of years ago.





Abracadabra said:


> Well, in that case isn't Pinker merely saying, 'Music wasn't driven by a need to survive?"





science said:


> Yes, he was saying that.


The human organism does not need metals, or metal tools and devices, in order to survive in the natural on-ground environment of Earth. But, taken together or singly, how many of the things, and behaviors, and perceptive abilities, in which humans ever have improved their lot can the human organism survive without?

Pinker formerly *did* expressly espouse the idea that (I paraphrase) "Compared to language, the physical know-how involved in social intelligence, and physical know-how as such, music could vanish from the human species and the rest of our lives would be virtually unchanged."

That idea may seem quite simply true on its face. But, the reality is far from so simple. For just one thing, where precisely is the cut-off line between "music" sounds (and their perception) and the "non-music" sounds our perception of which enhances our ability to survive? Unless that "former Pinker" ascertains that cut-off line, then it seems that he doesn't begin to know what he is talking about.


----------



## Min

Ingélou said:


> But then, I can't prove my own existence - and if I say that you lot are a figment of my imagination, you can't prove that you're not, either.


I assume you mean "prove" in that first part to mean something like "I can't prove to *you lot* that I don't exist",...

...and that you mean "prove" in that second part to mean "You lot cannot prove to *me* that you exist."

So, assuming that you know anyone at all in the flesh, then you seem to be allowing that you cannot, merely by your normal words and actions, prove *to* that someone that you are not, say, a Terminator cyborg, or are not an hallucination on that someone's part.

If music is, in fact, useless, then, by extending your implicit line of reasoning, you are allowing that your mind is useless as well (since it is not omniscient, nor is it exempt from limits of self-understanding and self-tracking).

---which, by your logic, turns back upon your assertion that "music is not useless."


----------



## science

Min said:


> So, you are saying that your impressions of...what? *every* human ability? is the product of inter-human "predation" (inter-group killing, and intra-group "Machiavellianism")?
> 
> Then what of the abilities of the non-human animals? Are you saying that every ability of every life form is the result of "grim" tactics? What of social sensibilities? Is empathy evolved into existence from "grim" tactics? I'm not clear on what you are thinking. But, this sort of thing is, to my mind, a bit like using the square as the conceptual precedent for inventing the wheel, and then thinking that to "improve" the square "wheel" one must make a triangle, instead, so as to "eliminate one bump."


Well, every human ability, at least in some basic sense (for example, the ability to play video games depends on more basic abilities such as hand-eye coordination and so on), including things like compassion, evolved in response to some kind of selection pressures in our ancestors' environments, and evolution is a really grim process.

I'm not sure what the point about the square and triangle is.


----------



## science

Min said:


> Somehow, the human brain exists. LOL
> 
> Sonic natural languages all involve variations in and, occasionally, extremes of, pitch, tempo, and volume. This most essentially is because such involvement is the intelligent use of multiple sensory dimensions for the balanced maximization of all of the efficiencies and effects of which language in any case is concerned.
> 
> But, in most, if not all, sonic natural languages, every one of the definite meanings whom its agents ever may wish to abstractly communicate to their fellows can, in fact, be so communicated without involving any of the features of everyday human speech that we normally think of as musical. This de-musical-ized speech is what I shall call Basic Speech. But, it seems that this "Basic Speech" lacks any strong physiological or psychological effect of their own. So, only by acquired fairly arbitrary associations do these fairly non-musical sounds of speech become particularly meaningful to the psychological processes of any higher animal organism.
> 
> A close approximation of this minimalized, "Basic Speech" is the monotone delivered by the voice actress for Computer of the original Star Trek TV series. Computer's voice therein seems fairly indifferent to anything that "it"/"she" is saying. But, "her" un-fluid, rat-tat-tat manner of initializations and terminations, and "her" tonal constancy right to the end of each indifferently factual statement, easily can make "her" voice adversely over-stimulating to young animals which need more soft-edged sounds. In fact, the voice of Computer may be characterized as a kind of barking. When I first heard that voice as a child, it struck me as perfectly alarming and aggressive, despite the natural feminine timbre of the actress playing it. I even was alarmed at the fact that the actors playing Kirk, Spock, Uhura, and so on, seemed to be trying not to look the least alarmed at Computer's voice. I like to think that this was by some intention of the creators of the fictional Computer and its voice; that they felt some affinity for the classic Mad Scientist who, for his madly 'rational' ambitions, creates a monstrous reflection of his mad self in the form of an otherwise-ideal female companion.
> 
> But, in order properly to prosecute the distinction between music and language, we must ask just how madly to which that Mad Scientist fails to recognize his madness as such. The fact, it seems, is that to actually program a computer voice to be genuinely mono-prosodic is the sparse logic merely of not bothering to program its sonic output with any kind of fluidity. By an even more spare second logic, a physically most simple sonic output device that still produces recognizable speech sounds does not have the richness of timbre of any animal vocalization, but produces what may be called a single narrow blade of sound, comparable to a laser beam. But, to characterize the first spartan logic as genuinely wise is to be hypocritical for bothering to program human speech at all. You see, a series of monotonic beeps will do for language, as most any Morse Code expert will know.
> 
> The question, then, is why even the speech of the fictional Vulcan race, for all its superior rational faculties, does not consist of beeps?


How is this relevant?

Anyway, I'll guess that human speech has more nuance than simple monotonous beeps because we're able to communicate more quickly using things like intonations and gestures.


----------



## Min

****** said:


> I used to have this debate with myself in my mind when I decided I'd like to pursue a career in music - I'd think to myself "composers and performers work as hard as anyone, but they produce nothing to eat, drink or wear. Why do I want to do it? Is it a genuine contribution to society?" To answer that last question, I think that yes, it is a genuine contribution. First you must come to terms with that all musicians/composers are mere clowns and their work is entertainment.


The enigmatically human way with sounds-as-such ("music") constitutes a level of sonic recursive complexity higher than that found in the natural sonic environment (but not than that found in natural material structures and forces, such as a bird feather, snowflake, foliage, jack frost, the laws of motion, or physics).

The level of recursive complexity of human sonic muse is thus neither sonic randomness nor sonic non-adaptive rigidity, but something more like the apex of the organism's ability potentially to identify itself and its world to the nth detail (like a sonic version of a mirror/telescope/microscope).

Music, whether 'frivolously' or 'seriously' perceived, is, in my view, at root, pure intelligence at play. For example, what, in one instance, may have originated as a 'frivolous' joy on the part of a little girl and her mother, can become a quite deeply serious memory for the surviving father.

---Think Special Agent Jethro Gibbs in the TV series, NCIS. Even a photo of his first wife and his daughter, which had been taken at an ideally happy time, and there-and-then having been perceived by him as so happy and free, later becomes for him quite serious.

Music is a human muse, just like a photo. No other species has such a complex level of perceptive ability. No bird will display a photo of its family, even if you give a bird such a photo.

But, unlike a photo, music is the more flexibly-perceived muse, and may be why even birds have some limited version of it.

