What is music?

Just as a sidenote, culture CAN change the amount of fingers we have and all sorts of other things provided that they create an environment where such traits would be favourable to sexual selection (if on a whim girls only like guys that have blue eyes, eventually everyone will have blue eyes.) We can see this like the reason for the peacock's tail. This type of arbitrary/cultural selection is something that exists, but what I meant was that on an individual already born culture can't really change scraggy about their genetic makeup.

I think you guys are really looking at this in a manner which is a little more theoretical as opposed to be solidly based.

SSC: Most of this research your pulling up is still well within the realm of theory. Both articles clearly state that their is no distinct area of the brain where music can be centered. It appears, overwhelmingly based on these two papers, that music itself effects most areas of the brain. This would suggest that listening to music stimulates the brain in many ways, to quote one of your papers:

"Our brain is constantly trying to make order out of disorder, and music is a fantastic pattern game for our higher cognitive centers."

The statement really I think sums it up nicely. The human brain enjoys looking for patterns all over the place. We can white noise to only see this clearly. Music like language is something that is first introduced while the child is still in utero. From the beat of the mothers heartbeat to the external sounds of the music she listens to, the unborn child is introduced to the first cultural stimuli that will shape the individual. After birth, the child is continuously learning from the observations he/she makes in the area around them. This learning via observation (and later schooling) teaches the child the culture of their environment. A child growing up in Germany, for example, is exposed to the culture in his/her region. Unless that child is well traveled he/she will find other types of cultures foreign to what he/she knows. This has been anthropologically proven. The ability to perceive sound and the manner at which that sound stimulates the brain (which I think what you are talking about) is far removed from the anthropologically defined concept of 'culture'. The only connection between the two, however, comes at this comment of yours:

And the point of saying they are hardwired is simply that there's no way culture can influence them since it would be like saying culture can influence the number of fingers people are born with or if you would grow a tail or not.

No, this is a very incorrect statement. The culture of a society does, in many ways, determine what constitutes emotional response to an individual. For instance, the handling of death and loss. In western culture, we are culturally taught to 'mourn' at a loved ones passing. In other cultures, the passing of a loved one generates excitement and happiness. If emotional reactivity to events were hardwired as your suggesting, then one would expect to see the same reaction across the full spectrum of humanity. The fact is, however, there is not.

I think you guys are really looking at this in a manner which is a little more theoretical as opposed to be solidly based.

SSC: Most of this research your pulling up is still well within the realm of theory.

You mean hypothesis, right?

Do read the rest of the papers, there are enough observations and studies done to show that what I'm talking about isn't just a hypothesis.

And the point of saying they are hardwired is simply that there's no way culture can influence them since it would be like saying culture can influence the number of fingers people are born with or if you would grow a tail or not.

No, this is a very incorrect statement. The culture of a society does, in many ways, determine what constitutes emotional response to an individual. For instance, the handling of death and loss. In western culture, we are culturally taught to 'mourn' at a loved ones passing. In other cultures, the passing of a loved one generates excitement and happiness. If emotional reactivity to events were hardwired as your suggesting, then one would expect to see the same reaction across the full spectrum of humanity. The fact is, however, there is not.

Er, no. Handling of death and loss in general is handled very similarly across multiple cultures (name one that doesn't have burial rituals, rituals for the dead, etc etc etc.) As for emotional responses that are hardwired there are plenty, but again it mixes with other factors (hence why morality is also flexible despite there being hard-wired things that make us lean towards certain types of behavior in most situations.) The problem is when you look at them without observing what is the fundamental purpose of these behaviors, it seems they are very different but when you start to analyze it from a cognitive and evolutionary perspective they are quite similar.

Even if a culture tells you people passing away is great, you'll still have the problem of talking to the dead person in your head. You'll still miss them regardless (for their function, ideas, whatever it may be.) The superficial flavor of how to make it easier shouldn't distract from the fact that there is always a way to try to deal with the base emotions that result. Them being suppressed after all doesn't mean they're being eliminated altogether.

