Evolutionary musicology?

Evolutionary musicology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm currently researching this stuff for some project, and it's really really amazing. I'm not really a biologist or a neurologist, but I'd gladly study to become either to dig deeper into this.

Interestingly:

"Current debate concentrates on whether music constitutes an evolutionary adaptation or exaptation (i.e. by-product of evolution). Steven Pinker, in his book How the Mind Works, for example, argues that music is merely "auditory cheesecake" - it was evolutionarily adaptive to have a preference for fat and sugar but cheesecake did not play a role in that selection process."

Is exactly my POV concerning it. I've said it a couple of times, and apparently I'm not the only one who came to the hypothesis that the senses don't evolve all the same and music perception isn't directly related to evolutionary necessity.

But well, it IS a debate and I'm totally digging the argument that music DID have a role in evolution, but to what extent exactly is sort of hard to define apparently. I'm not too sure if someone knows more about this please do comment!

Also, discuss~

As an ontological naturalist, I think it only makes sense.

As an ontological naturalist, I think it only makes sense.

Steven Pinker's point?

Can you elaborate? I'd love to hear your opinion on this.

I will be glad to elaborate on it as soon as this tussle in Corbin's thread is over.

Ok. Evolution and music.

Quackery aside, music and the accompanying mental faculties associated with it have to have evolved through some natural means. This means there's nothing mystical or special about the role music plays in our psychology. The only question is why the preference for music over disorganized sound evolved (pushing the debate about what music actually is aside).

I'm not especially qualified to speak on the psychology of music, but I am in regards to evolution, so I'll tackle that part of the discussion.

When we see a trait, we ask how it evolved. There are three possible answers.

1. X Trait evolved due to a specific purpose.

2. X Trait evolved as a side effect of the evolution of some other trait.

3. X Trait had no specific selection acting on it, so for all intents and purposes, it is 'random.'

All three of these situations are represented in nature, but it isn't always so clear where they occur. Trichromatic vision in ruminant monkeys is obviously number 1 as it shifts their food source into a set of leaves untouched by other competitors. Number 2 is the likely cause of many of our psychological quirks. Developmental biology has a deal of these types of cases. Number 3 is even harder to find, but that's because the illusion of purpose of ever present. Pigmentation variation in humans may be random or it may be due to sexual selection. These types of situations usually have multiple theories being debated.

I don't think music evolved due to a specific purpose. That is to mean I don't believe there was ever any selection actively advancing music. You might argue sexual selection played a role, but I'm not.

Music might be the side effect of a complex psychological evolution regarding complex auditory signaling. That is to say: oral communication. Our speech has a complex series of overtones not unlike instruments. Our speech quickly became more complex as the social aspects of our brains evolved. It's not unreasonable that, due to this evolution of speech, organized music was found enjoyable.

Once a preference for music over disorganized sound is established, it would have to be selected against to be removed from a large population. Social pressures can then shape the psychological evolution of music. So much of musical preference is socially constructed that only the basic preference for organized sound over disorganized sound needs to exist before music takes root in a society.

It's a lot like the cheesecake comment. A preference for sugar is quite easy to understand evolutionarily. You only have to have an innate preference for sugar to have French pastries. A preference for the basic can be lead to artificially create a preference for the complex.

I hope that makes sense.

With absolutely no knowledge on the subject, I'd argue that music is a greater product of social evolution rather than biological. If you want to make the argument that social evolution has its baselines from biological evolution, I feel it could be done, but the relationships would be very tenuous.

With absolutely no knowledge on the subject, I'd argue that music is a greater product of social evolution rather than biological.

Yeah, I don't think anyone will contest that.

Well, I agree with what you're saying there, JG, but there's something to think about when neuromusicology has uncovered that the areas of the brain that are active when people hear music and so on are not the same areas for language. Language in the brain is very localized, where music makes use of a lot of other areas, and as far as I know this is not very well understood.

I think that perhaps music DID have a role in evolution, if minor, but that it did not fundamentally affect the development of the ear like sugars the development of taste (survival, etc.)

The main idea behind my study is to really find out if there is any bias in the ear built through biology/evolution, like the other senses have'em instinctively due to evolution. The key is also that neuromusicologists are argueing right now also that the brain "wires itself" so to speak at an early age to whatever musical material it's being exposed to.