Pinker's sense of abstractionist intellectual competence in his observation that "_music is useless compared to other, more immediately important things such as social and physical intelligence_", is more illusory even than has been his sense that "music is an illusory thing".

The ability to reflect on one's life, or on any thoughts, ideas, perceptions, knowledge, etc., is _*not*_ an ability that persists in a physical-sensory vacuum; but is, rather, is an ability that continually is alive-and-functional at all only through the physical things by which it exists, and due to which it is the living, adaptive---and, ideally, joyously free---response.


----------



## Min

science said:


> I'll guess that human speech has more nuance than simple monotonous beeps because we're able to communicate more quickly using things like intonations and gestures.


Yes. But, what in which does that "quickly" actually consist?


----------



## Min

science said:


> every human ability, at least in some basic sense (for example, the ability to play video games depends on more basic abilities such as hand-eye coordination and so on), including things like compassion, evolved in response to some kind of selection pressures in our ancestors' environments, and evolution is a really grim process.


Even assuming that the theory of _genetic evolution of increasingly complex species_ accurately represents biogenetic reality, I fail to see how the existence of death-by-predation, and of the advent of species-superiority-by-non-predative-means, renders compassion ultimately a by-product of that "grim" process. Some organism and its mate must have begun with some positive sensibilities of their own toward themselves and each other, else we who imagine that we are better than that "grim" process either are deluded, or, alternatively, this "grim" theory of "evolution" which you so admire does, in fact, possess the power to create genuinely non-grim sensibilities, or "children" that, by all present effects, is completely divorced from that "grim" parent.

My own problem with that last alternative is that it looks to me like, _at best_, so much Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle "Fantasy on a Theme of Toxic Mutagen", ala Godzilla et al. (I won't at the moment identify the worst.)


----------



## mmsbls

@min: I'm a little confused about your position. You seem to believe that Pinker's views are wrong, but you also seem to skeptical of evolution's ability to produce certain behaviors. So do you agree with Pinker that evolution through natural selection did _not_ produce the brain structures used for music _due to the benefits of that musical ability_, or do you disagree and think that evolution through natural selection did produce the necessary brain structures _due to the benefits of that musical ability_? In other words is music an adaptive (in the evolutionary sense) trait?

Also I think that _science_ is using the term "grim" simply to describe differential reproduction through natural selection. Some individuals die without leaving offspring or with leaving fewer offspring than others. You seem to be expressing doubt that evolution could lead to behaviors such as empathy (am I wrong?). I don't think it's so difficult to imagine the evolution of the mirror neuron network and how it could lead to empathy in humans.


----------



## science

Min said:


> Even assuming that the theory of _genetic evolution of increasingly complex species_ accurately represents biogenetic reality, I fail to see how the existence of death-by-predation, and of the advent of species-superiority-by-non-predative-means, renders compassion ultimately a by-product of that "grim" process. Some organism and its mate must have begun with some positive sensibilities of their own toward themselves and each other, else we who imagine that we are better than that "grim" process either are deluded, or, alternatively, *this "grim" theory of "evolution" which you so admire does, in fact, possess the power to create genuinely non-grim sensibilities*, or "children" that, by all present effects, is completely divorced from that "grim" parent.
> 
> My own problem with that last alternative is that it looks to me like, _at best_, so much Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle "Fantasy on a Theme of Toxic Mutagen", ala Godzilla et al. (I won't at the moment identify the worst.)


For the most part I'm not sure what this is all about. I think it's fairly clear that the sentence in bold summarizes not only what I think about this but what most people who study the evolution of social behavior think.

However, your first sentence sounds like creationism, so I'm not sure we're having a real discussion here.


----------



## SixFootScowl

science said:


> However, your first sentence sounds like creationism, so I'm not sure we're having a real discussion here.


I don't see anything in the first sentence that "sounds like creationism."

Referenced first sentence:


Min said:


> Even assuming that the theory of _genetic evolution of increasingly complex species_ accurately represents biogenetic reality, I fail to see how the existence of death-by-predation, and of the advent of species-superiority-by-non-predative-means, renders compassion ultimately a by-product of that "grim" process.


----------



## Guest

Min said:


> First, what we normally call "music" is nothing more than the sonic version of complex recursive patterns, as such, the non-sonic versions of which are found throughout the structures of the natural world.


And, in plain English please, this opposes Pinker...how?


----------



## science

Florestan said:


> I don't see anything in the first sentence that "sounds like creationism."
> 
> Referenced first sentence:


"Even assuming the theory of genetic evolution of increasingly complex species accurately represents biogenetic reality," might just be fancy words for "even assuming that evolution by natural selection explains the origin of species." Which sounds like creationism.


----------



## Min

science said:


> "Even assuming the theory of genetic evolution of increasingly complex species accurately represents biogenetic reality," might just be fancy words for "even assuming that evolution by natural selection explains the origin of species." Which sounds like creationism.


What does Creationism, or, any other particular hypothesis or theory of origins, have to do with my question? My question is whether you think that empathy is the product of bio-contention as opposed to empathy being its own bio-ecological force?

Clearly, as we know both bio-contention and bio-empathy, they both are bio-ecologically real. But, I keep getting the sense that your ideas about music, as an organ of empathy and of the exercise-of-self-identity, amounts to the notion that the exercise-of-self-identity originated as _adverse to empathy_.

To my way of thinking, the notion that exercise-of-self-identity is most essentially adverse to empathy is like saying that any disharmony between essential complementaries proves that those complementaries are best thought of in the reductive terms of mutuall contradictory-ness. If, say, your left leg is sprained while your right leg is uninjured, and your left leg limps, then this somehow is supposed to prove that your right leg is the original leg and upon which your left ultimately merely borrows.

The issue, as I see it, is whether atomistic reductionism is a sufficient explanatory model of anything at all, especially in regard to the function (and the "origin") of the sensibilities of life forms, (as if the world, and even the living world, were as simple as pure mathematics). It seems to me that your words assume that atomistic reductionism is a sufficient explanatory model.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Music is one of the most useful things there is in the world, imo.


----------



## Min

> Originally Posted by Min
> 
> First, what we normally call "music" is nothing more than the sonic version of complex recursive patterns, as such, the non-sonic versions of which are found throughout the structures of the natural world.





MacLeod said:


> And, in plain English please, this opposes Pinker...how?


What Pinker espoused in the '90's (and then published in written form in his book, _How The Mind Works_) is that music is a "pure pleasure technology" with no actual constructive use to the human organism. In other words, Pinker's sense of what music is was what he merely _felt_ when listening to music: pleasure.

So, Pinker did not identify the _structural category_ to which music belongs, but simply identified the "subjective" effects upon himself of the sonic version of that category.

Vulcans do not beep (instead of using speech), and they also do not speak in monotonic and mono-rhythm-ic fashion. But, Pinker's notions of music was _as if_ to say that Vulcans should at least speak in such fashion.

My view, then, is that Pinker's notions of music were exactly in line with the "Vulcan ethic" that _emotions are ancillary to the adaptive abilities of intelligence, objectivity, physical know-how, etc._ (which presumably includes the "intelligent" comprehension that emotions are ancillary).

