Is innate musicality dependant on human physiology?

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings

Simply put, is human innate musical sense dependant oh individual physiology, or is it a factor of duality, where the music is volatile in relation to the body. I intend this thread to become somewhat of a debate between determinism and dualism between mind and body, but also do not object to hearing other opinions as well.

[pianistimo]

first of all, let's establish what makes babies tone-deaf.  what is it?  did their mother's also have no sense of pitch and sing to them off key?  what if a baby is exposed to only the correct pitches and a lot of music from pregnancy thru childhood?  can a child still be tone-deaf (unless they are deaf)?  how come none of bach's children were tone-deaf?

also, remember that girl in california who was discovered tied to a chair (potty actually) at 12 years of age.  her parents had abused her by going to work and leaving her tied up for 12 years.  she had missed critical stages of development and never learned correct speech patterns.  i can't remember exactly if she could not speak at ALL or if she just couldn't make sentences.  anyway - it was a severe handicap to her the rest of her life.

i tend to focus on early childhood development as you can see.  although, i sometimes tire of it at my own home.  (having had two other children to work to death on).  i think that sometimes freedom to be artistic is good, too - but from my experience - you have to have a plan and implement it every day.  that's what bach did.  i've noticed that children CAN learn an awful lot by the time they are three and beyond - before kindergarten.  it's just methodical teaching.  you almost need to write down a manual and make exercises every day - BEFORE your child is born - and practice on other children.  if you want them to learn languages - make that into the routine.  if you want them to leaern music (look into kodaly - imo) - sing lots of songs.  give them an instrument that's easy to play (a little keyboard - not a big one).

[debussy symbolism]

first of all, let's establish what makes babies tone-deaf.  what is it?  did their mother's also have no sense of pitch and sing to them off key?  what if a baby is exposed to only the correct pitches and a lot of music from pregnancy thru childhood?  can a child still be tone-deaf (unless they are deaf)?  how come none of bach's children were tone-deaf?

also, remember that girl in california who was discovered tied to a chair (potty actually) at 12 years of age.  her parents had abused her by going to work and leaving her tied up for 12 years.  she had missed critical stages of development and never learned correct speech patterns.  i can't remember exactly if she could not speak at ALL or if she just couldn't make sentences.  anyway - it was a severe handicap to her the rest of her life.

i tend to focus on early childhood development as you can see.  although, i sometimes tire of it at my own home.  (having had two other children to work to death on).  i think that sometimes freedom to be artistic is good, too - but from my experience - you have to have a plan and implement it every day.  that's what bach did.

This doesn't comply to the discussion at all.

[pianistimo]

physiology is using 'what you got.'  if you don't use it -how can you suddenly be 'musical?'  unless it's a mozartian talent.  but, even mozart's father was first and foremost his teacher!

as i see it -musicality and physiology are intertwined and if you miss 'critical stages' of development - yes! they can separate.

[debussy symbolism]

physiology is using 'what you got.'  if you don't use it -how can you suddenly be 'musical?'  unless it's a mozartian talent.  but, even mozart's father was first and foremost his teacher!

Yes, physiology is, in technical terms, "what you go." The question is, does that "what you got," or "makeup," if you will, determine the musical outcome that could be produced by humanity, or, can humans produce music that is irrelevant to their natural makeup.

[pianistimo]

i think you are confusing 'inspiration.'  that comes from God, imo.  (sorry to bring God into this - as i understand many people feel it is innate to have something spiritually inherent in them that is undefined).

but, if one is a humanist- i could see the idea that they propound of having musically talented people (artists) around them - instead of average, run-of-the-mill musicians.

you see, i think our brain is capable of intercepting extra-terrestrial (if you want to call it that) waves that make our music express ourselves like a thumb print as well as the spirit of our thoughts.  our own imprint and definition of what we are playing.  we also interpret the composer - but when it comes to 'fine tuning' - we are, after much practice, able to intercept higher levels of movement and interpretation that sometimes come from nowhere.

how do you explain those moments when you physiologically do something you hadn't planned?

[debussy symbolism]

i think you are confusing 'inspiration.'  that comes from God, imo.  (sorry to bring God into this - as i understand many people feel it is innate to have something spiritually inherent in them that is undefined).

Where in my writing above have I even come close to suggesting the notion of inspiration? Inspiration has nothing to do with the topic. Inspiration is still ultimately dependant on the psysiology.

If you are arguing about the intervention of divine forces, which is of course perfectly allowed to argue, you could at least point out that perhaps human imagination can encompass all forms of music and so therefore the physiology has nothing to do with it.

[pianistimo]

tell that to itzhak perlman.  i think you have to have the physiology there to physically do what is asked of you.  then, when you get beyond the technique - you are in another realm not hindered by 'what am i thinking about doing now?'  it's not only second nature.  i know this because of 'strange' happenings that i see in groups of musicians.  they suddenly all play together (whether classical or jazz) as though they knew what the other person was going to do.  or choirs that get into fine tuning of expression and second guess 'timing and placement.'  how does one get this extra sense?  not merely from physiology - but from some kind of super-magnetic (just kidding) communion of brain cells between sometimes an entire orchestra.

[debussy symbolism]

tell that to itzhak perlman.

Out of all respect to Itzhak Perlman, and with more respect in my opinion as I am the only one who did not forget to capitalize his name, I am more concerned with getting a coherent point out of you.

This debate is ironic looking at my signature. I started this (seemingly hopeless) debate without keeping the signature in mind.

[pianistimo]

is there a rule to inspiration?

[debussy symbolism]

tell that to itzhak perlman.  i think you have to have the physiology there to physically do what is asked of you.  then, when you get beyond the technique - you are in another realm not hindered by 'what am i thinking about doing now?'  it's not only second nature.  i know this because of 'strange' happenings that i see in groups of musicians.  they suddenly all play together (whether classical or jazz) as though they knew what the other person was going to do.  or choirs that get into fine tuning of expression and second guess 'timing and placement.'  how does one get this extra sense?  not merely from physiology - but from some kind of super-magnetic (just kidding) communion of brain cells between sometimes an entire orchestra.

From what I gather, you claim that human music is not dependant on physiology after a certain point. You also claim this to be a byproduct of technique and contact with other musical peers, which in inteslf is still confounded to physiology.

Are you familiar to the harmonic series. Does the sound of "tonal" and "atonal" music ring a bell. It has been commonly construed that the so called series are ultimately ingrained into mankind, and any form of altering to the series, as was the product titled "atonal music," is a violation of human expectation. The question that arises from this is, would a normal human construe the sound of atonal works as natural should he be confined to those works, strictly based on the dodecaphonic system, and not the regular tonal works?

[prometheus]

Of course all our talents and ability are totally dependent on our physiology.


I don't understand what you mean with duality?



Maybe replace 'music' with 'language' and ask the question again.

[pianistimo]

debussy symbolism,  i don't want to argue with you so much over conjecture as i don't know the percentage of musicality to physiology and have my own theories (which are truthful to me) - but you seem to be proving my point  - that inspiration might come from somewhere else also.  the harmonic series is an excellent indication of divine creation.  also, seven - seven notes of diatonic scale - is a number that the bible seems to indicate is 'perfection.' 

now, in greek times - they had a lot of of gods  - so therefore the 'muses' (where the word music came from) were responsible for each of the arts.  there were three at first - but then more added so they came to nine.  interestingly the word muse referred in part to 'inspiration.'  at least that's what i read in wikipedia.  (i know - you'll probably say i don't read enough books - but hey, i'm a mom, and i don't research stuff all the time).

nowdays, nobody believes (at least very few) - in the muses or sometimes divine help.  therefore, we don't see everyone praying before they perform.  so, either you believe in divine help with inspiration or you don't.  the muses have been painted dancing around 'apollo' - which i believe is another name for apollyon or satan.  in religion satan has power as well.  people didn't disbelieve that paganini had unusual powers and when fully posessed could play superhumanly. 

my best example was itzhak perlman - although i don't think he's possessed by satan.  *laugh if you must over my reasoning.  i think he sincerely attributes his talent to practice and God.  after all, God gave him the ability to recover from polio and discover that he was blessed with a similar talent to mozart.  easily flitting from classical to jazz and in reviews being told that his talent was 'limitless.'  how can one have limitless talent - unless it is given to them from above.

well, that's a religous/philosophical question - and i realize you might not think your question is.  if you limit physiology to physiology - why did lance armstrong win the tour de france after a bout with cancer?  several times!  yes.  these people work hard - but there's something else.  an inner voice (or supernatural) that guides them to choose paths at critical stages of a race or a piece of music.  now - i'm not saying that music is a race - but i'm saying that when you get beyond physiology you are in spiritual realm where you are extremely relaxed and able to grasp seemingly the brains of an audience.  to give them the suspense and release they are seeking and do it without conscious thought of physiology.