So, people from different cultures will have different musical tastes/affinities. Another interesting thing is how this wiring and rewiring can happen also later in life, challenging the idea that the brain is more resistant to change after certain ages.

If it IS cheesecake, I'm wondering how these things can properly be put in context. I mean, for one, the cheesecake theory implies that any such bias is "learned" rather than biologically forced, which is I think very important to know. The evidence by the neurologists supports this, as well as far as I have seen.

The only way to answer such a question is to know how music evolved. It was not random and have very specific purposes.

One might even say that the evolution of music evolved parallel to human evolution.

Obviously music has a foundation in human psychology that is much more than just coincidence. It is probably related to speed and some type of induced hypnotic state and most likely evolved to alert people.

E.g., we cannot yell loud enough to call our other cave man friends for diner or to help repel a sabertooth attack but we can bang on this drum we made or this horn. We can have different horn sounds to mean different things.

So in fact, and probably contrary to what music is now days, it evolved as an extension of speed. Basically one someone connected the idea that that thing they heard was someone beating on something then realized they could use it as a "signal".

After time, when the "drummer" developed his skill and learned that the drum had the ability to keep people in time when marking or as a way just to pass the time or just some fool started rhythmically moving to the beat(look at the african tribal dances) they realized it could be used in a different way.

Of course the horn guy wanted to get in on the action but he didn't know how to play the drums or there wasn't a drum left form him so he started using his horn maybe paralleling the signals they used to kinda "play games". Like maybe use the call for an orgy to get people excited then play with there emotions and use the call for war(They new it wasn't war though but it still evoked that sorta response). He might then started to embellish those calls into more complex calls to play around farther.

In any case all my supposition points to the probability that music evolved as communications for very specific non musical reasons. Over many years those sounds were able to work itself into the emotional centers(after all, a call to war has a very strong emotional response) far more than speech alone(speech being much more complicated to process).

Once it those sounds were expanded outside the use of signaling is when it became more like music we think of today. Different cultures used different sounds and such and one culture might not understand the signals of the other... but there were similarities too.

I think its pretty safe to say that music did not evolve out of a vacuum or started in any way but something that was critical in human activities. (just as a bow was critical or a rock... "music" was a tool and evolved into pleasure. (as a bow now is used for sport mainly))

The question is how music really evolved in the brain. Did it sorta bleed over from the speech centers or did it resonate with the other parts? Rhythmic beating of drums seems to alter peoples state of consciousness to some degree and that state was found favorable and used. (just as drugs were used to get to those states)

When one starts talking about culture and stuff then they are missing the point. Cultures are developments far after the initial start of music and there is no causal relationship between the two(one didn't create the the other). One really needs to try to understand that point in time(not that there is any specific point) where "sounds" became "music" and that started not in "cultures" but in "tribes". (and either was passed around from one tribe to the next or discovered simultaneously... in either case it doesn't matter much)

It's also going to be very difficult to look at the modern human brain and determine how music evolved in it.

Also there is no biological reason for music as millions of examples show. Only a few animals use sounds in a seemingly musical way... compared to all the ones that don't.

Also, take a cricket for example... It rubs it's legs and makes "music" for a very specific purpose. But this is a form of signaling as I have stated before... as do birds use sounds to signal. It's not the same as humans because humans use music for other purposes, Mainly for there own pleasure... although maybe our brain just got confused?

So we know that there is no biological predisposition towards music by all the counter examples yet we also know that music evolved only in humans(And maybe whales but thats probably signaling) which is a biological process.

Anyways... I'm confusing myself now and just rambling... forgot what I was trying to get across ;/ lol... I guess its time for bed ;/

But first I gotta eat because all this talk of cheesecake as made me hungry!!

Well, no. It's just a matter of seeing what exactly does what in the brain, and how the functions relate to eachother. Basically you can draw out a pretty detailed road map depending on what regions of the brain do what because their evolution is understood to a degree where if we know the language center had to do with music we can make a line directly to where the language center developed.

But I'm with JG in that I don't really think music is anything more than a result of a simpler process, like the cheesecake example. That it may have had functions, is different. But having functions does not mean that it evolved in that direction because of those functions, that is, I don't see music as being a crucial factor in the survival of the species given that that role was already pretty clearly assigned to language/speech and so on.