Pinker, in effect, was as a man who had failed to see that Vulcans are the _human reductive fiction_ of a logical extreme that could be described as the _irrational admiration of the rational_----as if efficiency-writ-simple (and the struggle to survive in a harsh world, ala a rat-race mentality) were properly the master, and not the servant, of life and of life's actual immediate positive qualities to itself (as a cycle of joy-and-adaptation).


----------



## Min

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Music is one of the most useful things there is in the world, imo.


But, music, in the minds of many of us, so easily is evaluated to be useless. Why is this so?


----------



## Min

mmsbls said:


> @min: I'm a little confused about your position. ...
> 
> ...do you agree with Pinker that evolution through natural selection did _not_ produce the brain structures used for music _due to the benefits of that musical ability_,
> 
> or
> 
> do you disagree and think that evolution through natural selection did produce the necessary brain structures _due to the benefits of that musical ability_? In other words is music an adaptive (in the evolutionary sense) trait?


Basically, my thinking here is that the theory of "evolution" (that bio-genetic variation results, or can result, in increasingly complex organisms) is not, and cannot, serve as conceptual precedent to the concept of "_adaptive trait_". Certainly, of course, that theory is used to produce more complex, and, normally, more real-world integrative, conceptualization ("insight") regarding various observed things, processes, traits, etc..

As for Pinker's thought that there are no music-specific/exclusive/devoted brain structures and therefore that music is not adaptive, I think that Pinker's thinking is too reductive in regard to what constitutes "adaptive". He is looking for origins: _b_ comes from _a_ (in which _a_ and _b_ are, in at least some ways, essentially unalike).



mmsbls said:


> You seem to be expressing doubt that evolution could lead to behaviors such as empathy (am I wrong?).


I'm not sure what all you mean there by "behavior". And, I may be missing a few key concepts and, or, key word usages.

I see nothing good coming from conflating empathy and its behavioral potentials, much less in putting the behaviors in precedent to the empathy.

Humans, it seems to me, are too ready to reduce everything to that over which humans are properly the master. It's like Theory-of-Mind gone bad, so that, if humans were dogs, humans would not have Theory of Mind so much as Theory of Snout (Rover: "Oh, look at the airplane flying in the sky! It must really have a powerful sniffer to be able to fly!).

But, that's me; It does not therefore have to be anyone else (everyone each has his or her own independent mind for a reason, and I am not that reason).


----------



## mmsbls

Min said:


> My question is whether you think that empathy is the product of bio-contention as opposed to empathy being its own bio-ecological force?


I think it's clear from _science's_ comment, that he believes evolution (likely from natural selection) does have the capability to produce sensibilities (emotions). I agree with him that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary psychologists believe that as well since that is the major area of research within the field.



Min said:


> My view, then, is that Pinker's notions of music were exactly in line with the "Vulcan ethic" that _emotions are ancillary to the adaptive abilities of intelligence, objectivity, physical know-how, etc._ (which presumably includes the "intelligent" comprehension that emotions are ancillary).


In _How the Mind Works_ Pinker says, "The emotions are adaptations, well-engineered software modules that work in harmony with the intellect and are indispensable to the functioning of the whole mind." I think it's clear that he believes, as do other evolutionary psychologists, that emotions are critical to the mind and evolved (i.e. are adaptations). He just thinks that music is not an adaptation.



Min said:


> The issue, as I see it, is whether atomistic reductionism is a sufficient explanatory model of anything at all, especially in regard to the function (and the "origin") of the sensibilities of life forms, (as if the world, and even the living world, were as simple as pure mathematics). It seems to me that your words assume that atomistic reductionism is a sufficient explanatory model.


As a reductionist myself, I think there are several reductionist models that work remarkably well - thermodynamics to statistical mechanics, atomic and simple molecular physics to electroweak theory, etc. There are no reductionist models that explain emotions, but then there are no good explanations at all for these. I doubt anyone in the world would suggest that a reductionist (I assume you mean evolutionary) model is a sufficient explanatory model of emotions. And we're not talking about pure mathematics but rather scientific models which use math.

Evolutionary psychology is an emerging field. Clearly there will be disagreements, much more work to understand principles and practices, and likely a reasonable period of time before there are well understood answers to questions such as these.


----------



## mmsbls

Min said:


> Basically, my thinking here is that the theory of "evolution" (that bio-genetic variation results, or can result, in increasingly complex organisms) is not, and cannot, serve as conceptual precedent to the concept of "_adaptive trait_".
> 
> I think that Pinker's thinking is too reductive in regard to what constitutes "adaptive". He is looking for origins: _b_ comes from _a_ (in which _a_ and _b_ are, in at least some ways, essentially unalike).


It looks like the internet is not going to work well to have a discussion like this. We seem to differ too strongly in our basic premises. Given that "adaptive trait" has been so basic to the very essence of evolution for well over 100 years, I'm guessing that you and I have rather different definitions of one or both terms. I'm a scientist, and science has made extraordinary progress in understanding parts of reality through reductive epistemology. While reductionism may eventually find limits, the notion of "too reductive" doesn't make sense to me. To me it's not a negative, it's a powerful positive. Much of my life has been spent in exploring how "b" reductively comes from a very different "a".

Anyway, musical evolution, evolution of emotion, explanations of both, etc. are fascinating topics. I suspect they are well beyond the knowledge and expertise of any TC member.


----------



## Blake

Min said:


> But, music, in the minds of many of us, so easily is evaluated to be useless. Why is this so?


Because 'useful' still hasn't been clearly defined. Will it help with survival? Doubt it. But is that really all this life is about? Survive just to die anyway? Sounds absurd, and I'd like to enjoy myself, as well.


----------



## Min

mmsbls said:


> I think it's clear from _science's_ comment, that he believes evolution (likely from natural selection) does have the capability to produce sensibilities (emotions).


That does not answer the question that I mean to be understood to be asking.

First, in the present thread, we are talking about whether music is useless, and this talk has engendered questions of what sorts of uses music has, and, perhaps most "importantly", how those uses originated.

Second, as I already have quoted in some of my previous posts in the present thread, forum member _science_ used the term "grim" in post #190:



science said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> I suspect "music" began as an appreciation for rhythms and maybe tones, simply the result of having a sense of hearing and finding some sounds or patterns of sounds more pleasing than others.
> 
> But the question is, how did that kind of thing turn into the ability to effortlessly remember thousands of tunes? Unlike Pinker, I'm very impressed by human musical ability, and I figure something drove its evolution. ... I suspect that human groups that had...music killed groups that didn't, and within groups the individuals (probably both men and women, but perhaps especially men) who manipulated the group's...music most skillfully also had more children. It's a *grim* view of humanity but that's neither here nor there to me.
> 
> I really hope scientists with the relevant expertise figure out some ways to test theories like this, because for now it's hard to know what is a good guess and what is a just-so story.


(http://www.talkclassical.com/19853-music-useless-13.html#post703511)

and then in post #201:



science said:


> Well, every human ability, at least in some basic sense..., including things like compassion, evolved in response to some kind of selection pressures in our ancestors' environments, and evolution is a really *grim* process.