[pianistimo]

debussysymbolism, i'll let someone else discuss this, too - because i know there are many opinions and very few the same on this issue.  perhaps it is because we are all unique and not yellow pencils (as you say - having different physiological and/or genetic things in our favor).  i think there are things you can do to increase your physiology, though.

one of my teachers advocated drinking a lot of water.  i started thinking about why and found out in my own reading that water does a lot for us physiologically (just like oil - imo - as i believe olive oil is really great for smoothing out the joints even though it doesn't directly go to those areas immediately).  our neural connections are what send messages back and forth from the brain to the hands or whatever place - so if they are impacted - of course we are going to be slow, or have trouble memorizing, or whatever - if we don't take care of our bodies physically.  i think there should be a certain diet for pianists just like athletes.  if you pour colas and sweet things into your body all the time - can you expect the same results from your body as if you didn't?

another thing your very good question brings to mind - is the idea that music can be 'therapy.'  now, if this is so - then musicality and physiology are VERY closely tied.  so much so - that one can benefit in a healing manner from music.  i have a book entitled 'music, physician in times to come' and it give many different viewpoints (some i agree with and others just listen to).  one is that there can be several 'states' to music.  here are some that this person listed:

sentic state:  the emotional state during our experience of emotional expression.  it is not the emotional expression itself, however.  it is a single channel of communication of emotional expresssion; at any one time in an individual there is only ONE sentic state being expressed (not sure i follow because don't people get jealous and mad at the same time - or ecstatic and giddy, etc). 

proto-sentic states:  the correct, ideal or archetypal sentic state of a give emotion.

essentic forms:  the biologically innate forms of emotional expression, which in combination communicate emotion to others.  they are comprised of e-actions - when we laugh, cry, sigh, or yawn we are driven to cross the barrier..but also, one ccan use esentic form at will to drive ...body and...mind.'

sentic cycle:  a form of active meditation.  a person listens to a specifically time, sentic cycle tape.  the tape requests the subject to express either no emotion or the emotion of anger, hate, grief, love, sex, joy, or reverence, to the rhythm or pulse of soft clicks with varying intervals of a few seconds.  the subjects expresses these emotions physically by tapping a finger rest with one finger.  these movements are recorded on a sentogram.

sentogram: a record that shows shapes produced by emotions expressed during a sentic cycle.  it results from measuring muscle tension generated by finger pressure on a special finger rest while one is performing the cycle.  the amount of pressure and the angle of the finger pressure are measure, and together they produce a characteristic curve or shape for each emotion expressed.

[pianistimo]

ok going on (but skipping a couple pages) with this stuff written by manfred clynes - 'essentic form and its specific feeling is there to be perceived by a human, who is largely defenceless against its power.  his mind and body are driven by it.  but also he, and only he, can use essentic form at will to drive his body and his mind...one of these ways is music.  music, in fact, s an organisztion created to dictate feelings to the listener.  the composer is an unrelenting dictator, and we choose to subject ourselves to him (him?  faust II ?)  when we listen to his music.  this means, of course, that there are two kinds of musical experiences:  music being thought and organized - the world of the composer - and music being listened to, subjecting oneself to another's musical thought.  that the two worlds have something in common is testimony to the universal qualities of human experience, the universality of essentic form.  the most intimate is unmasked as the most universal.  (love and sex?) 

*now i'm interjecting. if it is possible to divide love and sex - as i believe it is - then bach truly expressed the highest form of human emotion.  that would be love without sex - or a worship of the divine (sexless being - that is the source of creation).  so, from past composers we can see that it is possible to express love in it's purest sense. 

now, the romantic composers didn't try to nix sex. they used it to their advantage.  perhaps willfully enticing those that heard their music to passionately fall for the enticements of music on the soul in certain situations.  and, of course, pop music also uses not only music but words to entrain people's minds.  to focus their minds on whatever - love, sex, joy, anger, docility, heightened awareness, focus, lack of focus, mimic ADD, etc.

in these cases - a case could be made for the opposite thesis of yours.  ' is human physiology dependant upon (universal) innate musicalness?'  and, one could go so far as to suggest that music holds a power that is known to advertisers and romantic guitar strummers alike (as well as rock stars, etc).  to cause a person's physiology to be unable to resist an emotion - whether it be shopping or sex.  perhaps you didn't want to pursue the topic this far.  i have more, though.  just tell me if we're off the beaten track too far.

[ahinton]

the harmonic series is an excellent indication of divine creation.  also, seven - seven notes of diatonic scale - is a number that the bible seems to indicate is 'perfection.'

But how is it so? How can you prove that it is anything of the kind? It is a fascinating phenomenon, of course, but one largely recognisable only to humans, particularly those with musical experience and training. If what you claim here were true, atheists and believers would not respond similarly to such things, would they?!

now, in greek times - they had a lot of of gods  - so therefore the 'muses' (where the word music came from) were responsible for each of the arts.  there were three at first - but then more added so they came to nine.  interestingly the word muse referred in part to 'inspiration.'  at least that's what i read in wikipedia.  (i know - you'll probably say i don't read enough books - but hey, i'm a mom, and i don't research stuff all the time).

nowdays, nobody believes (at least very few) - in the muses or sometimes divine help.  therefore, we don't see everyone praying before they perform.  so, either you believe in divine help with inspiration or you don't.  the muses have been painted dancing around 'apollo' - which i believe is another name for apollyon or satan.  in religion satan has power as well.  people didn't disbelieve that paganini had unusual powers and when fully posessed could play superhumanly. 

my best example was itzhak perlman - although i don't think he's possessed by satan.  *laugh if you must over my reasoning.  i think he sincerely attributes his talent to practice and God.  after all, God gave him the ability to recover from polio and discover that he was blessed with a similar talent to mozart.  easily flitting from classical to jazz and in reviews being told that his talent was 'limitless.'  how can one have limitless talent - unless it is given to them from above.

OK about the Greek situation but I don't even accept the premise that talent can be "limitless" at any given moment; it can and often does develop, of course, but there is always a limit on its level at any given moment which can then be transcended as a consequence of such development. Let us not forget that what Perlman and Mozart could do was also very much dependent upon well-organised hard work. God didn't give Perlman the ability to recover from polio any more than He gave him the ability to "discover that he was blessed with a similar talent to Mozart", which in any case he isn't because, whilst they were both string players, Perlman is hardly a noted keyboard player, let alone composer as Mozart was.

these people work hard - but there's something else.  an inner voice (or supernatural) that guides them to choose paths at critical stages of a race or a piece of music.  now - i'm not saying that music is a race - but i'm saying that when you get beyond physiology you are in spiritual realm where you are extremely relaxed and able to grasp seemingly the brains of an audience.  to give them the suspense and release they are seeking and do it without conscious thought of physiology.

Now here I'm absolutely with you in principle, the only difference being that you confidently put it down to God whereas I do not pretend to know what I don't know and what cannot be known in terms of how such things really come about.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

debussysymbolism, i'll let someone else discuss this, too

That's very magnanimous of you!

because i know there are many opinions and very few the same on this issue.  perhaps it is because we are all unique and not yellow pencils (as you say - having different physiological and/or genetic things in our favor).  i think there are things you can do to increase your physiology, though.

one of my teachers advocated drinking a lot of water.  i started thinking about why and found out in my own reading that water does a lot for us physiologically (just like oil - imo - as i believe olive oil is really great for smoothing out the joints even though it doesn't directly go to those areas immediately).  our neural connections are what send messages back and forth from the brain to the hands or whatever place - so if they are impacted - of course we are going to be slow, or have trouble memorizing, or whatever - if we don't take care of our bodies physically.  i think there should be a certain diet for pianists just like athletes.  if you pour colas and sweet things into your body all the time - can you expect the same results from your body as if you didn't?

Now here you write almost unmitigated good sense. Whether I'd go quite as far as you in advocating a specific diet for pianists I'm not so sure about, for one would also have to consider suitable diets for all other instrumental performers, singers, conductors and composers and I'm not convinced that such an inevitably complex approach is really necessary, for on the one hand there are certain dietary practices that bring benefits to most people regardless of what they do and, on the other, diet must always be planned for the individual, not for the "yellow pencil", as you rightly put it, in the sense that, as we do not all have precisely the same physiological requirements, the dietary needs of different individuals will inevitably vary somewhat.

another thing your very good question brings to mind - is the idea that music can be 'therapy.'  now, if this is so - then musicality and physiology are VERY closely tied.  so much so - that one can benefit in a healing manner from music.  i have a book entitled 'music, physician in times to come' and it give many different viewpoints (some i agree with and others just listen to).  one is that there can be several 'states' to music.

Can you quote its bibliographical reference?

here are some that this person listed:

sentic state:  the emotional state during our experience of emotional expression.  it is not the emotional expression itself, however.  it is a single channel of communication of emotional expresssion; at any one time in an individual there is only ONE sentic state being expressed (not sure i follow because don't people get jealous and mad at the same time - or ecstatic and giddy, etc). 

proto-sentic states:  the correct, ideal or archetypal sentic state of a give emotion.

essentic forms:  the biologically innate forms of emotional expression, which in combination communicate emotion to others.  they are comprised of e-actions - when we laugh, cry, sigh, or yawn we are driven to cross the barrier..but also, one ccan use esentic form at will to drive ...body and...mind.'

sentic cycle:  a form of active meditation.  a person listens to a specifically time, sentic cycle tape.  the tape requests the subject to express either no emotion or the emotion of anger, hate, grief, love, sex, joy, or reverence, to the rhythm or pulse of soft clicks with varying intervals of a few seconds.  the subjects expresses these emotions physically by tapping a finger rest with one finger.  these movements are recorded on a sentogram.

sentogram: a record that shows shapes produced by emotions expressed during a sentic cycle.  it results from measuring muscle tension generated by finger pressure on a special finger rest while one is performing the cycle.  the amount of pressure and the angle of the finger pressure are measure, and together they produce a characteristic curve or shape for each emotion expressed.