There IS some reasoning to Darwin's point, that it may have helped in way of sexual selection. It's not hard to find examples of mating calls and other such things, though their roles as "music" are arguable and I think it'd be much better to call them extensions of actual communication since they DO have a specific, very clearly defined purpose.

However, there IS a predisposition towards music biologically as this function IS found in the brain, though to what extent exactly is being studied. The fact that the brain can wire itself isn't new, but that it's used to doing it with music specifically in the way it does may be indication of baggage from an evolutionary cause, or side effect.

But I'm a little skeptical of some of the studies in neuromusicology, such as this: Music and the brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which is the result of a study by Mark Tramo ( Harvard Gazette: Music on the brain ) though I can see how this could be the case, it's still stands to reason that this is the aftermath of the rewiring that occurs at an early age during the structuring of the brain's higher functions.

scraggy, I might as well cite my sources for the other stuff I've said:

Special section: Mind/Brain/Memory

Symposium on "Foundations of Neuromusicology"

and Music and the brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which has some sources though I can't read some of them sadly since it's pay-only. Grrahg.

I know that this is old, incomplete and surely there have been advances in the field. But finding info on this without having access to the scientific publications is rather difficult.

I'm trying to get in touch with the uni in my city here see what I can do, if I can talk to some of the neurologists/etc on these things see what they have to say.

there is one simple thing (which is very not simple, actually) that no functional/physicalist account of brain/mind can do justice for - that is a whole bunch of phenomenal properties. it is simply at odds with anything science (physics) has to and can say.

what is it like to experience red?

what is it like to experience note of a trumpet?

what is it like to touch?

and so on.

while i'm not sure if it has anything truly significant in regards to history of (creating) music, i'm completely assured that is has so much to do why we like music and why does it feel good to see sunsets.

there is one simple thing (which is very not simple, actually) that no functional/physicalist account of brain/mind can do justice for - that is a whole bunch of phenomenal properties. it is simply at odds with anything science (physics) has to and can say.

what is it like to experience red?

what is it like to experience note of a trumpet?

what is it like to touch?

and so on.

while i'm not sure if it has anything truly significant in regards to history of (creating) music, i'm completely assured that is has so much to do why we like music and why does it feel good to see sunsets.

Well, from a scientific point of view, the reasons for everything are founded in biological principles and chemical reactions, the whole concept of visual aesthetics changed a whole lot once science got in the way explaining the evolution of the eye and how we are wired to see things a certain way regardless of what we actually want. Instinct DOES have an effect, and science studies precisely why it does and how.

So, I wouldn't say it's pointless or meaningless. Science can only really bring true understanding of how we view and perceive the world around us, which isn't irrelevant at all if your business is manipulating that world to make art.

:>

Well, from a scientific point of view, the reasons for everything are founded in biological principles and chemical reactions, the whole concept of visual aesthetics changed a whole lot once science got in the way explaining the evolution of the eye and how we are wired to see things a certain way regardless of what we actually want. Instinct DOES have an effect, and science studies precisely why it does and how.

So, I wouldn't say it's pointless or meaningless. Science can only really bring true understanding of how we view and perceive the world around us, which isn't irrelevant at all if your business is manipulating that world to make art.

:>

i was not talking about the reasons, which of course, are explained functions. and - it was not about perception, but about sensation. to make an example - there is no need to invoke consciousness speaking about so many processes of brain functions - learning, perception, making judgments, beliefs and so on. but it seems impossible to not invoke consciousness when speaking about experience and sensation (phenomenal properties). as far as science is concerned, there is no need for any neurophysiological account to have anything to do with conscious experience. actually, on the contrary, many scientists view it as epiphenomena or simply try to deny it. but, it's huge oversimplification of how and what is mind. it is certain for you and for me that colours feel different as well as sounds. and that they do it regardless of evolution - perception of things may become different due to it's functional role, while sensation is something of a different kind. blue sky feels like blue sky regardless of what we want to do about it.

one more thing - why should anything like neuron firing feel like something at all? wouldn't it be more simple and easier for nature to have gotten rid of consciousness in the first place. robots or zombies can (could possibly) do everything we do, but they don't have consciousness. there's no neccesity (at least in the (just) physical world) for a sky to be felt like blue and a sound wave to be heard like a piano chord.