----------



## Min

mmsbls said:


> In _How the Mind Works_ Pinker says, "The emotions are adaptations, well-engineered software modules that work in harmony with the intellect and are indispensable to the functioning of the whole mind." I think it's clear that he believes, as do other evolutionary psychologists, that emotions are critical to the mind and evolved (i.e. are adaptations). He just thinks that music is not an adaptation.


Pinker is there defining/using "adaptation" in bio-genetic "evolutionary" terms. And, from what I can see, he is using a particular conceptual model of the brain's functions, namely a model which looks to me to be over-simplistic.


----------



## Min

mmsbls said:


> While reductionism may eventually find limits, the notion of "too reductive" doesn't make sense to me. To me it's not a negative, it's a powerful positive. Much of my life has been spent in exploring how "b" reductively comes from a very different "a".


First, I would qualify that last sentence by inserting the phrase "may be reasoned to" between "reductively" and "come"(s). Thus, to my way of...reasoning, you are/ought to be claiming that much of your life "has been spent in exploring how it may be reasoned that b reductively may have come from a."

Much of my own life has been spent doing that very thing as well. But, I've also spent a lot of exploration critically examining that very reasoning.

So, second, my view is that it is not unreasonable to explore how it can be that some conceivable explanatory models are too reductive. For example, in his 2012 book, _The Artful Species_, University of Auckland Professor of Philosophy Stephen Davies writes:



> …Some, but not all, aesthetic interests and responses [appear certainly to] have biological underpinnings. To that extent those [interests and] responses reflect our shared [or common biological] human nature. But when it comes to arguments claiming that art is a [bio-] evolutionary adaptation [or direct biological benefit], we should be more cautious. Adaptionist claims about art are not firmly established [in the evidence or in the debate over its interpretation]. But alternative positions―that art is a by-product of evolution [or of biology] or, alternatively, that [art is a product] of culture―are not more strongly supported [in the evidence]. . . .
> 
> The importance of being clear about our key notions is apparent from the fact that the [seeming degree of] likelihood of [particular or any] connections between the aesthetic, art, and [human bio-reproductive transmission of humans' functions] depends to some extent on how [the proposed connections] are analyzed. . . .
> 
> [T]his [debate] is [on] a [subject] that attracts zealots whose arguments are sometimes steered by strong agendas. *Some biologists are keen to explain all human behavior in biological terms, just as some neuroscientists see everything in terms of brain states. And evolutionary psychologists frequently downplay the controversial or speculative character of their methods and hypotheses. Meanwhile, some of the humanists who insist that art is a [bio-reproductively] evolved adaptation seem motivated more by the desire to justify the centrality in human life of what interests them―that is, art―than in meeting high standards of explanatory rigor.*


----------



## Min

Vesuvius said:


> Because 'useful' still hasn't been clearly defined. Will it help with survival? Doubt it. But is that really all this life is about? Survive just to die anyway? Sounds absurd, and I'd like to enjoy myself, as well.


From the point of view of an observer standing on the ground of Earth, the movement of Sol is "defined" as "traversing the sky". This, even while that same observer may already have worked out that Sol is not _actually_ doing that "traversing".

So, do you think that you can make it perfectly, most sharply, unremittingly clear to your _own self_ as to what "useful" must mean if music is to be defined as "useless"?

And, assuming that, at some point, you have convinced yourself that you have achieved such a sharp distinction between "useful" and "useless", how is that distinction actually to be _
manifest_ in your relationship to music, or, even, to your relationship to others in terms of music?

Even then, part of the problem that I think you eventually must face is as to the exact distinction between "music" and all other sounds/perceptions of sounds (something Pinker has never attempted, despite his own palpable notion that music is "useless").


----------



## Blake

Min said:


> From the point of view of an observer standing on the ground of Earth, the movement of Sol is "defined" as "traversing the sky". This, even while that same observer may already have worked out that Sol is not _actually_ doing that "traversing".
> 
> *So, do you think that you can make it perfectly, most sharply, unremittingly clear to your own self as to what "useful" must mean if music is to be defined as "useless"?*
> 
> And, assuming that, at some point, you have convinced yourself that you have achieved such a sharp distinction between "useful" and "useless", how is that distinction actually to be _
> manifest_ in your relationship to music, or, even, to your relationship to others in terms of music?
> 
> Even then, part of the problem that I think you eventually must face is as to the exact distinction between "music" and all other sounds/perceptions of sounds (something Pinker has never attempted, despite his own palpable notion that music is "useless").


Not when it's simply a word to describe the relationships one has to ideas and sensations. Compound that relativity to the billions of different perspectives on this planet, and this is yet a rather pointless thread. Unless we can come up with such clarity, which I don't think we can here... this thread is just twirling and spinning in quite a 'useless' fashion.


----------



## Lukecash12

Min said:


> From the point of view of an observer standing on the ground of Earth, the movement of Sol is "defined" as "traversing the sky". This, even while that same observer may already have worked out that Sol is not _actually_ doing that "traversing".
> 
> So, do you think that you can make it perfectly, most sharply, unremittingly clear to your _own self_ as to what "useful" must mean if music is to be defined as "useless"?
> 
> And, assuming that, at some point, you have convinced yourself that you have achieved such a sharp distinction between "useful" and "useless", how is that distinction actually to be _
> manifest_ in your relationship to music, or, even, to your relationship to others in terms of music?
> 
> Even then, part of the problem that I think you eventually must face is as to the exact distinction between "music" and all other sounds/perceptions of sounds (something Pinker has never attempted, despite his own palpable notion that music is "useless").


You guys, this is pointless because Pinker's version of useful has already been defined. He asked himself if music was useful to the process of evolution and came up with his answer accordingly. I'm sure he thinks that music is useful emotionally, that it has an impact on his emotional life. And I'm sure he can come up with a number of other types of "useful" that music is for him and us.


----------



## mmsbls

Min said:


> That does not answer the question that I mean to be understood to be asking.


Fair enough. I'll let _science_ answer since I don't understand the question you are asking.



Min said:


> Pinker is there defining/using "adaptation" in bio-genetic "evolutionary" terms. And, from what I can see, he is using a particular conceptual model of the brain's functions, namely a model which looks to me to be over-simplistic.


Every model I have read about is rather simplistic to me (and I assume to the model's authors as well). I suppose some models might not be over-simplistic for certain purposes (e.g. pre-processing of vision), but for explaining behaviors it will be awhile before any brain model can realistically be considered a true model.



Min said:


> For example, in his 2012 book, _The Artful Species_, University of Auckland Professor of Philosophy Stephen Davies writes:


I basically agree with everything in the quoted text except possibly a couple of comments that I may be misinterpreting. I do believe that art is a product of biology and all human behavior is ultimately biological (could in theory be explained in biological or physical terms). If Davies means that _current_ explanations are not well supported by evidence, I agree completely. We are clearly a long way from having the kind of explanations for behavior that we have for physics phenomena, for example.