I think that this thread is completely pointless. Who cares what music is? Seriously, we can get as scientific as we want about it, but what does it matter? You guys start writing out these incredibly long, well-thought out, intelligent posts, when we should be writing well-thought out, intelligent, beautiful music. So instead of trying to decide what music is, let's not worry about it and go make some to share with the world.

Er, no. Handling of death and loss in general is handled very similarly across multiple cultures (name one that doesn't have burial rituals, rituals for the dead, etc etc etc.) As for emotional responses that are hardwired there are plenty, but again it mixes with other factors (hence why morality is also flexible despite there being hard-wired things that make us lean towards certain types of behavior in most situations.) The problem is when you look at them without observing what is the fundamental purpose of these behaviors, it seems they are very different but when you start to analyze it from a cognitive and evolutionary perspective they are quite similar.

The need for disposal of the body of the deceased in some cultures has lead to various methods and rituals. Some cultures, like the Choctaw, remove all skin and flesh from the deceased. The bones are then placed in reserve with other deceased. Then buried in large pits. Other cultures, like Egypt, believed that all the possessions of an individual were needed for the afterlife. There are many rituals, yes... however, that is clearly the result of culture and not a hard wiring of the human species. The fundamental purpose of these behaviors is to provide a means at dealing with the concept of death. The fact we all die is hardwired. The means at which individual cultures and societies perceives death is different.

Even if a culture tells you people passing away is great, you'll still have the problem of talking to the dead person in your head. You'll still miss them regardless (for their function, ideas, whatever it may be.) The superficial flavor of how to make it easier shouldn't distract from the fact that there is always a way to try to deal with the base emotions that result. Them being suppressed after all doesn't mean they're being eliminated altogether.

Again though, your assuming that emotional response to a situation is uniform across all cultures. Not every person will look at death and react the same way. For instance, the famous parades and celebration in New Orleans that come when a person dies. These are celebrations of the persons life many of which do not have what you call the 'base emotions'. I could go on and on with a list of cultures that don't mourn at the loss of a loved one. There are also cultures where you are meant to set aside time in a day to remember your ancestors. This belief is foreign to many in the west. Truth is, that emotional responses are not uniform across the human species.

Er, no. Handling of death and loss in general is handled very similarly across multiple cultures (name one that doesn't have burial rituals, rituals for the dead, etc etc etc.) As for emotional responses that are hardwired there are plenty, but again it mixes with other factors (hence why morality is also flexible despite there being hard-wired things that make us lean towards certain types of behavior in most situations.) The problem is when you look at them without observing what is the fundamental purpose of these behaviors, it seems they are very different but when you start to analyze it from a cognitive and evolutionary perspective they are quite similar.

Even if a culture tells you people passing away is great, you'll still have the problem of talking to the dead person in your head. You'll still miss them regardless (for their function, ideas, whatever it may be.) The superficial flavor of how to make it easier shouldn't distract from the fact that there is always a way to try to deal with the base emotions that result. Them being suppressed after all doesn't mean they're being eliminated altogether.

Death challenges our concept of survival, it forces us to confront something we are genetically driven to reject - our mortality. Beyond that, we're once again venturing into realms of environmental forces that exist within culture, traditions that assist (or presume to assist) in coping with our own mortality. It's largely introspective... and considering I wrote a psychology paper on how Adolescents Cope with the Death of a Peer and the psychological research that's far more extensive on the topic than any of the genetic positions postulated thus far seems to indicate that there are no "hard-wired" behaviors. But we'll start getting into semantics when we talk about genetics and behaviorism because what so many genetic arguments rely on are arguably more similar to "reflexes" (not in the medical sense, but rather in the sense of distinguishing simple cognitive processes from complex processes) than actual "behaviors" in a real-world context. Premeditated Murder is not a simple cognitive process... there's a great deal of cognitive dissonance that often occurs over time to bring someone to consider taking someone's life. Suffice it to say, those things being referred to as "hard-wired behaviors," whatever you mean by this, should be described in more detail so we're clear on whether these are complex cognitive behaviors at all.