So, I wouldn't say it's pointless or meaningless. Science can only really bring true understanding of how we view and perceive the world around us, which isn't irrelevant at all if your business is manipulating that world to make art.

:>

and i didn't deny that science is pointless and meaningless, sure it clears things up. to a certain degree.

.... I don't know what you mean.

I'm pretty much for the materialistic approach that the idea of consciousness and all that you describe is a direct result of a lot of things which can be analyzed, understood and explained.

So, yeah. No idea. Besides, what does that have to do with this thread?

there is one simple thing (which is very not simple, actually) that no functional/physicalist account of brain/mind can do justice for - that is a whole bunch of phenomenal properties. it is simply at odds with anything science (physics) has to and can say.

what is it like to experience red?

what is it like to experience note of a trumpet?

what is it like to touch?

and so on.

while i'm not sure if it has anything truly significant in regards to history of (creating) music, i'm completely assured that is has so much to do why we like music and why does it feel good to see sunsets.

Not quite, mate. This isn't a question of the subjective properties of music. This is a question of the history of the evolution of music. Quite different.

And for the questions you asked. they're pretty much the same between anyone who has the faculties required. Red, the light between 625 and 740 nanometers, is the same among everyone who has rhodopsin sensitive to light between 625 and 740 nm. Same with the trumpet note, it's a specific set of wavelengths with a specific set of overtones. Same with touch, the pressure sensitive cells within your body react the same way as anyone else. This is all irrelevant to the topic at hand, but what I'm saying is don't go quoting these retarded sophisms.

i was not talking about the reasons, which of course, are explained functions. and - it was not about perception, but about sensation. to make an example - there is no need to invoke consciousness speaking about so many processes of brain functions - learning, perception, making judgments, beliefs and so on. but it seems impossible to not invoke consciousness when speaking about experience and sensation (phenomenal properties). as far as science is concerned, there is no need for any neurophysiological account to have anything to do with conscious experience. actually, on the contrary, many scientists view it as epiphenomena or simply try to deny it. but, it's huge oversimplification of how and what is mind. it is certain for you and for me that colours feel different as well as sounds. and that they do it regardless of evolution - perception of things may become different due to it's functional role, while sensation is something of a different kind. blue sky feels like blue sky regardless of what we want to do about it.

one more thing - why should anything like neuron firing feel like something at all? wouldn't it be more simple and easier for nature to have gotten rid of consciousness in the first place. robots or zombies can (could possibly) do everything we do, but they don't have consciousness. there's no neccesity (at least in the (just) physical world) for a sky to be felt like blue and a sound wave to be heard like a piano chord.

I think it's pretty obvious that you either don't know what you're talking about or are sufficiently inebriated as to obscure your mental faculties.

Dissection time.

as far as science is concerned, there is no need for any neurophysiological account to have anything to do with conscious experience.

Quite the contrary. It's necessary for the understanding of the mechanics involved.

actually, on the contrary, many scientists view it as epiphenomena or simply try to deny it.

No. Bad. Do not hide behind the guise of "many scientists." Find them and cite them, or forget about speaking about them at all.

it is certain for you and for me that colours feel different as well as sounds. and that they do it regardless of evolution - perception of things may become different due to it's functional role, while sensation is something of a different kind. blue sky feels like blue sky regardless of what we want to do about it.

If you're saying the "feel" of colors differs between people, try again. They're uniform because of evolution, not unique in spite of it.

Things like "blue sky" don't "feel" any way. You're mistaking sensation, perception, and emotional qualities. They are all separate and rooted in different faculties. You're committing the logical fallacy of equivocation by assigning the word "feel" all the vague properties of the word at once.

one more thing - why should anything like neuron firing feel like something at all?

Should is a mental crutch. Nothing should do anything or be anything.

wouldn't it be more simple and easier for nature to have gotten rid of consciousness in the first place. robots or zombies can (could possibly) do everything we do, but they don't have consciousness.