----------



## Blake

Lukecash12 said:


> You guys, this is pointless because Pinker's version of useful has already been defined. He asked himself if music was useful to the process of evolution and came up with his answer accordingly. I'm sure he thinks that music is useful emotionally, that it has an impact on his emotional life. And I'm sure he can come up with a number of other types of "useful" that music is for him and us.


Okay, but I'm not overly concerned with Porkie's personal take. I don't see with his eyes.


----------



## Min

Lukecash12 said:


> You guys, this is pointless because Pinker's version of useful has already been defined. He asked himself if music was useful to the process of evolution and came up with his answer accordingly. I'm sure he thinks that music is useful emotionally, that it has an impact on his emotional life. And I'm sure he can come up with a number of other types of "useful" that music is for him and us.


The OP seems clear that the point is "What does anyone else besides Pinker think of what Pinker thinks about music and biology?", not "What does Pinker think about music and biology?"

As for whether I think that Pinker is right to think that music was not useful in the theorized "evolution of humans" from some kind of "non-musical" species, I think he is wrong, and not necessarily because such "evolution" may be thought not to be able to explain music as "useful".


----------



## Min

Vesuvius said:


> Unless we can come up with such clarity, which I don't think we can here... this thread is just twirling and spinning in quite a 'useless' fashion.


This thread is not twirling uselessly for me, and I think not for some others as well. And, my own use for the thread, is I hope, perfectly clear: I hope to make clear 1) that music is, and has always been , biologically/bioneurologically useful to humans; and 2) that Pinker misconceives the entire problem of whether, in his view, music is "useless" in the sense that he means there by "useless".


----------



## Blake

Min said:


> This thread is not twirling uselessly for me, and I think not for some others as well. And, my own use for the thread, is I hope, perfectly clear: I hope to make clear 1) that music is, and has always been , biologically/bioneurologically useful to humans; and 2) that Pinker misconceives the entire problem of whether, in his view, music is "useless" in the sense that he means there by "useless".


Hey, it's a right of yours to not think it's 'useless'. I've said this before, but I'll do so again... searching for objectives in relative matters is pretty futile. Although I wouldn't like to... plenty of people get by, evolve, and enjoy life just fine without music.


----------



## Min

Vesuvius said:


> Although I wouldn't like to... plenty of people get by, evolve, and enjoy life just fine without music.


I really think this is over-simplifying the matter.

Are our adaptive capacities really undiminished if we lack the specifically sonic mode of aesthetic perceptual ability/experience?

---Or, by "music", do you mean, rather, that they are undiminished without the specifically "musical" version of such perception/experience?

---Or, again, perhaps, do you mean that those who are born completely deaf, and who also have no exposure to the vibrations produced by the specifically "music" kind of sounds, are undiminished in their adaptive capacities?

My basic question here is this: How many modes of aesthetic perception can we eliminate without reducing the adaptive capacities of the sensory modes involved? If "music" is only one such mode with the sonic sensory ability, then...

And if we had no sense of beauty at all in any of the patterns that exist in material or sonic structures...?

Of what all, really, does human adaptive intelligence consist?


----------



## Min

Pinker's standard of biological usefulness looks to be "flat" and otherwise simplistically featureless: each of the most readily identified adaptive abilities is measured as standing equally tall, as if to be tall men.

And, so, any function that does not appear to occupy that tallest line is merely _presumed_ to be much shorter than that standard.

But, my recursion-oriented view of music is that music constitutes the upper half of the hot air balloon inside the basket of which these "tall men" are standing.


----------



## Guest

Min said:


> I hope to make clear


No chance. Not while you hop from Vulcans to snouts to balloons in your analogies. This thread was always a bit daft in the first place and it seems to twirl even more absurdly. Most of us here know what we mean by 'music' and 'useful' (in the context of Pinker's quote) but you insist that we might really mean something else, or should mean something else by those terms.

I've not yet read any post by someone who can assent or dissent with his proposition on the basis of actually having read his book. If I were to ask your opinion on Shakespeare's views of the Scottish succession by quoting a line or two of _MacBeth_,



> Glamis thou art, and Cawdor; and shalt be
> What thou art promis'd.- Yet I do fear thy nature:
> It is too full o'th'milk of human kindness,
> To catch the nearest way.


would you really offer it without checking the text ? Would you want to delve deep into the meanings of just these few words without the context of the whole play?


----------



## science

Min said:


> What does Creationism, or, any other particular hypothesis or theory of origins, have to do with my question? My question is whether you think that empathy is the product of bio-contention as opposed to empathy being its own bio-ecological force?


I'm sorry, I'm not going to be able even to propose an answer to that question because I don't understand the terms. I've never heard of bio-contention or heard of empathy as a bio-ecological force.



Min said:


> Clearly, as we know both bio-contention and bio-empathy, they both are bio-ecologically real. But, I keep getting the sense that your ideas about music, as an organ of empathy and of the exercise-of-self-identity, amounts to the notion that the exercise-of-self-identity originated as _adverse to empathy_.
> 
> To my way of thinking, the notion that exercise-of-self-identity is most essentially adverse to empathy is like saying that any disharmony between essential complementaries proves that those complementaries are best thought of in the reductive terms of mutuall contradictory-ness. If, say, your left leg is sprained while your right leg is uninjured, and your left leg limps, then this somehow is supposed to prove that your right leg is the original leg and upon which your left ultimately merely borrows.
> 
> The issue, as I see it, is whether atomistic reductionism is a sufficient explanatory model of anything at all, especially in regard to the function (and the "origin") of the sensibilities of life forms, (as if the world, and even the living world, were as simple as pure mathematics). It seems to me that your words assume that atomistic reductionism is a sufficient explanatory model.


I don't understand most of these terms either. When I do understand, I can't figure out the relationship between one sentence and another.

I'm really sorry, but I can't even tell what questions you're asking or what ideas you intend to support. You move from one thing to another so quickly that I can't see the connections between them. Your responses to my posts have usually seemed tangential at best to anything I've said.

For example, I wince posted this:



science said:


> Whatever music's purpose is to us now, way way back when we evolved musical ability and enjoyment, it served a purpose - as part of a host of behaviors (including religion) that helped us to form larger cooperating groups than could be held together by kin selection and reciprocity alone. Individuals skilled in these behaviors (including music and religion) survived and reproduced more often because they could gain status within their groups, and such groups defeated other groups in wars.
> 
> Pinker would like to think we're nicer than this, but the unfortunate fact is that for at least five million years the biggest threats our ancestors faced were each other, and the ones that managed to kill rather than be killed became our ancestors, and in that struggle the ability to form and control groups was crucial.
> 
> Once agricultural societies and their complexity appeared, things began to lose their original purposes, but still today groups form most easily when they have special music, and all political groups or aspiring political groups identify themselves in part with special music.
> 
> This is just my theory, but then, I think I'm probably right.


And you replied:



Min said:


> The theory you espouse here seems to me to imply that human artifactial music is alien to the human aesthetic-sensibility continuum of sounds.