Truth is, that emotional responses are not uniform across the human species.

I don't think I ever said anything like that.

But the same emotions exist and are experienced. The trigger however may vary depending on things such as upbringing. However, just like getting cut isn't going to provoke the same reaction in everyone, it'll be provoking a similar set of reactions in a vast majority of people (tending the wound, asking for help maybe. Certainly a physical sensation of pain.) Depending on the stimulus and what you're looking for you can narrow things down significantly.

When death of someone who isn't dehumanized (war enemies for example) happens it's similar to being cut. There's a lot going on that is involuntary and subconscious with things like these, and the ex post facto rationalization may be varied depending on what the person believes/was taught, etc. Sure, they can dance and celebrate the dead person all they want, but I doubt that their very first reaction to the death was "great I get to practice again my dancing!" unless the person was a bother/meant nothing to them/etc. It's evident that we share a great deal of our emotional triggers because we see people exchanging the same symbols over and over across multiple cultures for similar effects. It's just a matter of seeing people who, from other cultures, adopt western symbols and culture and/or equate it to their own traditions and customs. You can also find analogs, just like you find them in the different mythologies of indigenous people where superficially you see very different things but since the reasons why are the same they have at their core very similar symbols they get across.

For example the observation of agency in actions that have no agent, such as rains or volcanoes or whatever. Hard to find a culture that didn't have a deity of some sort, or some kind of anthropomorphic entity in charge of things that affected them greatly. Sure superficially you can't compare deities with eachother directly as the mythology is totally different but they share in common this cognitive function it's responding to.

The need for disposal of the body of the deceased in some cultures has lead to various methods and rituals.

...

There are many rituals, yes... however, that is clearly the result of culture and not a hard wiring of the human species.

We have a VERY strong genetic-imposed bias towards the rejection of corpses (specially human corpses.) This has a survival-rationale (corpses are vectors for infection and disease) and these rituals, in answering this, ARE therefore related to a hard-wired desire to get AWAY from these corpses (for aesthetic and survival reasons,) but also must deal with the fact the person was important to them. Had we no problem with corpses, do you think we'd still have the rituals? Remember, any ritual is costly in terms of resources, and there must be a significant benefit from it that is practical.

But we'll start getting into semantics when we talk about genetics and behaviorism because what so many genetic arguments rely on are arguably more similar to "reflexes" (not in the medical sense, but rather in the sense of distinguishing simple cognitive processes from complex processes) than actual "behaviors" in a real-world context. Premeditated Murder is not a simple cognitive process... there's a great deal of cognitive dissonance that often occurs over time to bring someone to consider taking someone's life. Suffice it to say, those things being referred to as "hard-wired behaviors," whatever you mean by this, should be described in more detail so we're clear on whether these are complex cognitive behaviors at all.

That's the whole point. Finding genetic predisposition and bias doesn't literally mean that we have to act in a particular way ALWAYS nor that it's inevitable in all cases. Similar to how it was an evolutionary advantage that we develop a rejection of cheaters (a negative behavior) but at the same time it doesn't negate our own capacity to cheat others if we have enough reason.

And I already clarified what I meant by hard-wired. There are certain reactions that are intrinsic to how our language centers read emotions out of sound, even if we aren't understanding it consciously. And no behavior is by itself a simple cognitive process, but it doesn't mean that it isn't affected by our genetic predispositions greatly.

By the way, at no point did I mention anything about any "hard-wired behaviors." I'm talking about reactions to sound/music.

---

More interesting reading: http://www.ethnomusicscape.de/soundscape-Dateien/soundenglish.pdf

But the same emotions exist and are experienced. The trigger however may vary depending on things such as upbringing. However, just like getting cut isn't going to provoke the same reaction in everyone, it'll be provoking a similar set of reactions in a vast majority of people (tending the wound, asking for help maybe. Certainly a physical sensation of pain.) Depending on the stimulus and what you're looking for you can narrow things down significantly.