Interesting as this is, I'd be wary of setting too much store by it at this point, since the neuroscientific research on such matters remains in its comparative infancy.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

ok going on (but skipping a couple pages) with this stuff written by manfred clynes - 'essentic form and its specific feeling is there to be perceived by a human, who is largely defenceless against its power.  his mind and body are driven by it.  but also he, and only he, can use essentic form at will to drive his body and his mind...one of these ways is music.  music, in fact, s an organisztion created to dictate feelings to the listener.  the composer is an unrelenting dictator, and we choose to subject ourselves to him (him?  faust II ?)  when we listen to his music.  this means, of course, that there are two kinds of musical experiences:  music being thought and organized - the world of the composer - and music being listened to, subjecting oneself to another's musical thought.  that the two worlds have something in common is testimony to the universal qualities of human experience, the universality of essentic form.  the most intimate is unmasked as the most universal.  (love and sex?)

This is all very well, but I don't buy into this notion of the composer being the dictator, because he/she simply cannot control how any individual listener willl respond to his/her music at any given time and it is also the case that no two such responses will ever be identical.

*now i'm interjecting. if it is possible to divide love and sex - as i believe it is - then bach truly expressed the highest form of human emotion.  that would be love without sex - or a worship of the divine (sexless being - that is the source of creation).  so, from past composers we can see that it is possible to express love in it's purest sense. 

So Bach managed to father not only many music scores but also a score of children without the aid of sexual practice? That would be as absurd (or rather 20 times as absurd) as the virgin birth myth, surely?! Of course it's possible to consider love and sex as separate entities, which often they indeed are, but to state that "from past composers we can see that it is possible to express love in its purest sense" is wholly unverifiable and, as far as I can tell, largely meaningless, too. Think about that brief and well known Berlioz text that I sent you (in an English translation)...

now, the romantic composers didn't try to nix sex. they used it to their advantage.  perhaps willfully enticing those that heard their music to passionately fall for the enticements of music on the soul in certain situations.  and, of course, pop music also uses not only music but words to entrain people's minds.  to focus their minds on whatever - love, sex, joy, anger, docility, heightened awareness, focus, lack of focus, mimic ADD, etc.

The composers of the Romantic era were hardly alone in not trying to "nix" sex, any more than pop music is alone in incorporating words...

in these cases - a case could be made for the opposite thesis of yours.  ' is human physiology dependant upon (universal) innate musicalness?'  and, one could go so far as to suggest that music holds a power that is known to advertisers and romantic guitar strummers alike (as well as rock stars, etc).  to cause a person's physiology to be unable to resist an emotion - whether it be shopping or sex.  perhaps you didn't want to pursue the topic this far.  i have more, though.  just tell me if we're off the beaten track too far.

I find all of this very interesting but at the same time am only too well aware of what little we yet know of how it all works. Emotions are chemical changes that take place in the brain as a consequence of certain stimuli; now whilst that sounds in itself rather prosaic, it does not undermine them and their importance. It may take very many years of diligent neuroscientific research before we are all able to converse intelligilbly and reliably about such matters and how they function in practice.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

the book is not a book per se - but a compilation of many different viewpoints from varying authors.  an anthology.  roberto assagioli, md; barry t brodie, ph; swami chetananananda (hope i didn't add an extra 'anan'); manfred clynes, DSc; barbara crowe, RMT; gary doore, phD; jonathan goldman MA; cthie guzzetta, phD,RN; and many more.

i find this book at least compelling in terms of looking at music and physiology as 'real phenomenon.'  no matter how one interprets it.

to me - this music and physiology thing is simple.  all humans seem to crave or need unconditional love.  therefore, i look at music as a way to feel the healing expression of the 'love' emotions.  some music emotes harshness.  it is a way to describe some of the things that occur in society around us.  of course, all music is art - and noone should say of another's music that it isn't as valid because it lacks human feelings - but, there can be no healing properties to this type of music.  in fact, it can induce psychosis.  how do i know this?  i once practiced some unmatched rhythms of bartok for too long.  thankfully the psychosis was short-lived.  i became ill-tempered temporarily.

imo, humans seek out patterns.  patterns in music especially.  that is why classical music is so often used in music therapy.  reliability, seeing a repetition of something, giving solidity and a sense of home (whether key, or melody, etc).  this is transcendant love, to me.  if you have no home - where do you go for respite?

[pianistimo]

here's what pir hazrat inayat khan writes:

'illness is inharmony - either physical inharmony or mental inharmony; the one acts upon the other.  what causes inharmony?  the lack of tone and rhythm.  how can it be interpreted in physical terminology?  prana or life or energy is the tone; circulation or regularity is the rhythm, regularlity in the beating of the pulse and in the circulation of the blood through the veins.  in physical terms the lack of circulation means congestion; and the lack of prana or life or energy means weakness.  these two condictions attract illness are are the cause of illness.  in mental terms the rhythm is the action of the mind, whether the mind is active in harmonious thoughts or in inharmonious thoughts, whether the mind is strong, firm and steady or weak.'

now, i am not as familiar with the idea of prana - but i am familiar with harmony - so i see this 'prana' as similar to 'spirit' or - from the spirit that God gave man.

if i were to add a chapter to this book (*yes, laugh again) - i would bring out the idea that music can heal mental illness by tapping into the spiritual realm that is good.  king saul found out that when david played (and sang!) that his 'madness' would leave.  it calmed his spirit.

the opposing side of this, imo, is music used by shamans and mystics that tap into the chaotic side and random side.  you know, tibetian bells and peruvian whistles.  the ability to create altered states of consciousness (instead of coming into consciousness - going out of it).  tibetian bells have been utilized in buddhist meditation practice for many centuries.  an examination reveals that the two bells, which are rung together, are slightly out of tune with each other.  somehow, the brain waves are trained to shift to the elf's (between 4 and 8 cycles per second) and deep meditation occurs.

peruvian whistles are ancient pipe-like instruments (found buried with mummies in peru) and curious sounds produed when two or three were blown simultaneously.  their higher notes would interact to produce deep lower notes that could not be tape-recorded but heard only in the ear, where the effect is generated.  the idea is that these low frequency sounds were important religous rituals for changing states of consciousness.'

(these whistling vessels affect the entire cranium of the person playing them - making it act as a resonating chamber - an effect that cannot be reproduced on a record.  these vessels are usually blown in sets of seven and they create tremendous beat frequencies).

[pianistimo]

also, in new age music there is no recognizable melody and no harmonic progressions to which we have been conditioned to respond.  frequently, there is no central rhythm or natural beat.  nontraditional music requires neither intellectual analysis nor emotional involvement.  it is a vibrational language that helps the body/mind attune with it's OWN pattern or resonance.  so - here - we see we are avoiding the 'spirit' outside ourselves and tuning in to our own selves.  turning inward instead of outward.  it's just a perspective here that i see - and one that i personally would avoid.  why?  because it's seeking knowledge from one's own self instead of looking at created harmony and seeking what is created by God.  it's like asking for possession. to spend time in prayer to the 'prince of darkness.'

in magical circles - music is used for this purpose.  also, i've read that they like to use reverse speech and say prayers in reverse.  why not with music.  to completely turn it around and make it somewhat chaotic.  to avoid human emotions and seek dark thoughts - that suddenly appear from nowhere.  i believe this force is extremely powerful. 

but, why not listen to music totally in control of your emotions?  why not be able to choose at any one time what your emotions will be for yourself?  when inspired - music should become (imo) more freely flowing and unifying and benefitting others to think about goodness.  to have a unity to it - instead of chaos.

[ahinton]

the book is not a book per se - but a compilation of many different viewpoints from varying authors.  an anthology.  roberto assagioli, md; barry t brodie, ph; swami chetananananda (hope i didn't add an extra 'anan'); manfred clynes, DSc; barbara crowe, RMT; gary doore, phD; jonathan goldman MA; cthie guzzetta, phD,RN; and many more.

OK - thanks - although by "bibliographical reference" I meant also the publisher details and publication date...

i find this book at least compelling in terms of looking at music and physiology as 'real phenomenon.'  no matter how one interprets it.

to me - this music and physiology thing is simple.  all humans seem to crave or need unconditional love.  therefore, i look at music as a way to feel the healing expression of the 'love' emotions.  some music emotes harshness.  it is a way to describe some of the things that occur in society around us.  of course, all music is art - and noone should say of another's music that it isn't as valid because it lacks human feelings - but, there can be no healing properties to this type of music.  in fact, it can induce psychosis.  how do i know this?  i once practiced some unmatched rhythms of bartok for too long.  thankfully the psychosis was short-lived.  i became ill-tempered temporarily.