What? I don't know what this means or how it relates to the post you were replying to. You continue:



Min said:


> Our general sonic aesthetic sensibilities (which, in my view, includes human artifactual-aesthetic sonics) provokes and refreshes our senses; Language often does not, or at least not nearly so powerfully when it counts the most. Language is the reduction of our cognitive and productive load, in order to ensure a high degree of semantic precision and communicative dependability. This explains why language in the sonic form tends to be comprised of a very limited number of functional sounds; and is why these functional sounds in natural sonic languages typically are, in terms of human sonic affect, of maximally reduced general physiological and psychological impact. We don't sing, shout, or bawl our lectures, we speak them.


I think I understand most of this but I can't see that it relates to my post, to which you were responding.

You continued:



Min said:


> The problem is that, back in the middle bulk of the last century, when our audiences were bored, we had tended to assume that it was the fault of the audience. Some in the audience thought so, too.
> 
> So, back then, you just _thought_ that you were bored with the particular subject on which your professor was droning; and he just _thought_ that you lacked either or both the intelligence or earnestness to pay attention. As Will Smith's character in _Men in Black_, Agent J, found, his school teacher really was an alien. :lol:


And I can't see how anything there related to anything that either you or I had written.

Why don't we go back to this post? Maybe you can help me figure out what you were saying in that response, and maybe we can start to understand each other better from that point.


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> No chance. Not while you hop from Vulcans to snouts to balloons in your analogies. This thread was always a bit daft in the first place and it seems to twirl even more absurdly. Most of us here know what we mean by 'music' and 'useful' (in the context of Pinker's quote) but you insist that we might really mean something else, or should mean something else by those terms.
> 
> I've not yet read any post by someone who can assent or dissent with his proposition on the basis of actually having read his book. If I were to ask your opinion on Shakespeare's views of the Scottish succession by quoting a line or two of _MacBeth_,
> 
> would you really offer it without checking the text ? Would you want to delve deep into the meanings of just these few words without the context of the whole play?


I've read _How the Mind Works_ and several other books by Pinker, as well as a number of articles he's written; I've listened to several lectures he's given and some interviews.

I try to keep up pretty closely with theories about the evolution of religious experience and behavior, and I usually assume that music evolved in tandem with religion, so Pinker's not the only guy I've read on this stuff.

Like I explained earlier in the thread, I think Pinker is hoping to find that religion is not an inevitable part of most people's experience and behavior, and I think he sees the connection between religion and music. His explanations for them are definitely analogous - both are pure "spandrels" rather than anything that has been adaptive in our history. I don't think he's persuaded very many people on either music or religion.

Anyone tolerating the obscurities of this discussion would probably really enjoy Steven Mithen's book _The Singing Neanderthals_. At the very least it's a counterpoint to Pinker.


----------



## Min

science said:


> Why don't we go back to this post? Maybe you can help me figure out what you were saying in that response, and maybe we can start to understand each other better from that point.


Most of the substance of my replies to you centers on your use of the word "grim". You use it once in your post #190:

Originally Posted by science:



> Hmmmm....
> 
> I suspect "music" began as an appreciation for rhythms and maybe tones, simply the result of having a sense of hearing and finding some sounds or patterns of sounds more pleasing than others.
> 
> But the question is, how did that kind of thing turn into the ability to effortlessly remember thousands of tunes? Unlike Pinker, I'm very impressed by human musical ability, and I figure something drove its evolution. ... I suspect that human groups that had...music killed groups that didn't, and within groups the individuals (probably both men and women, but perhaps especially men) who manipulated the group's...music most skillfully also had more children. It's a *grim* view of humanity but that's neither here nor there to me.
> 
> I really hope scientists with the relevant expertise figure out some ways to test theories like this, because for now it's hard to know what is a good guess and what is a just-so story.


...and then in post #201:

Originally Posted by science:



> Well, every human ability, at least in some basic sense..., including things like compassion, evolved in response to some kind of selection pressures in our ancestors' environments, and evolution is a really *grim* process.


Most recently, mmsbls replied to me:



> I think it's clear from science's comment, that he believes evolution (likely from natural selection) _does_ have the capability to produce sensibilities (emotions).


...to which I replied:



> That does not answer the question that I mean to be understood to be asking.
> 
> We are talking about whether music is useless, and this talk has engendered questions of what sorts of uses music has, and, perhaps most "importantly", how those uses originated.


----------



## Min

posting error, see next post


----------



## Min

science said:


> Why don't we go back to this post? Maybe you can help me figure out what you were saying in that response, and maybe we can start to understand each other better from that point.


Here's what I take to be the textual center of your use of 'grim" (your post #35, page three of the present thread, http://www.talkclassical.com/19853-music-useless-3.html#post316283):



science said:


> Whatever music's purpose is to us now, way way back when we evolved musical ability and enjoyment, it served a purpose - as part of a host of behaviors (including religion) that helped us to form larger cooperating groups than could be held together by kin selection and reciprocity alone. Individuals skilled in these behaviors (including music and religion) survived and reproduced more often because they could gain status within their groups, and such groups defeated other groups in wars.
> 
> Pinker would like to think we're nicer than this, but the unfortunate fact is that for at least five million years the biggest threats our ancestors faced were each other, and the ones that managed to kill rather than be killed became our ancestors, and in that struggle the ability to form and control groups was crucial.
> 
> Once agricultural societies and their complexity appeared, things began to lose their original purposes, but still today groups form most easily when they have special music, and all political groups or aspiring political groups identify themselves in part with special music.
> 
> This is just my theory, but then, I think I'm probably right.


----------



## Min

You replied to one of my posts thus:



science said:


> I suspect "music" began as an appreciation for rhythms and maybe tones, simply the result of having a sense of hearing and finding some sounds or patterns of sounds more pleasing than others.
> 
> But the question is, how did that kind of thing turn into the ability to effortlessly remember thousands of tunes?
> 
> Unlike Pinker, I'm very impressed by human musical ability, and I figure something drove its evolution. I suspect that human groups that had...music killed groups that didn't, and within groups the individuals (probably both men and women, but perhaps especially men) who manipulated the group's...music most skillfully also had more children. It's a grim view of humanity but that's neither here nor there to me.


One of the things that I had said in that post to which the above quote was your reply is that Human aesthetic sensibility to forms, both sonic and otherwise, is enigmatic in face of all other species on Earth.

Leaving aside the issue of modern humans' specifically _aesthetic_ sensibilities to structures, the matter remaining is the _perceptual intelligence of the *forms involved*_ in those enigmatically human aesthetic sensibilities.

Now, here is one of the key parts of my thinking:

...unless it is admitted, or even argued, that the _specifically sonic_ version of the level of perceptual intelligence for recursive structure of modern humans has a special source-of-origin from that of modern humans' other versions of recursive-structure perception, then we are admitting that the level of *sonic-recursion* perception of modern humans is one, and only one, of either a) the cause of modern humans' _general_ recursion-structure perception, or b) a sub-function of that _general_ recursion-structure perception.

In other words, unless music has its own special origin apart from that of humans' general intelligence, then music either is the cause of humans' general intelligence, or music is a sub-category of that general intelligence.