When death of someone who isn't dehumanized (war enemies for example) happens it's similar to being cut. There's a lot going on that is involuntary and subconscious with things like these, and the ex post facto rationalization may be varied depending on what the person believes/was taught, etc. Sure, they can dance and celebrate the dead person all they want, but I doubt that their very first reaction to the death was "great I get to practice again my dancing!" unless the person was a bother/meant nothing to them/etc. It's evident that we share a great deal of our emotional triggers because we see people exchanging the same symbols over and over across multiple cultures for similar effects. It's just a matter of seeing people who, from other cultures, adopt western symbols and culture and/or equate it to their own traditions and customs. You can also find analogs, just like you find them in the different mythologies of indigenous people where superficially you see very different things but since the reasons why are the same they have at their core very similar symbols they get across.

No, I wouldn't even say its similar to being cut. When one is cut you have physical damage being caused to nerve endings. Their is a real biological effect. There is one aspect that we all share, according to my anthropology textbook, and that is the human smile. We share that trait with nearly all the other ape and primate species. The physical look of a smile is something that our species maintained for quite awhile. I think the problem comes in how you want to scientifically look at emotions and what symbolism cultures have for them. Emotional response to external stimuli (such as death, destruction, a fight in a str8 bar, etc.) are all culturally influenced. The biological effects of a particular emotional state (despite the emotional response) could very well be the same amongst the full spectrum of species - that I will agree with.

For example the observation of agency in actions that have no agent, such as rains or volcanoes or whatever. Hard to find a culture that didn't have a deity of some sort, or some kind of anthropomorphic entity in charge of things that affected them greatly. Sure superficially you can't compare deities with eachother directly as the mythology is totally different but they share in common this cognitive function it's responding to.

Sure you can find it. The Zoroastrianists, for example, didn't have a specific deity associated with Volcanoes. Nor did the ancient Jews. The Romans, of course, had Vulcan. You do bring up a good point here however - but worldwide, it doesn't hold water. What of religions that don't have a pantheon of gods or even belief in the idea of a deity at all? The human species is very diverse - even in the means of religion.

We have a VERY strong genetic-imposed bias towards the rejection of corpses (specially human corpses.) This has a survival-rationale (corpses are vectors for infection and disease) and these rituals, in answering this, ARE therefore related to a hard-wired desire to get AWAY from these corpses (for aesthetic and survival reasons,) but also must deal with the fact the person was important to them. Had we no problem with corpses, do you think we'd still have the rituals? Remember, any ritual is costly in terms of resources, and there must be a significant benefit from it that is practical.

I disagree, again. We do not have a very strong genetic-imposed bias towards the rejection of corpses. Cultures do exist where the corpses are decorated as if living and then set up inside the homes of the family. Not to mention the fascination of humans with human skulls. What does exist in this regard, especially in the modern world, is an understanding by humans that rotting flesh incubates various diseases. One only has to look at the variety of, what we in this culture would consider, macabre means at which earlier people in our culture handled the dead. Now, if you want to look at an instinctual response in humans.. the best example would be placing your hand over an open flame. Every child at some point in his or her development does this. They place the hand over the flame, realize its hot, and quickly retract their hand. This is an instinctual response. Another would be regarding when we are hungry. Our stomachs sound, our brain tells us we are hungry, then we get food. That is instinctual.

That's the whole point. Finding genetic predisposition and bias doesn't literally mean that we have to act in a particular way ALWAYS nor that it's inevitable in all cases. Similar to how it was an evolutionary advantage that we develop a rejection of cheaters (a negative behavior) but at the same time it doesn't negate our own capacity to cheat others if we have enough reason.