I think that you are taking an overly simplistic view of something which is naturally not only complex but more wide-ranging than you appear to consider here. Stravinsky's oft-quoted remark that "music is incapable of expressing anything beynd itself" is, I think, fatuous but I do believe it is also indicative of a genuine effort to say something on the subject which I happen to believe was far more effectively put by someone (whose name currently escapes me) as "music is capable of expressing everything but naming nothing". The notion that "music begins where words leave off" is someting of a clichéd expression but far from lacking in substance. Anyway, the point that I'm coming to here is that music is capable of representing (I prefer that term to "expressing" in this context") not just the one kind of emotion that you mention but the entire gamut of human emotions; it is likewise of capable of generating the same in its listeners.

imo, humans seek out patterns.  patterns in music especially.  that is why classical music is so often used in music therapy.  reliability, seeing a repetition of something, giving solidity and a sense of home (whether key, or melody, etc).  this is transcendant love, to me.  if you have no home - where do you go for respite?

Whilst this is true, one other thing that music does is never stay still. Now, OK, in that it is no different to anything else in human history, but there is another aspect to it to which I think Debussy drew attention - that it is unlike the other arts by reason of its constant motion and change. A mature Turner watercolour such as, for example, The Harbour at Dieppe might give the onlooker impression of change going on because of its sheer level of detail and subtlety and in its suggestion both of near-foreground activity and of stillness and calm in the water, the sky and the distance but, in the end, even a work of this magnitude and brilliance remains unchanged as we look at it and it is only that its different aspects might successively vie for our attention as we do so.

To return to your remark about the seeking out of petterns, what you omit here is that such patterns become ever more complex as everything else about humanity becomes ever more complex. The patterns of melody and rhythm in, say, Strauss's Ein Heldenleben are infinitely more complex than those in a Palestrina Mass, yet in each case such patterns would be "sought" by humans. Elliott Carter has spoken of the fact that the prevalence of rhythm patterns arising from and dependent upon such things as humans walking and horses trotting has been lessened now that we can fly; this is not to suggest that any patterns are being supplanted here, of course - merely to point out that the rich panply of such patterns which humans might seek has and will always become richer. By the same token, once could perhaps argue that the range and nature of human emotion is likewise an ever-expanding thing.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

here's what pir hazrat inayat khan writes:

'illness is inharmony - either physical inharmony or mental inharmony; the one acts upon the other.  what causes inharmony?  the lack of tone and rhythm.  how can it be interpreted in physical terminology?  prana or life or energy is the tone; circulation or regularity is the rhythm, regularlity in the beating of the pulse and in the circulation of the blood through the veins.  in physical terms the lack of circulation means congestion; and the lack of prana or life or energy means weakness.  these two condictions attract illness are are the cause of illness.  in mental terms the rhythm is the action of the mind, whether the mind is active in harmonious thoughts or in inharmonious thoughts, whether the mind is strong, firm and steady or weak.'

now, i am not as familiar with the idea of prana - but i am familiar with harmony - so i see this 'prana' as similar to 'spirit' or - from the spirit that God gave man.

I have to congratulate you on keeping God at bay on this for so long (until now!). Without wishing to undermine the above as such, I think that we should nevertheless be wary of how and to what extent we might interpret it (if at all) as part of a consideration of contemporary music-making. The "inharmony" bit could almost be taken to sound analogous to some of distinctly unscientific the ravings of Christian Science movement...

if i were to add a chapter to this book (*yes, laugh again) - i would bring out the idea that music can heal mental illness by tapping into the spiritual realm that is good.  king saul found out that when david played (and sang!) that his 'madness' would leave.  it calmed his spirit.

Again, we are in the realms partly of fantasy and partly on as yet undiscovered scientific facts here. Music therapy as a scientific discipline has been around for quite a whole now, but it is in reality a massively large subject and its effective practical application has to take account of all the world's manifold different cultural exeriences (and inexperiences); a subject very much fior the future, I think, although one must welcome genuine researches towards its advancement.

the opposing side of this, imo, is music used by shamans and mystics that tap into the chaotic side and random side.  you know, tibetian bells and peruvian whistles.

I'll try to pass over the other connotation of "bells and whistles"...(!)

the ability to create altered states of consciousness (instead of coming into consciousness - going out of it).  tibetian bells have been utilized in buddhist meditation practice for many centuries.  an examination reveals that the two bells, which are rung together, are slightly out of tune with each other.  somehow, the brain waves are trained to shift to the elf's (between 4 and 8 cycles per second) and deep meditation occurs.

peruvian whistles are ancient pipe-like instruments (found buried with mummies in peru) and curious sounds produed when two or three were blown simultaneously.  their higher notes would interact to produce deep lower notes that could not be tape-recorded but heard only in the ear, where the effect is generated.  the idea is that these low frequency sounds were important religous rituals for changing states of consciousness.'

(these whistling vessels affect the entire cranium of the person playing them - making it act as a resonating chamber - an effect that cannot be reproduced on a record.  these vessels are usually blown in sets of seven and they create tremendous beat frequencies).

The "altered states of consciousness" thing is something which interests me very much in music although, once again, our scientific understanding of this and how it works remains pretty rudimentary so far.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

interesting thoughts, alistair.  and, i concur that music does seem to 'move' constantly. and debussy had a beautiful way of reflecting water - much like ravel with water and also butterflies.  expressing flight.

perhaps the gist of where i am coming from is that the term 'physiological' includes the brain, to me.  whereas someone else may only see our responses outwardly.  as i see it - God sees the  'inward heart.'  and in greek times - music and the heart (emotions) were closely tied.  so i look at what a particular piece inspires in my own heart.  does it inspire worship of God?  or, love of his creation?  to me - debussy and ravel are both full of beauty in their music - and a bit of 'extra-terrestrial' - shall we say - because they both studied the effects of their music on simple things as meditation.  they are not necessarily fully 'new age' compositions - but come very close with finding ways to elicit deep meditation in people.  is this good?  i don't know - i suppose if someone used the meditiation for good purposes.  but, it can also be used for evil.  to suddenly express 'madness' on purpose!  madness doesn't have a focus and goes out it all directions.

perhaps it is our choice what we prefer to meditate on if listening to meditative music.  the aforementioned lady that was talking about harmony also suggests a tape of ravel and debussy to listen to after praying to God - to hear his responses.  as i read in the bible, we don't really need anything but Jesus Christ's words - as Jesus himself didn't seem to go around asking for music during his prayer and meditation.  in fact, it seemed he denied himself the luxuries of life and fasted.  no matter - now, i suppose - i am arguing with the wind.  but, truly - to me - the highest form of musicality of physiology is the act of praising God and dancing at the same time (or playing the piano).

[ahinton]

also, in new age music there is no recognizable melody and no harmonic progressions to which we have been conditioned to respond.  frequently, there is no central rhythm or natural beat.  nontraditional music requires neither intellectual analysis nor emotional involvement.  it is a vibrational language that helps the body/mind attune with it's OWN pattern or resonance.

That's not strictly true, in the sense and to the extent that different musics have different - and greater or lesser levels of - intellectual thrust and emotional content.

so - here - we see we are avoiding the 'spirit' outside ourselves and tuning in to our own selves.  turning inward instead of outward.  it's just a perspective here that i see - and one that i personally would avoid.  why?  because it's seeking knowledge from one's own self instead of looking at created harmony and seeking what is created by God.  it's like asking for possession. to spend time in prayer to the 'prince of darkness.'

You're parting company with sound good sense again!

in magical circles - music is used for this purpose.  also, i've read that they like to use reverse speech and say prayers in reverse.  why not with music.  to completely turn it around and make it somewhat chaotic.  to avoid human emotions and seek dark thoughts - that suddenly appear from nowhere.

That's rather nonsensical, too, have you never heard of the use of the device of cancrizans in the music of the Renaissance and later? And why would "human emotions" and "dark thoughts" necessarily always be mutually incompatible? (they aren't!)...

i believe this force is extremely powerful.  enough to cause people like michael jackson and prince to actually have some sway, by their subliminal musical methods, over the minds and spiritual thoughts of their followers/listeners.  i believe they become unconscious - so to speak - and meditative.

That's not your "prince of darkness", is it?!...

but, why not listen to music totally in control of your emotions?  why not be able to choose at any one time what your emotions will be for yourself?  when inspired - music should become (imo) more freely flowing and unifying and benefitting others to think about goodness.  to have a unity to it - instead of chaos.

You're missing the point here; the extent to which one's emotional responses can be controlled while listening receptively to certain music is linked to the extent to which that music of and by itself affects and generates such emotional responses in the listener while listening. Deliberately seeking to switch off one's emotional response mechanisms (to whatever extent one may even be capable of doing so in such circumstances) sounds to me to be almost tantamount to denying one of the effects of the music to which one is listening at the time, which would surely defeat one of the objects of listening to it.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

but, opposingly - alistair - should we submit to the devil?  (my children also laugh when i bring this up).  allowing our emotions to be controlled by another.  as i see it - God IS a master - and we the slaves - but he always has our wisdom, intellect, and heart in mind - and would not lead us 'into temptation.'  satan, on the other hand leads us places that we might not want to go.  madness for instance.  to lose sanity.  to lose touch with reality.  to not feel that place of 'home' and be 'lost' so to speak in noise rather than harmony.

the indwelling of the Holy Spirit produces fruit that benefits our lives and others:  love, joy, peace, longsufferring...  what benefit does listening to music that has no tonal center do?  i suppose it is artistic and descriptive - but what does it do for our soul?  it doesn't tune it up again.  it's not therapy.  but, when words and music praise God - we come away refreshed and alive.  why is this?

when debussy symbolism comes back - he will surely want other input.  but, this is mine. from my heart.  i truly believe the highest form of worship is the combination of music and physiology - so that our entire being worships God.  'you shall love the Lord your God with ALL your heart and with all your soul and with all your might....' 