----------



## Blake

Min said:


> I really think this is over-simplifying the matter.
> 
> Are our adaptive capacities really undiminished if we lack the specifically sonic mode of aesthetic perceptual ability/experience?
> 
> ---Or, by "music", do you mean, rather, that they are undiminished without the specifically "musical" version of such perception/experience?
> 
> ---Or, again, perhaps, do you mean that those who are born completely deaf, and who also have no exposure to the vibrations produced by the specifically "music" kind of sounds, are undiminished in their adaptive capacities?
> 
> My basic question here is this: How many modes of aesthetic perception can we eliminate without reducing the adaptive capacities of the sensory modes involved? If "music" is only one such mode with the sonic sensory ability, then...
> 
> And if we had no sense of beauty at all in any of the patterns that exist in material or sonic structures...?
> 
> Of what all, really, does human adaptive intelligence consist?


I think this is over-complicating the matter. I don't even know how to move from this.


----------



## Min

Vesuvius said:


> I think this is over-complicating the matter. I don't even know how to move from this.


In order to define music as useless, many here have been presuming upon their notion of what is music versus what is not music. Hence, they have been jumping the gun to define what is "useless".

But, in order to define music as useless, we first have to define all of 1) music, 2) aesthetic enjoyment of music, and 3) the relation between music (and its aesthetic enjoyment) and human adaptive capacity. This is not to over-complicate anything. It is to keep from thinking that we know what really is going on when, if fact, we are oversimplifying everything in favor of some mistaken palpaology of what "music is and does".

Let me explain the term "mistaken palpaology". Palpable conceptions are intuitions that are the result of some mere limited version of the total immediate functional field constituting some object, action, etc..

Say the action is that of a propeller on an airplane that moves the airplane. If you have experience mainly of getting blown by winds and by fan blades, then you may have the palpable sense that the propeller gets the airplane moving mainly by blowing (as if by a rocket). Such a palpable sense of the propeller's means of moving the airplane is mistaken-by-partiality, pseudo-scientific, superstitious.

The mistake is based on a merely localized, and, mono-directional, sensory experience of wind. The propeller, in fact, is acting in *equilibrium* with all of the surrounding air, not merely blowing.

A rocket motor is a very inefficient means of propulsion inside pressured atmosphere, because a rocket motor mere pushes its vehicle through the atmosphere, like full sail pushes a boat through the water.

But, the force of motion generated by the speed and attack of a propeller is equal not to that of the propeller's thrust, but to that of the intake-outgo total airflow. It's an _*equilibrium system*_: integrated with the field within which it operates.

My total arguments about music is based on my view that music is part of an equilibrium system. If you think that that's over-complicated, then I think you are, as it were, too rocket-minded to understand living systems.


----------



## Blake

Min said:


> In order to define music as useless, many here have been presuming upon their notion of what is music versus what is not music. Hence, they have been jumping the gun to define what is "useless".
> 
> But, in order to define music as useless, we first have to define all of 1) music, 2) aesthetic enjoyment of music, and 3) the relation between music (and its aesthetic enjoyment) and human adaptive capacity. This is not to over-complicate anything. It is to keep from thinking that we know what really is going on when, if fact, we are oversimplifying everything in favor of some mistaken palpaology of what "music is and does".
> 
> Let me explain the term "mistaken palpaology". Palpable conceptions are intuitions that are the result of some mere limited version of the total immediate functional field constituting some object, action, etc..
> 
> Say the action is that of a propeller on an airplane that moves the airplane. If you have experience mainly of getting blown by winds and by fan blades, then you may have the palpable sense that the propeller gets the airplane moving mainly by blowing (as if by a rocket). Such a palpable sense of the propeller's means of moving the airplane is mistaken-by-partiality, pseudo-scientific, superstitious.
> 
> The mistake is based on a merely localized, and, mono-directional, sensory experience of wind. The propeller, in fact, is acting in *equilibrium* with all of the surrounding air, not merely blowing.
> 
> A rocket motor is a very inefficient means of propulsion inside pressured atmosphere, because a rocket motor mere pushes its vehicle through the atmosphere, like full sail pushes a boat through the water.
> 
> But, the force of motion generated by the speed and attack of a propeller is equal not to that of the propeller's thrust, but to that of the intake-outgo total airflow. It's an _*equilibrium system*_: integrated with the field within which it operates.
> 
> *My total arguments about music is based on my view that music is part of an equilibrium system. If you think that that's over-complicated, then I think you are, as it were, too rocket-minded to understand living systems*.


Your stance may not be of much complication, but your methods of getting there carry too much baggage. If you can't get to the point as quickly as possible... well, I get sleepy. That's what I mean by 'you're overcomplicating it'. The cake is in bold... and it's stacked with loads of icing. Too much can make a rational mind nauseous, but a little bit is alright.

I understand what you're pointing to, and it's a pretty solid view, but there just isn't enough objectivity to finalize it.

Is music simply the sounds of nature that man heard and tried to replicate... therefore, it existed without us and was a direct influence in our evolution? Or is it simply a fabrication of our imagination... therefore, has no original value in our evolution other than fantasized entertainment? These are import points to distinguish.


----------



## Min

Vesuvius said:


> Your stance may not be of much complication, but your methods of getting there carry too much baggage. If you can't get to the point as quickly as possible... well, I get sleepy.
> 
> That's what I mean by 'you're overcomplicating it'. The cake is in bold... and it's stacked with loads of icing. Too much can make a rational mind nauseous, but a little bit is alright.


I just assumed that my point was understood all along. I may be bit blind that way.



> I understand what you're pointing to, and it's a pretty solid view, but there just isn't enough objectivity to finalize it.


Now that's words I can understand (I was assuming that objections to my view were attempts to make me understand that my view necessarily is false since it not objectively established to be true).

*But, what my view amounts to is this: aesthetic sense is an inherently central component of creative/adaptive capacity.*



> Is music simply the sounds of nature that man heard and tried to replicate... therefore, it existed without us and was a direct influence in our evolution? Or is it simply a fabrication of our imagination... therefore, has no original value in our evolution other than fantasized entertainment? These are important points to distinguish.


What my view most basically questions is the tacit assumption that the creation-and-development of any particular natural language (such as Chinese speech or American Sign Language) is possible, or else as easy, without the aesthetic sensibilities (most broadly conceived) of the sensory medium in which the language is created.

To make another analogy, music and speech-language are respectively like individual liberty within society and individual duty to society. Without the liberty, the duty becomes reductively deflating of the value of the individual as the essential unit of society. It's then like the Vulcan version of marriage, for which the Vulcan parents say to their children: "We do not love each other, nor do we love you, our children, we merely are objectively concerned for the survival of our species."


----------



## Min

I'm very sorry for causing anyone any trouble.


----------



## Blake

So, music is a consequence of our evolving kind. And it's part of a whole equilibrium system that serves a specific purpose to fulfill certain needs/desires of our species. It's a weight invented to balance our inhibitions.

Is that about what you're saying?