No. Consciousness is much simpler than autonomous entities. To evolve a consciousness is to take care of a ridiculous amount of necessary reactions to stimuli all at once. Consciousness is a one-off solution to a never ending problem, while autonomous entities must continuously be tweaked to adapt to situations.

there's no neccesity (at least in the (just) physical world) for a sky to be felt like blue and a sound wave to be heard like a piano chord.

Technically, there is. Both are rooted in concrete physical mechanics of wavelengths governed by either energy or vibration rate. The signals are decoded according to specific mechanical instructions in their respective sensory organs and the brain. The emotional attachment may vary, but not as widely as people like to think. Again, you're taking far too many liberties with the word "feel."

Just to add:

Subjective is...not really as subjective as most people think. ;P

Just to add:

Subjective is...not really as subjective as most people think. ;P

It can go either way, really.

it's fun when people accuse you of not understanding what one is saying. while the fact is that even if i'm wrong i do understand what i'm saying.

now, the view i was arguing for is widely known as property dualism, that is a one way of philosophy of mind.

the thing is that there's nothing in chemistry or physics that could possibly make anyone understand what is it like to feel red or trumpet sound without ever experiencing it. see jackson's mary thought experiment. conscious experience is naturally supervienent on brain functions, it is not logically supervienent. so when you say that 'red' is such and such wavelength intersecting with such and such organism and resulting in such and such neuron firing, you are describing 'red' as a functional part of the world, it's physical side. but you don't tell me anything what is it like to feel red. there is no way of explaining conscious experience from a third person perspective, which (third person perspective explanations) is what science does and what it can (according to its methods) do. there's conceptual difference, or maybe even ontological (which i'm not arguing for).

what it has to do with evolutionary musicology? - well, if that's the case (if property dualism turns out to be true and plausible), then there might be some properties that are responsible for our musical adventure behind evolved functions and so on.

it's fun when people accuse you of not understanding what one is saying. while the fact is that even if i'm wrong i do understand what i'm saying.

Yes, yes. Sure you do. So does the hobo on the street who claims to be an estranged physicist the government blacklisted when he uncovered the truth of UFOs.

the thing is that there's nothing in chemistry or physics that could possibly make anyone understand what is it like to feel red or trumpet sound without ever experiencing it.

Logically fallacy of equivocation. You're misusing the definition of feel. You're taking highly subjective properties of the word and using them too loosely. Stop it, no one can understand you and it seriously hinders your argument.

see jackson's mary thought experiment. conscious experience is naturally supervienent on brain functions, it is not logically supervienent.

Step one: spell supervenient correctly. You're grasping at wild straws here. Conscious experience? That's such a broad term as to necessitate further explanation.

so when you say that 'red' is such and such wavelength intersecting with such and such organism and resulting in such and such neuron firing, you are describing 'red' as a functional part of the world, it's physical side. but you don't tell me anything what is it like to feel red.

You can't even tell us what you mean by "feel red." You claim to know what you're talking about, but no one here would believe you.

there is no way of explaining conscious experience from a third person perspective, which (third person perspective explanations) is what science does and what it can (according to its methods) do. there's conceptual difference, or maybe even ontological (which i'm not arguing for).

Except we do. A lot.

what it has to do with evolutionary musicology? - well, if that's the case (if property dualism turns out to be true and plausible), then there might be some properties that are responsible for our musical adventure behind evolved functions and so on.

I don't think you're using the concept of dualism properly. Nothing you've said is necessarily dualistic in nature. You can't explain why "feeling red" is necessarily independent of the physical mechanics of thought and sensation. You claim they're separate, but you can't even form a coherent sentence explaining yourself.

SSC was entirely correct, threads like this open the doors to armchair (pseudo)intellectuals who think they know what they're talking about, but in reality they haven't got a damn clue.

I just want to ask...when did people start feeling colors and why can't I feel them?

So, with all this said and done, back on topix plz?

I'm going to attend some seminars on this matter in october, hopefully!

Thing is, the medical applications of understanding music's functional behavior in the brain is to me fascinating. I've already seen local studies on people with various conditions and how that works, and it's documented elsewhere. It's not necessarily new, but it's very interesting.

There's, if I'm not mistaken, an actual doctor conducting research on this in the Hochschule f

I just want to ask...when did people start feeling colors and why can't I feel them?

You mean synesthesia? That's been around for a while. :P