'singing psalms and hymns ....' col 3:16

there are many places in the bible that suggest admonishing and building up our thoughts by thinking (meditating) on what is good.  the psalms of david not only give us an example (like the Lord's prayer - for prayer) - but also answer some of our pressing daily questions.  giving us peace that 'passes all understanding.' 

[ahinton]

but, opposingly - alistair - should we submit to the devil?  (my children also laugh when i bring this up).  allowing our emotions to be controlled by another.  as i see it - God IS a master - and we the slaves - but he always has our wisdom, intellect, and heart in mind - and would not lead us 'into temptation.'  satan, on the other hand leads us places that we might not want to go.  madness for instance.  to lose sanity.  to lose touch with reality.  to not feel that place of 'home' and be 'lost' so to speak in noise rather than harmony.

Now you're being absurd again, egged on by your persistent God-obsession. Having emotional responses to stimuli provided by someone else's music, painting or anything else is hardly "submitting to the devil", is it?! If you must see things the way that you do, you'll have to accept that listening to music is always a "satanic" thing to do, because it can lead us into places that we wouldn;t otherwise go; the composer George Lloyd said that this is what music does - leads its listeners into places that they would not otherwise go. Whether we will emerge from such experiences having wanted to go to any or all of those places is entirely up to each individual listener and not to "God" or "Satan" - that's just ridiculous!

the indwelling of the Holy Spirit produces fruit that benefits our lives and others:  love, joy, peace, longsufferring...  what benefit does listening to music that has no tonal center do?  i suppose it is artistic and descriptive - but what does it do for our soul?  it doesn't tune it up again.  it's not therapy.  but, when words and music praise God - we come away refreshed and alive.  why is this?

Again, never mind "indwelling" - this is "ingrowing" thought! The extent to which and occasions on which any particular passage of music is deemed to have a "tonal centre" is in part a matter for each individual pair of listener's ears in accordance with their level of musical experience. Just leave God out of it, please - it's interfering with your reason (yet again)!

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

but, when a composer puts words to their music - you know their intents.  how about the composer andrew lloyd webber.  isn't this music, though 20th century, remarkably calling upon faust to help musicians reach those upper limits (beyond human physiology).

now, if some composers openly worship satan - why shouldn't some openly worship Jesus Christ - the author of our salvation.  music was created to worship Him - not an imposter.

[debussy symbolism]

Of course all our talents and ability are totally dependent on our physiology.


I don't understand what you mean with duality?



Maybe replace 'music' with 'language' and ask the question again.

I see your point. This determinism has been argued by many philosophers to a certain extent and is definately a crucial point of view. However, by acknowledging another accepted point of view, namely of duality between mind and body, as embraced by Descartes, you will have to deal with that other particular point of view, that perhaps physiology doesn't determine the mind. In this case you could replace "music" to "language" as music is harder to determine, given its more sensuous nature. However, music is still made from the harmonic series, or building blocks that are still innate to humans, just as all languages carry the same universals, as illustrated by Chomsky.

[debussy symbolism]

debussy symbolism,  i don't want to argue with you so much over conjecture as i don't know the percentage of musicality to physiology and have my own theories (which are truthful to me) - but you seem to be proving my point  - that inspiration might come from somewhere else also.  the harmonic series is an excellent indication of divine creation.  also, seven - seven notes of diatonic scale - is a number that the bible seems to indicate is 'perfection.' 

now, in greek times - they had a lot of of gods  - so therefore the 'muses' (where the word music came from) were responsible for each of the arts.  there were three at first - but then more added so they came to nine.  interestingly the word muse referred in part to 'inspiration.'  at least that's what i read in wikipedia.  (i know - you'll probably say i don't read enough books - but hey, i'm a mom, and i don't research stuff all the time).

nowdays, nobody believes (at least very few) - in the muses or sometimes divine help.  therefore, we don't see everyone praying before they perform.  so, either you believe in divine help with inspiration or you don't.  the muses have been painted dancing around 'apollo' - which i believe is another name for apollyon or satan.  in religion satan has power as well.  people didn't disbelieve that paganini had unusual powers and when fully posessed could play superhumanly. 

my best example was itzhak perlman - although i don't think he's possessed by satan.  *laugh if you must over my reasoning.  i think he sincerely attributes his talent to practice and God.  after all, God gave him the ability to recover from polio and discover that he was blessed with a similar talent to mozart.  easily flitting from classical to jazz and in reviews being told that his talent was 'limitless.'  how can one have limitless talent - unless it is given to them from above.

well, that's a religous/philosophical question - and i realize you might not think your question is.  if you limit physiology to physiology - why did lance armstrong win the tour de france after a bout with cancer?  several times!  yes.  these people work hard - but there's something else.  an inner voice (or supernatural) that guides them to choose paths at critical stages of a race or a piece of music.  now - i'm not saying that music is a race - but i'm saying that when you get beyond physiology you are in spiritual realm where you are extremely relaxed and able to grasp seemingly the brains of an audience.  to give them the suspense and release they are seeking and do it without conscious thought of physiology.

First of all, we do not have a coherent conjecture, unless of course I am unaware of it. I can say this with relative certainty because there are schools of thought propagating both sides of the issue. To not rouse needless quarrels about the nature of the harmonic series predetermined by any divine force, and be subsidiary to humans, lets try to just say that the connate series are the product of nature, and restricted to humans.

I don't see how either Greeks or Romans are pertinent to the discussion. If both cultures are human, then both are bound to the innate system of the harmonic series.

You seem to be certain that any form of achievement comes from God, but you must not forget that such a link between God and body isn't yet realized by science. Therefore it is plausible to assume that all achievements are ultimately corresponded to the physiology of humans, and any forms of deviations are ultimately due to deviations in form.

[pianistimo]

I appreciate your thoughts, Debussy Symbolism, and in rereading my messages can understand how strange and bizarre my thoughts might be to yours - and on another random dendrite - Alistairs.

How this relates to physiology?  I still say - the spirit of man mixing with the spirit of God or Satan - can change the physiology of our mind and body.  Superhuman strength is or used to be attributed to those who were possessed.  Nowdays, we just call them crazy.  But, are they crazy or are they possessed by a being or spirit that controls them?  This is where conjecture comes in on both sides.  Medical science shows that when a brain is damaged (car accident, etc) a person can have anything from epileptic type seizures to complete faulty connections everywhere.  Is this possession?  No.  So - for me - I look to the Bible to explain this whole phenomenon.  Perhaps it is best explained as a person who suddenly has a strong understanding (and doesn't deny) the existance of the spiritual world...and in fact, attempts to  control this physical world by all manner of purposeful meditations (ie wanting to move items mentally - to controlling others thoughts) used for control.  Why does Satan want control (*my question)?  Because if we are not in our right minds - we might give up our salvation for a bowl of soup -so to speak.  For amazing talent. 

Why else do some performers wait for the right 'winds to blow' before performing - or call on people who help them tap into this source?  Obviously, they believe it can help them.  On the other hand, there are many humanists that do not believe in either God or Satan.  I tend to believe what H Ernest Hunt has written in his book: 'Spirit and Music.'  Another writer of opposing view would be Cyril Scott in his book: 'Music: Its Secret Influence Throughout the Ages.'  Scott - being a Theophist (?) and Hunt being a Christian - i assume.

[prometheus]

I see your point. This determinism has been argued by many philosophers to a certain extent and is definately a crucial point of view.

I don't really see why you would call this determinism.

However, by acknowledging another accepted point of view, namely of duality between mind and body, as embraced by Descartes,

Accepted by who? I don't think anyone in the fields that are relevant accept this.

...you will have to deal with that other particular point of view, that perhaps physiology doesn't determine the mind.

Let me make sure you mean with 'physiology' what I think you do. You do mean the brain, right? If the mind isn't a product of the brain then where does the mind come from? And what does the brain do?

Seems pretty clear the brain is a computer that generates the mind. We even stole technology from the brain to make neural network computers. And they work very well.

Are you really doubting that the brain is responsible for our mental capacities? Because I find that very hard to believe.

However, music is still made from the harmonic series, or building blocks that are still innate to humans, just as all languages carry the same universals, as illustrated by Chomsky.

What do you think this means? we all have the same type of brain. And yes, these brains do have the innate ability to develop language. And the way language works is similar among cultures. Sure.

It's pretty clear how this all works on a basic level. We are all humans with the same DNA. We all grow brains based on this DNA. And then these brains develop abilities and skills based on their innate potential through the experiences you are subjected to.

[debussy symbolism]

I don't really see why you would call this determinism.


Accepted by who? I don't think anyone in the fields that are relevant accept this.