----------



## Min

Vesuvius said:


> So, music is a consequence of our evolving kind. And it's part of a whole equilibrium system that serves a specific purpose to fulfill certain needs/desires of our species. It's a weight invented to balance our inhibitions.
> 
> Is that about what you're saying?


No, not a weight _invented_, nor one to balance our _inhibitions_.

I'm thinking of musicality ("music") as a system that's 1) natural (as opposed to invented), and also 2) that is an essential integral element of an adaptive system (as opposed to an element the essential function of which is to counteract something essentially bad).

A nicotine patch, anti-venom, a rabies shot, and the chlorination of a public pool all are instances of using something for the principle purpose of counteracting something bad.

An airplane is an instance of something that's invented, but which does mainly serve to enhance or augment something good. But, an airplane is not as much of invention as it may seem. It is merely the anthropomorphic refinement of the fact that things can fly, and of the fact that some things already do fly naturally.

One of many misconstrued "bad" things that an airplane may be said to counteract is normal Earth gravity. Such gravity is not bad, rather it is part of an "equilibrium system" as far as the living organism is concerned. Of course it could be imagined that an organism might be just as well off without gravity so long as the organism is adapted living without gravity. But, such an image is simplistic, and it so fails to account for the benefits to organisms, as such, by way of gravity, that that image is nothing more useful than an invention per se: a reductionistic conception of gravity in terms merely of the fact that gravity is a force that resists our efforts to move and therefore that it forces us to expend energy in order for us to move.

The fact that the organism undergoes progressive entropy does not mean that its normal environment is essentially contrary to the organism's nature as a particular kind of organism. If your brain was so disabled as to often lack the force-of-processing sufficient to match the force of your own kind's own normal gravity, then you would have an unpleasant sense of being controlled or oppressed contrary to your basic wishes and needs to breath and to move about. And, if you had found gravity this way as an infant, then you would have all but stopped moving.

Music is not essentially anti-"something bad", just like your normal gravity is not essentially bad either. I'm saying that human musical sense is sensing a field that's analogous to normal gravity, and that language is analogous to the airplane. LOL 

I'm imply here that the "music" that humans make is itself an artifact (like language or an airplane), _but also that human's musical sense of that music is natural_ (as is human's linguistic cognition). By "language" I here mean the fact that speech language takes particular form, such as "English" and "French", and that there is no singular natural way of representing speech in written symbols.

I'm also saying that human musical sense is like, say, water or air, and that a particular piece of human musical expression (_a particular piece of "music", or a particular bit of "music"_) is like a propeller.

*But, my original analogy is that language is the propeller, and that musical sense is the water*. In her book, _On Repeat: How Music Plays the Mind_(2014), Elizabeth Margulis says that some scientists speculate that, in acquiring the language spoken by their parents, human infants employ generalized listening strategies, and that these strategies altogether become increasingly specialized over the course of infants' development, such that the system of these strategies come increasingly to be looked at by the infants as independent from their language. (pg. 175, third paragraph)

General human interactions can be conducted purely at the level of sounds as such, that is, without a refined language, and this kind of interaction is a part of what music is in its raw form. That humans invent fancy musics in order to play with that general sense of sounds is like the boat in the water. Of course, people are able to move through the water more efficiently in a boat. But, to continue the analogy, until you remember what it is like to swim, you don't know what music is except in terms of its invented version. Humans did not invent "music" out of nothing, just like a boat is not strictly alien to the water.

A boat is just a refinement of the fact that objects float and move through water. "Music" is merely a refinement of the realities and the senses involved. How humans have come to possess those senses is beside my point, because, as even Stephen Davies says,



> We must consider not whether [something originated as] a by-product of some earlier adaptation[,] but [what is] its current role in the [current] organism's lifeway. Evolution always builds on what already exists. This helps make clear why so little of the possible "design space" is exploited by evolution. For example, it explains why so many living creatures display four- or six-limbed body plans [even though a few creatures have other body plans]. ---(pg. 59, _The Artful Species, first edition, hardcover_)


.


----------



## Blake

I like that. Very well done, Min. It speaks a fundamental truth... an interconnecting web of natural unfoldment through the unique forms of manifestation.


----------



## Min

Vesuvius said:


> I like that. Very well done, Min. It speaks a fundamental truth... an interconnecting web of natural unfoldment through the unique forms of manifestation.


Boredom is a vastly misunderstood thing. If boredom were defined within the bounds of repetition, then when you eat one bite and then another, the second bite is supposed to be boring. I've eaten the same things on thousands of occasions, and it's never boring.

Of course, boredom has something to do with repetition, but boredom is not the equivalent of repetition. It's more about what you have had enough of, and are looking for something else while nothing else seems available.

The phenomenon of artifactual music is something which has the potential to engage the mind, if only the mind in question is both free to create the music and capable of creating the kinds of sounds it finds particularly stimulating. This is where a community of musicians comes in: each person is allowed to participate, but also is free just to listen, and to do either at any time.

See http://www.ethanhein.com/wp/2014/repetition-defines-music/


----------



## Min

Vesuvius said:


> Is music simply the sounds of nature that man heard and tried to replicate... therefore, it existed without us and was a direct influence in our evolution? Or is it simply a fabrication of our imagination... therefore, has no original value in our evolution other than fantasized entertainment? These are important points to distinguish.


I'm not going to speculate on the evolutionary frame of reference there. I just know that when I hear the loudest of the lowest sounds of _"They Claim"_ for Solo Double Bass by Diana Arismendi (



), it is so, so, so amazing. No music in those low notes themselves? I think music is where you hear it, though there must be some auditory phenomenon, even if only of silence. I often hear silence as exquisitely as I have ever heard music.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that animal organisms, whether as such, or in the womb, acquire their sense of hearing by way of an underlying basic sense of vibration. On this view, what we call 'hearing' is developed as the brain's specialized, highly sensitive, perceiving of a central adaptive range-and-quality of vibrations. Aside from the audible, there still is the exquisiteness of the vibrations of the cosmos, and my eyes grow wide in my sense of being alive when I hear only silence for hours at a time.


----------



## Giordano

It really is a matter of perspective. But acknowledging that there are realities beyond one's perspective is the most stubbornly and arrogantly avoided activity.


----------



## Guest

Dufay said:


> It really is a matter of perspective. But acknowledging that there are realities beyond one's perspective is the most stubbornly and arrogantly avoided activity.


And the converse is, presumably, equally stubborn and arrogant?


----------



## Blake

Dufay said:


> It really is a matter of perspective. But acknowledging that there are realities beyond one's perspective is the most stubbornly and arrogantly avoided activity.


That's why I've found it best to be honest and say "I don't know." It gives life a little room to move inside... and maybe show a few things. It's nearly impossible for this to happened if someone is cluttered with strongly held concepts.


----------



## Min

Dufay said:


> It really is a matter of perspective. But acknowledging that there are realities beyond one's perspective is the most stubbornly and arrogantly avoided activity.


How to repeat the sky, therefore tigers over with seven (million) questions.

LOL L . O . L .


----------

