Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New caveman theory explains why humans are musical

arroba Email

Did we mention earlier ““Sadly, everything can indeed be explained by materialism, if ALL you want from an explanation is that it conform to materialist thinking”? Here’s an evo psych explanation of why humans are musical that helps illustrate the point:

Why don’t apes have musical talent, while humans, parrots, small birds, elephants, whales, and bats do? Matz Larsson, senior physician at the Lung Clinic at Örebro University Hospital, attempts to answer this question in the scientific publication Animal Cognition.

Science historian and Alfred Russel Wallace biographer Michael Flannery comments,

Now in what sense can we honestly say that parrots, small birds, elephants, whales, and bats really have anything approximating “music” and/or “talent” for producing it? To suggest an equivalance with both terms in ordinary parlance with the human productions of a symphony, concerto, or even a country ho-down seems to me to play fast and loose with the term “music” and “talent.” The question should read: Why are humans the only living beings capable of making and appreciating music and evincing talent? So framed Matz Larsson needs to explain the *uniqueness *of these qualities in humans, not why some species do and don’t have it. But I’m not even sure Larsson “explains” it that even that level.

Well, here’s Larsson’s explanation:

A behaviour that has survival value tends to produce dopamine, the “reward molecule.” In dangerous terrain, this could result in the stimulation of rhythmic movements and enhanced listening to surrounding sounds in nature. If that kind of synchronized behaviour was rewarding in dangerous environments it may as well have been rewarding for the brain in relative safety, resulting in activities such as hand- clapping, foot-stamping and yelping around the campfire. From there it is just a short step to dance and rhythm. The hormone dopamine flows when we listen to music.

It isn’t an explanation, only an “it may as well have been” speculation, an a remarkably inept one at best. But hey, it got published.

True. Lots of people enjoy making noise in relative safety (cf party animal), and good rhythm has always gotten noise more favourable notice. But in dangerous terrain, one strives to be inaudible (as well as invisible and hopefully unsensed otherwise). Most life forms, including humans, come by this tendency naturally or learn it quickly. So the point of the paper seems to be merely a naturalistic attempt to put symphony orchestra on a spectrum with parrots and bats, via a caveman story.

Evolutionists should not be speculating about music. Herbert spencer, believer in evolution, did the best hypothesis on what music at least of what I have noticed. music is a simple thing. It is simply human thoughts being expressed by sounds. music is just in the spectrum of sounds used by people to express thoughts. Singing is just a stretching of words for emphasis , which we do all day long in fact if one notices, and music is the mimicing of the tones of voice we use along with our words. Remember words are just segregated combinations of sounds. Spencer, liked by Darwin, called music the language of emotion. He means really tones representing thoughts/emotions. in fact one can almost pull from his hypothesis a prediction of the rise of rock and roll. This being the last or silliest emotion to be put to music. Spencer got things wrong but to me came closet to what music is. Music only is with people because only we have thoughts of any profundity. Animals express few sounds to represent thoughts. Birds only have a few ideas and don't know what music is. Music is human thought and way above critters. Evolutionists are really blowing a wrong tune here. Robert Byers
The human infatuation with music and the arts present a rather difficult problem for materialists because beauty is not a property of physical matter and yet we perceive its existence. Worse, our infatuation does not owe its existence to evolution because there are no survival or reproductive benefits to be gained from it. Music is to a materialist what holy water is to a vampire. It makes them squirm. Hopefully one day soon, it will dawn on some of them that beauty is a spiritual property and that there exist necessarily two complementary realms, the physical and the spiritual. There is no escaping the yin-yang nature of reality. Mapou

Leave a Reply