Let me make sure you mean with 'physiology' what I think you do. You do mean the brain, right? If the mind isn't a product of the brain then where does the mind come from? And what does the brain do?

Determinism is an idea of thought that assumes that everything the mind construes and thinks, including the abstact notions such as freedom arises from the natural construction of the body, or physiology. There are many such determinists in the field such as Kant and Nietzsche. There are also however philosophers arguing on the other side of the topic.

Yes I mean the brain. Obviously the mind is a product of the brain, but that isn't the point here. The point being that whether or not the mind has full control of itself is debated. According to materialists, the mind doesn't have that power, and anything that can be construed as otherwise is simply still a property of the brain. There are however thoughts presented by Descartes which say that the mind does indeed have the capability to "transcend" the physical state, hence why I started this discussion.

Are you really doubting that the brain is responsible for our mental capacities? Because I find that very hard to believe.


What do you think this means? we all have the same type of brain. And yes, these brains do have the innate ability to develop language. And the way language works is similar among cultures. Sure.

It's pretty clear how this all works on a basic level. We are all humans with the same DNA. We all grow brains based on this DNA. And then these brains develop abilities and skills based on their innate potential through the experiences you are subjected to.

Why do you think I doubt that brain is not responsible for any sort of capacity? It is absurd.

That is on the lines of what Chomsky supposes, that the innate capacity to assimilate language is present in all humans. Also all humans have the ability to grasp and develop language. The same applies to music, albeit on a different level. We humans all share the musical universals. These responces are only innate and not learned and are all due to the innate brain-network we are all given.

[ahinton]

I appreciate your thoughts, Debussy Symbolism, and in rereading my messages can understand how strange and bizarre my thoughts might be to yours - and on another random dendrite - Alistairs.

Name-calling will get you everywhere (! although that particular use of "random" may only get you somewhere on a forum such as this one where such use appears to be the norm for some...).

How this relates to physiology?  I still say - the spirit of man mixing with the spirit of God or Satan - can change the physiology of our mind and body.

Susan, we all kmow only to well that you "still say" this and other similar things; constantly stating such things does not lend them credibility any more than it explains them Anyway - be careful how you mix your spirits...

Superhuman strength is or used to be attributed to those who were possessed.  Nowdays, we just call them crazy.  But, are they crazy or are they possessed by a being or spirit that controls them?  This is where conjecture comes in on both sides.  Medical science shows that when a brain is damaged (car accident, etc) a person can have anything from epileptic type seizures to complete faulty connections everywhere.  Is this possession?  No.  So - for me - I look to the Bible to explain this whole phenomenon.  Perhaps it is best explained as a person who suddenly has a strong understanding (and doesn't deny) the existance of the spiritual world...and in fact, attempts to  control this physical world by all manner of purposeful meditations (ie wanting to move items mentally - to controlling others thoughts) used for control.  Why does Satan want control (*my question)?  Because if we are not in our right minds - we might give up our salvation for a bowl of soup -so to speak.  For amazing talent.

Again, yet more of the same nonsense. You sensibly state that certain particular consequences of brain damage are not examples of "possession" and then opine that you "look to the Bible" to explain "possession"; whilst not denying the possible existence of something that could be called "possession" in this context, we are dealing here with a psychological matter that calls for psychological analysis and definition, yet you resort instead to a 2,000-year-old book (with all its flaws as outlined elsewhere) for a full explanation. Where's that going to get you?

Why else do some performers wait for the right 'winds to blow' before performing - or call on people who help them tap into this source?  Obviously, they believe it can help them.  On the other hand, there are many humanists that do not believe in either God or Satan.  I tend to believe what H Ernest Hunt has written in his book: 'Spirit and Music.'  Another writer of opposing view would be Cyril Scott in his book: 'Music: Its Secret Influence Throughout the Ages.'  Scott - being a Theophist (?) and Hunt being a Christian - i assume.

There are indeed many such humanists - b ut then there are also many who believe in the concept of God but have far less belief (or none at all) in that of "Satan", especially in the way that you invoke Satan in a context such as this one about musicality and physiology. Not all believers in God share your strangely simplistic black-and-white view of such matters, nor do they habitually drag God (I nearly wrote "kicking and screaming" but thought better of it) into areas such as the subject of this thread, as though nothing can ever be examined and considered without the God input; that attitude seems almost to smack of abnegation of personal responsibility of the "leave it all to God" kind.

You've raised and responded to a number of points well in this thread, Susan; please stop spoiling it all with constant - and constantly misplaced - interpolations of your God/Bible/Satan musings and continue instead to consider the subject in its own right and context...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Determinism is an idea of thought that assumes that everything the mind construes and thinks, including the abstact notions such as freedom arises from the natural construction of the body, or physiology.

Determinism is the idea that the future is already determined. Quantum mechanics destroys that idea.

The idea that everything the mind construes and thinks arise from the nature of the physiology of the brain is obvious. Where else can the mind be a product of?

There are many such determinists in the field such as Kant and Nietzsche. There are also however philosophers arguing on the other side of the topic.

The whole discussion about the brain has entered the field of science.

Yes I mean the brain. Obviously the mind is a product of the brain, but that isn't the point here. The point being that whether or not the mind has full control of itself is debated.

How can the mind control itself? You could say that the mind controls the brain, but of course that is incorrect. Think of it as a computer program. The code of the program controls how that same code is interpreted. Is that possible?

No, it's a contradiction.

According to materialists, the mind doesn't have that power, and anything that can be construed as otherwise is simply still a property of the brain.

Simply? That must be a contender for the understatement of the year.

There are however thoughts presented by Descartes which say that the mind does indeed have the capability to "transcend" the physical state, hence why I started this discussion.

If the mind is a product of the brain then how can the mind transcend the brain?


This whole discussion about the mind-body duality is now sometimes called Descartes' Error.


What Descartes did was sit on a chair and wonder about how he thought the mind operates.

What science did was do actual experiments, look at the actual tissue the brain is made of, etc.

Why do you think I doubt that brain is not responsible for any sort of capacity? It is absurd.

The only alternative I can see is that you propose that humans have a soul and that the soul controls the brain and using the brain controls the body.

Problems with this idea of course that the soul is placed outside reality because no evidence for it can be found. The other problem is is that it is clear that the brain is responsible for all this.


Your problem seems to be like this:

-I assume the brain is a machine.
-I can only imagine a physical machine to be responsible for limited mental abilities that don't quite come close to what my mind can do.
-Therefore the mind 'transcends' the brain. whatever that means.



You have to realize that Descartes was a mathematician who in his time was very influential as a philosopher. Compared with what we do today he was only 'messing around' and all his writings on subjects like these are only relevant for historical reasons. It's all obsolete. Just like the ideas of Plato and Aristotle are obsolete when they fall within scientific fields.

Plus that Descartes was obviously biased by his religion, which is of course delusional.

That is on the lines of what Chomsky supposes,

Chomsky is one of the many people who think that the mind-body duality is a false dichotomy, if you can call it that. As does almost everyone else that handles with cognitive science and neurobiology/neurology/neuropsychology/

...that the innate capacity to assimilate language is present in all humans. Also all humans have the ability to grasp and develop language. The same applies to music, albeit on a different level. We humans all share the musical universals. These responces are only innate and not learned and are all due to the innate brain-network we are all given.

Why do you mention this? It seems you think this has relevance towards this discussion.

[debussy symbolism]

The whole discussion about the brain has entered the field of science.

How can the mind control itself? You could say that the mind controls the brain, but of course that is incorrect. Think of it as a computer program. The code of the program controls how that same code is interpreted. Is that possible?

Here is where the mind/body duality is more apparent. It is assumed, and I again will make reference to Descartes, that mind/body dualism is in itself a relation between non-extended and extended matter. This point can be adequately made because as we know, the mind isn't a physical entity, just as gravity isn't a physical entity but it nevertheless interacts with extended matter. It isn't correct to assume that mind controls the brain, just as gravity doesn't alter the matter. What is more open to discourse is that mind has an effect on the brain, and isn't overall dependant on it.

If the mind is a product of the brain then how can the mind transcend the brain?


This whole discussion about the mind-body duality is now sometimes called Descartes' Error.


What Descartes did was sit on a chair and wonder about how he thought the mind operates.

What science did was do actual experiments, look at the actual tissue the brain is made of, etc.

The only alternative I can see is that you propose that humans have a soul and that the soul controls the brain and using the brain controls the body.

Problems with this idea of course that the soul is placed outside reality because no evidence for it can be found. The other problem is is that it is clear that the brain is responsible for all this.

As I mentioned before, the mind cannot disobey the brain, naturally, but can be in charge of itself. The thing with Descartes is that his scientific work is indeed out-of-date, which means that his knowledge of the human body is antiquated. Nevertheless, his work was very influential and we cannot discard all of it.

Can you point out to me information that suggests that science has found the mind and came up with a descent conjecture on how it is related to the brain? I assume that medicine hasn't yet come to those conclusions, and therefore we can refer to philosophy, which is in itself based on logic.

I am not proposing anything; I am contemplating ideas.

The problem with souls is that we don't know if they exist or not. We definately know that mind exists, otherwise we woud not have the notion of ego, and mind/body duality has been argued, just as the duality between nonextended matter and extended matter has been concurred by physics.