I think this sentence is really revealing. From this, I gleam that you are confusing the ideas of culture and evolution. It is hard to say that developing a rejection of cheaters is evolutionary advantageous. However, culturally speaking it is easy to say from our culture here that there is an advantage of rejecting cheaters. Interesting.

And I already clarified what I meant by hard-wired. There are certain reactions that are intrinsic to how our language centers read emotions out of sound, even if we aren't understanding it consciously. And no behavior is by itself a simple cognitive process, but it doesn't mean that it isn't affected by our genetic predispositions greatly.

Yes, the brain does appear to react to sounds in similar ways in all cultures. Does this mean that the same sound set is used to illicit these reactions? If we play a minor triad for sample group A (comprised of Italians), sample group B (comprised of New Guineans), and sample group C (comprised of the natives of the Amazon River Basin) what would be the emotional response to the chord? Ditto with melody, what would be the emotional response? Would that emotional response be uniform amongst the three groups? Certainly, the brain would react to the sound being played - and most likely would be similar. The emotional response however would be triggered by the chemical or hormone responsible and then the individual would react to the trigger culturally. Some may cry, some may smile, some may show no emotion at all, and others may start to dig in deeper to the chord and find out why it works the way it works.

By the way, at no point did I mention anything about any "hard-wired behaviors." I'm talking about reactions to sound/music.

That's the whole point. Finding genetic predisposition and bias doesn't literally mean that we have to act in a particular way ALWAYS nor that it's inevitable in all cases. Similar to how it was an evolutionary advantage that we develop a rejection of cheaters (a negative behavior) but at the same time it doesn't negate our own capacity to cheat others if we have enough reason.

Cheating is a great example of environmental conditions influencing our behavior. The conditions for cheating necessarily must exist before anyone can actually cheat anyone else. I don't see this having much of anything to do with evolution that a "rejection" of cheaters came to be... and that "rejection" is a question of morality, not biology.

And I already clarified what I meant by hard-wired. There are certain reactions that are intrinsic to how our language centers read emotions out of sound, even if we aren't understanding it consciously. And no behavior is by itself a simple cognitive process, but it doesn't mean that it isn't affected by our genetic predispositions greatly.

We'd need to be speaking of a specific example of a genetic predisposition greatly affecting our cognition before we can really discuss this, don't you think?

By the way, at no point did I mention anything about any "hard-wired behaviors." I'm talking about reactions to sound/music.

My bad, then. I'm confused by your use of the word "hard-wired" in this discussion. To me, instincts are an example of "hard-wired" while "murder" is not. Reactions to sound/music are more in line with murder than with instinct. A lot of environmental conditions factor into how we process sound as "music" to us. Therefore, I'm under the impression you're claiming that our reactions to music are largely instinctual rather than environmentally influenced. On this, we disagree.

*facepalm*

This discussion is getting WAY out of hand...

Can we get back to the music please?

*facepalm*

This discussion is getting WAY out of hand...

Can we get back to the music please?

I disagree. I think we are discussing the topic quite nicely.

I've got some shelving which is rather nice music.

I've got some shelving which is rather nice music.

Does it produce any sound on its own? If so, I want one.. :)

Does it produce any sound on its own? If so, I want one.. :)

What, like a music box? I hate automatic music.

I have a rock next to my bed, and it's music...

I've got some shelving which is rather nice music.

Are you just about finished?

Are you just about finished?

http://www.teeterstelescopes.com/images/mirrorbox2_reflection.jpg

I'm not just about finished (^this is nice though); I also like unfinished:

http://www.unfinishedbookcases.org/images/unfinished.mission.bookcase..jpg

For one I'm thankful there's a tiny bit of thread derailment, since I'm don't feel like continuing the previous discussion.

Wait I thought "music" was the song by the 4th place runner up in the 1992 Eurovision contest? Or maybe that was a Madonna song.

That was one of Madonna's GREATEST hits... and it's a song that will NEVER be topped by another musician ever. And I seriously mean that..