[prometheus]

Here is where the mind/body duality is more apparent. It is assumed, and I again will make reference to Descartes, that mind/body dualism is in itself a relation between non-extended and extended matter.

I don't know what you mean with 'non-extended' and 'extended' matter.

This point can be adequately made because as we know, the mind isn't a physical entity, just as gravity isn't a physical entity but it nevertheless interacts with extended matter.

Ok, you have to be careful about gravity since we don't know what gravity is yet.

It is true that the mind itself is in a sense immaterial. The mind if the effect of the brain. Just as a picture on my hard drive is immaterial. I mean, the magnetic fields that code for that picture are there on the hard drive. Just as the neuron network is structured in a specific way as to generate the mind.

It isn't correct to assume that mind controls the brain, just as gravity doesn't alter the matter. What is more open to discourse is that mind has an effect on the brain, and isn't overall dependant on it.

How can a picture on my hard drive affect my hard drive and be independent of it?

This whole reasoning just reeks towards a soul. Discuss a soul if you want to discuss it. or propose an alternative or something.

As I mentioned before, the mind cannot disobey the brain,

I think it is strange to state this this way.

...naturally, but can be in charge of itself.

Do you also think code coding of a computer program can control how the code is executed?

The thing with Descartes is that his scientific work is indeed out-of-date, which means that his knowledge of the human body is antiquated. Nevertheless, his work was very influential and we cannot discard all of it.

Yeah, I don't say he books should be burned and everyone should be banned from discussing them. But obviously science has proven Descartes wrong. Let's accept that and progress. There's tons of questions and issues that actually benefit from attention and debate.

Actually, there is quite more to discuss now, to use an understatement myself.

Can you point out to me information that suggests that science has found the mind and came up with a descent conjecture on how it is related to the brain?

Seems that you think that one can pin point the mind, or our consciousness, to one particular spot in the brain. This idea has been kind of popular, especially with people who base their ideas on so called 'common sense', but it is quite a silly idea.

You do know how the brain operates?

I assume that medicine hasn't yet come to those conclusions, and therefore we can refer to philosophy, which is in itself based on logic.

We have a basic understanding of how the brain works and thus how it generates the mind.

I am not proposing anything; I am contemplating ideas.

While I am very harsh towards the body-mind duality thing, in no way is that meant to discourage you from wondering/discussing this issue.

The problem with souls is that we don't know if they exist or not.

We don't have any reasons to assume they exist, therefore they don't. It's a problem. It's the problem of those who want to propose the idea of a soul.

Also, they have a problem of definition. They can't even define what a soul. Let alone conceive of a test so we can figure out if they exist and how they work.

We definately know that mind exists, otherwise we woud not have the notion of ego, and mind/body duality has been argued, just as the duality between nonextended matter and extended matter has been concurred by physics.

Animals have a mind as well. You can even include our basic AI's if even stretch up the definition just a bit.

[pianistimo]

as i read the bible - man is the only created 'being' that is made in God's image and given the ability to rule over creation.  the consciousness of our 'being' is made evident to the point that we know we are smarter than the animals and have a responsibility to care for them and their environment, as well as others.

adam and eve were told they now knew 'good and evil' and lest they 'take from the tree of life and live forever...' they would be banished from the garden. 

now, this sounds like a bunch of tales belonging to 1001 arabian nights to some.  especially since, today, we don't see any methuselah's.  let alone anyone parting the waters of the red sea.  i happen to believe that God left 'well enough alone' after the flood - excepting the sacrifice of Jesus and the miracles that each of us see - when we do pray (and the miracles attributed to the saints in the bible and christians who lived afterwards).

but, certain things are constant from then to now - and that would be the 'motion' that God set the creation in.  the sun and mooon, the stars (constellations moving in a set way) - it's like clockwork.  it shows the 'mind' of God is organized and planned his creation long before he said the word.

when we plan for a child, we prepare a nursery and all the things that baby might need and also plan for how we will teach the child and prepare it rationally and spiritually for the life it has ahead.  no animals are found teaching their children music.  why?  why is music specific to humans?  perhaps God made us with special ears to hear and enjoy it more?  sure --parrots can parrot sounds - but that is parrotting.  we're talking about the idea of the human ear grasping a created element - music - and enjoying it to the point that we can use it for spiritual, sensual, and therapeutic means as well. 

the human ear has two important functions: HEARING with the cochlea and BALANCE with the vestibule.  'the ear is routinely given short-shrift (according to bradford weeks, md) in gross anatomy classes where its tiny but important muscles are rarely seen.  in anatomy books, the 8th cranial nerve (the acoustic nerve) routinely gets the least print.'

'theoretically, the ear involves the transmission of energy from sound waves.  sound as vibrational energy moves from the eardrum to a membrane deep in the ear called the oval window, travelling through tiny bones inside of the middle ear (ossicles).  in addition, the theory has it that this vibration is transmitted through the lymph or fluid in the upper portion of the spiral cochlea, up past the high, middle, and low frequency vibrational receptor cells of the ear (cells of the corti), then descends again via the lower part of the cochlea to the round window (another membrane of the middle ear lying just below the oval window).'

goethe said 'if you want to understand what something is, you must look to see where it came from.'  of course, i don't claim to know what God's ears look like.  i'm sure alistair will gist me about this now.

[pianistimo]

another point in reading this article by bradford weeks - is that he claims there are many more reasons for our hearing than the ones described above.  'dr. alfred tomatis, an authority in auditory neurophysiology, claims that hearing occurs primarly as a result of sound conduction through the bones of the head, and is not due to the sound conduction through the ossicles of the ear.'

(removal of the ossicles does not diminish the conduction of sound waves through the other bones of the head.  however, some loss in the viability of sound transmission through the ear may occur since contact between the eardrum and the structures of the middle ear is lessened without the ossicles).

'he feels the primary site for sound transmission and hearing is the portion of the skull bone that runs from the typmanic sulcus (a groove in this skull bone at the point of attachment to the tympanic membrane) along the petrous bone of the skull.'

(the petrous bone is the temporal bone that surrounds and protects the inner ear.  it is the densest bone in the body and the only inert bone that remains unchanged from the time of birth.  therefore, it is ideally suited for sound conduction).

[prometheus]

The well-civilized people in the time the bible was written knew nothing about the mind or the brain.


The Egyptians during the mummification process, removed the brain first. They threw it away, useless waste of space, not necessary at all in the afterlife.

Then they removed the internal organs and they carefully placed them in clay pots, since they would be needed in the afterlife.

[pianistimo]

to make a long story short - this fellow thinks that 'fluid traditionally plays a protective role in the body, as in protection of our joints.  the fluid in the cochlea of the inner ear is more likely to have its conventional role of protecting the ear, for which it is well suited, than to be involved in sound transmission, for which it is a poor conductor.'

i don't know what to think.  i'm sure more research has been done on this since 1991.

additionally - this dr. weeks tells of 'dr. flock observed that the sensory cells of Corti, which are also hair cells, surprisingly contain molecules with funtions not expected in sensory cells (eg actin, a protein whose function is to cause a contraction!).  the cells of Corti may  have a different function from what was previously thought- they may be involved in the mechanics of sound transmission through the inner ear rather than having a purely sensory function.  tomatis suggests that the eddying currents found in the lymph fluid of the inner ear may be a direct result of the initial vibration of the membrane on which the cells of the Corti rest, rather than the reverse or usual interpretation, which is that sound is transmitted through the eddying lymph and in turn stimulates the membrane and sensory cells of Corti.'

prometheus, although medicine has come a long way - we still have the same ears as our predecessors.  we just listen to different music now.

[pianistimo]

does anyone have one of these?
https://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/first-look-soundid-bluetooth-headset-walkie-talkie-hearing-aid-208266.php

[pianistimo]

gunther von hagens heidelberg institute of plastination might have an anatomical ear to look at.  yikes.  i hope it isn't anyone i know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_von_Hagens

[ahinton]

as i read the bible

Susan - this thread is NOT ABOUT THE BIBLE.

D O   Y O U   U N D E R S T A N D   T H A T ? ?

- man is the only created 'being' that is made in God's image and given the ability to rule over creation.  the consciousness of our 'being' is made evident to the point that we know we are smarter than the animals and have a responsibility to care for them and their environment, as well as others.

adam and eve were told they now knew 'good and evil' and lest they 'take from the tree of life and live forever...' they would be banished from the garden. 

now, this sounds like a bunch of tales belonging to 1001 arabian nights to some.  especially since, today, we don't see any methuselah's.  let alone anyone parting the waters of the red sea.  i happen to believe that God left 'well enough alone' after the flood - excepting the sacrifice of Jesus and the miracles that each of us see - when we do pray (and the miracles attributed to the saints in the bible and christians who lived afterwards).

but, certain things are constant from then to now - and that would be the 'motion' that God set the creation in.  the sun and mooon, the stars (constellations moving in a set way) - it's like clockwork.  it shows the 'mind' of God is organized and planned his creation long before he said the word.

Now what has any of the above to do with the thread topic? (however many times have I written that or something similar when addressing a post of yours?!)...

when we plan for a child, we prepare a nursery and all the things that baby might need and also plan for how we will teach the child and prepare it rationally and spiritually for the life it has ahead.  no animals are found teaching their children music.  why?  why is music specific to humans?  perhaps God made us with special ears to hear and enjoy it more?  sure --parrots can parrot sounds - but that is parrotting.  we're talking about the idea of the human ear grasping a created element - music - and enjoying it to the point that we can use it for spiritual, sensual, and therapeutic means as well.

"We" does not include all of us, Susan, any more than does stuff about the Bible, God, etc. when gratuitously and irrelevantly introduced as you habitually do include all of us. I've never planned for a child and plenty of others have not done so either. That said, why must you attribute musicality to God? - as though anything that might be thought to be any good simply has to be pressed into immediate service as something that must accordingly have originated with "God"?...

the human ear has two important functions: HEARING with the cochlea and BALANCE with the vestibule.  'the ear is routinely given short-shrift (according to bradford weeks, md) in gross anatomy classes where its tiny but important muscles are rarely seen.  in anatomy books, the 8th cranial nerve (the acoustic nerve) routinely gets the least print.'

'theoretically, the ear involves the transmission of energy from sound waves.  sound as vibrational energy moves from the eardrum to a membrane deep in the ear called the oval window, travelling through tiny bones inside of the middle ear (ossicles).  in addition, the theory has it that this vibration is transmitted through the lymph or fluid in the upper portion of the spiral cochlea, up past the high, middle, and low frequency vibrational receptor cells of the ear (cells of the corti), then descends again via the lower part of the cochlea to the round window (another membrane of the middle ear lying just below the oval window).'

goethe said 'if you want to understand what something is, you must look to see where it came from.'  of course, i don't claim to know what God's ears look like.  i'm sure alistair will gist me about this now.

Yes, he will and does - but not at all about most of the paragraph above but for that incredibly silly throwaway line about not knowing what God's ears look like (as if we believe you! - surely if anyone knows about the appearance of His ears, it must be you, Susan...)

Best,

Alistair

[debussy symbolism]

I don't know what you mean with 'non-extended' and 'extended' matter.

Let me explain. Non-extended matter is the non-observable force(s) that may not be physically apparent, but their existence is justified by laws of physics. Extended matter is observable matter, as in this case the brain. We would call the mind non-extended matter.

Ok, you have to be careful about gravity since we don't know what gravity is yet.

Exactly, just as we do not have a clear picture of the mind. We know that gravity is a concept, and is dependant on bodies interacting with each other. Mind operates in a quite similar way. The brain produces the mind by having certain aspects of the brain collaborating together in some way.

Do you also think code coding of a computer program can control how the code is executed?

The human brain is much more complex than a computer, and whilst we know how a brain works, there is alot more that we do not know. On the other hand we know entirely how computers work. From this standpoint it is hard to assume that the computer has as much potential as the brain. As I mentioned before, we do not know just exactly what mind is, but we do have knowledge of what a machine code is. This is not ample evidence to assume that mind cannot be independant from its bio-machine.

Seems that you think that one can pin point the mind, or our consciousness, to one particular spot in the brain. This idea has been kind of popular, especially with people who base their ideas on so called 'common sense', but it is quite a silly idea.

No I do not assume that. Medicine has disected the brain in search of the mind and has found that not one particular structure of the brain is incharge of it. This means that either the mind is a product of different brain structures working with each other, or simply that mind is non-existent. It is easier to assume the latter one as true, but then get to confront the question of the ego.

We don't have any reasons to assume they exist, therefore they don't. It's a problem. It's the problem of those who want to propose the idea of a soul.

Similarly, it is easier to assume anything than to confront those things. It would be silly to deny that most people do not believe in the soul. Obviously, there has to be a tangible explanation for why people believe in the soul. From what we know, there is no tangible evidence of the soul. This means that the notion of the soul is produced from the mind. A non-existent mind would not be capable of producing such notions as the soul or God, because of their non-existent nature. After all, does the soul and God exist to the brain? I guess it could be argued that it does, but there is more evidence that it doesn't. The other explanation is that in order for the mind to assume anything that isn't pertinent to physical natures is that the mind is existent, and isn't entirely dependant on the brain.

Also, they have a problem of definition. They can't even define what a soul. Let alone conceive of a test so we can figure out if they exist and how they work.

Animals have a mind as well. You can even include our basic AI's if even stretch up the definition just a bit.

I will say it again, that if someone proposes something such as the soul, and naturally are not capable of truly defining it, is evidence to me that such undergoings are restricted to non-material factors which are in themselves not restricted to material factors, in this case non-physical matter be the mind and the physical be the brain.

Since we do not entirely know how the human brain composes the mind, we cannot know if animals also have a mind.

[teresa_b]

Well, this is an interesting discussion to wade into!  I almost forgot what the original topic was, but it's whether innate musicality is dependent on human physiology.  

My answer would be an unqualified "yes"--If not for human physiology, we would have no ability to comprehend musicality, let alone practice it!  Now, my dog obviously enjoys listening to music (she lies down beneath the piano every time I play), but I don't think I would classify her as innately "musical".  It seems to be a characteristic of the human brain (and I would include early humans going far back) to make music and draw satisfaction from it.  

Whether or not the brain totally comprises the mind, I don't know.  Certainly the mind is an emergent phenomenon of the brain together with the body (after all, where would my brain be without the rest of my nervous system?).  There are those who do not think the brain is the "cause" of the mind (Buddhists, for example), but that one universal Mind or Consciousness exists and is manifested/refined by brains.  For example, your brain, being extremely complex, manifests a consciousness waaaaay more advanced than the brain of, say, a lizard, and the lizard is more "conscious" by far than a bacterium.  And so on.    

I agree that Cartesian dualism is pretty much out the window these days.

 Determinism seems to me another topic altogether.  I disagree that quantum theory has completely disproved determinism.  It appears that at the subatomic level, particles behave only probabilistically.  But if you step out of our sphere and claim probability only looks to us like indeterminism, but really we are like Flatlanders seeing only our little dimensions of reality...

Teresa

[pianistimo]

but, alistair - if we are made in God's image and the animals aren't - it must say something about us.  why we are attuned to music and spirituality/ philosophy and art - which requires a high degree of consciousness.  the animals don't have this imagination.  that is why i bring it up in this context. 

they have 'instinct.'  we have true conscious awareness that makes us know we have control over the entire planet (well, not literally - but over our area of the planet).

btw, my six year old believes that she knows what the cat is dreaming about and insists that she is imagining herself hunting.  perhaps they do have a limited imagination.

[pianowolfi]

btw, my six year old believes that she knows what the cat is dreaming about and insists that she is imagining herself hunting.

Perhaps your six year old knows it actually. Some kids are pretty "clairvoyant"

[debussy symbolism]

but, alistair - if we are made in God's image and the animals aren't - it must say something about us.  why we are attuned to music and spirituality/ philosophy and art - which requires a high degree of consciousness.  the animals don't have this imagination.  that is why i bring it up in this context. 

they have 'instinct.'  we have true conscious awareness that makes us know we have control over the entire planet (well, not literally - but over our area of the planet).

btw, my six year old believes that she knows what the cat is dreaming about and insists that she is imagining herself hunting.  perhaps they do have a limited imagination.

Sorry, for me somewhat stepping out of line, as I am not Alistair, but I do want to make some points across.

Consciousness has nothing to do with beign prone to learning music, philosophy, science, etc. It has to do with the brain. Simply, an animal brain isn't capable of those functions, even if it was conscious.

What does instinct have to do with anything? The human has developed frontal lobes of the skull, which is responsible for our advanced decision making. The evolved brain has many functions including cognitive functions that separate us from the animals. As humans evolve, our reasoning functions begin to improve, and we are no longer largely dependant on insinct. The insinct is still there, but not in the conscious, but rather is tucked away in our subconscious, more primitive mind facets. The animals don't have the cognitive skills for survival, so they must rely on instinct. Humans have logic, which enables them to shift the environment to our needs, such as survival.

[teresa_b]

Sorry, for me somewhat stepping out of line, as I am not Alistair, but I do want to make some points across.

Consciousness has nothing to do with beign prone to learning music, philosophy, science, etc. It has to do with the brain. Simply, an animal brain isn't capable of those functions, even if it was conscious.

What does instinct have to do with anything? The human has developed frontal lobes of the skull, which is responsible for our advanced decision making. The evolved brain has many functions including cognitive functions that separate us from the animals. As humans evolve, our reasoning functions begin to improve, and we are no longer largely dependant on insinct. The insinct is still there, but not in the conscious, but rather is tucked away in our subconscious, more primitive mind facets. The animals don't have the cognitive skills for survival, so they must rely on instinct. Humans have logic, which enables them to shift the environment to our needs, such as survival.

This is all true to some extent, but there is reason to believe animals do have consciousness, including self-consciousness in animals such as apes and dolphins.  They simply have so much less cognitive ability, they will never play concerti or write Hamlet (infinite monkeys with typewriters notwithstanding  ).  It's a matter of degree.  Homo erectus apparently did not create art, but Homo sapiens did.  As our brains developed (for whatever reason benefiting survival), apparently a capacity for self-reflection to the point of art, music and philosophy came along with it. 

Teresa