AgnosticWeb.com - The Arts

The Arts (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:56:06 +0000

Certainly there are emergent properties as complexity develops. That is Stuart Kauffman's thesis in a nutshell. My approach is different. I think the Greeks make a good case for a first cause. We may be in the only universe around, but it doesn't seem to be eternal if the Big Bang is a truism. On the other hand if there are multiple universities like a huge pile of detergent soap bubbles, that could certainly be an eternal arrangement with an occasional universe supporting life popping in to existence. We can imagine anything we want to, but we should consider only that which can be studied and proven in trying to conclude what is really possible. - In a sense I am like George. I trust that science can bring us information, but perhaps unlike George, I think the findings may have several alternate interpretations, each one just as reasonable, until new findings give us more guidance. Science is just as much interpretation as it is experimental study. A scientist can be the experimenter or the interpreter. Thus I accept that the Intelligent Design folks are performing an aspect of science. They interpet differently, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. - On that underlying basis of thought, I can't accept the idea of an emergent God, or god-like subsets. Something came first. Carl mentioned me in his thinking, but his thoughts are not at all like mine. The odds are enormous that chance did not cause what complexity we observe both at the level of cosmology and in evolution. A super-intelligent force fits best for me, but I doubt that all the attributes the religions to God are true. Those attributes may well be wishful thinking.

The Arts (reply)

Carl — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:55:14 +0000

Mark: "I don't see the point of imagining the existence of a God emergent from the material universe. What question does the existence of such a being answer? On the other hand, it is clear why people may believe in God as an eternal necessary being who is the ground of all being, for most people want an answer to why we are here." Reality is whatever it is, so the point of imagining one kind of God or believing in another is beside the point. We don't get to choose reality. It may be that the King James version of the Bible is totally literally true. If it is, I and several other people on this site are in really big trouble. We are betting it isn't true, but we don't get to choose. A vision of an emergent God doesn't have to be too inconsistent with the popular idea of God. If God were co-existent with the universe, then He would not have created it. But in the early times when the universe was infinitely small, hot and dense (assuming the Big Bang is true), He would not have had a lot of work to do, so He would not need to be so powerful. His complexity would grow with the inflation and expansion of the universe, so that, when things began to get untidy, He would have had the powers necessary to cope with it. In the same way an embryo can develop to become Pope, God could have grown into the job so that He is everything people think He is. I think this idea might have some things in common with David's ideas except for the last part. There is absolutely nothing to argue for or against this idea. It is simply an exercise in imagination, putting the pieces together in a different way to see if anything plausible can be developed. It would be nice if there was something that could be predicted for God and verified like the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation for the Big Bang, but I don't foresee it. But emergent entities don't have to have the attributes of God. One can envision limited entities emerging that function in their local environment much as humans on earth do. Humans are proof of concept, so it is not so outrageous to suppose there are other ways of doing it. It works for science fiction writers anyway. Even Carl Sagan had his flights of imagination.

The Arts (reply)

Mark — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:36:23 +0000

George on consciousness: It is just a function of our complex nervous systems in combination with our senses through which we gain awareness of our environment, and ultimately awareness of our selves as selves. - I agree with Carl that this is no explanation. It seems to me that science is wholly concerned with spatial entities. I can't think of anything that science handles that is not described in spatial terms. Yet my subjective awareness has no such features. There is nothing about the phenomenon of subjectivity which can be related spatially to anything. And I cannot see how study of the brain could ever lead to something non-spatial. - There are philosophers who think we may not have the cognitive capacity ever to solve this one, just as dogs could never do multiplication. Others think consciousness is an illusion - but that still leaves the need to explain an illusion of subjectivity.

The Arts (reply)

Mark — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:26:36 +0000

George: As both a logician and a poet - though both admittedly in a very minor way - I disprove this thesis. - Hardly. Chesterton's point was clearly not that these are mutually exclusive alternatives. He believed in the validity of logic. But he also believed it had limits. Perhaps your poetic inclinations are evidence that down in your subconscious mind you search for truth that logic cannot reach.

The Arts (reply)

Mark — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:20:39 +0000

Carl: "Perhaps God is emergent" I don't see the point of imagining the existence of a God emergent from the material universe. What question does the existence of such a being answer? On the other hand, it is clear why people may believe in God as an eternal necessary being who is the ground of all being, for most people want an answer to why we are here.

The Arts (reply)

Carl — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:34:59 +0000

George says about consciousness, "There is no great mystery about it. It is just a function of our complex nervous systems in combination with our senses through which we gain awareness of our environment, and ultimately awareness of our selves as selves." I'm a little fuzzy on the mechanics of "gaining awareness of our selves as selves." This sounds like another way of saying "conscious". Perhaps it is a tautology. It doesn't answer the "how". George: "Because we know of craftsmen creating watches or furniture or engines we think the Universe has to have an artificer." We can all agree that there is a cause which is necessary and sufficient to produce what we observe, but there is disagreement on what is necessary, what is sufficient and what we observe. George observes mainly a physical world while Mark observes an additional spiritual world. We can label the necessary and sufficient cause "God", if we choose, and even attach anthropomorphic attributes such as intelligence, will, foresight, benevolence or jealousy. Even atheists must decide what kind of god they don't believe in. The word "create" can also cause confusion. It seems to imply intent, but earthquakes create tsunamis. So we can say this cause creates what we observe, and I think we can agree there is a cause. I am a little dissatisfied with the word "emergent", because it sounds a little faddish, like a word everyone uses but means something different to everyone, but it is the closest word I have found to the idea of a complex entity arising from a collection of simpler things. Just as our consciousness arises from the simpler entities of our brain cells, some entity could arise from larger groupings of the matter of the universe. Could it have consciousness? Nothing in our experience forbids it. George says "Frankly you all seem me to be getting more and more desperate to imbue your fantasy with some meaning, no matter what meaning." I don't feel increasingly desperate. As an agnostic, I enjoy taking the puzzle apart and putting it together a different way to see if I can come up with another plausible arrangement.

The Arts (reply)

George Jelliss — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:12:22 +0000

Mark wrote: I don't see how it is possible to give any account of the arts without speaking of transcendence: the human spirit reaching for something beyond, searching for meaning. I'm not saying that art is or should be necessarily religious, but that the artistic impulse and the sense of the divine are linked. - Turner Prize 2008: Is this "transcendent" or "searching for meaning" or kitsch rubbish? - http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article48... - Mark cites Chesterton: "The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits." - Ha-ha. A neat inversion but a cheap point. As both a logician and a poet - though both admittedly in a very minor way - I disprove this thesis. - Mark claims: Consciousness presents an even bigger problem to science. Carl echoes: Consciousness is the great mystery that may never be solved by science. Mark is right that science has no real prospects for explanation at this time. - I find all this mysticism or fetishism about "consciousness", even from philosophers like Daniel Dennett, completely overblown. There is no great mystery about it. It is just a function of our complex nervous systems in combination with our senses through which we gain awareness of our environment, and ultimately awareness of our selves as selves. - Even Carl it seems can't get his mind free of the god-fog, he concludes: Much of what we think of as created, such as galaxies, solar systems, planets and life is really emergent rather than created. Perhaps God is emergent. BBella takes up the theme: It seems to me that God could be considered the most basic commonality in all that is; change. - For God's sake! God is only a metaphor. Because we know of craftsmen creating watches or furniture or engines we think the Universe has to have an artificer. It's only a convenient way of thinking. Just because you've got this "god" idea in your brains doesn't mean there must be something out there that is that god. Frankly you all seem me to be getting more and more desperate to imbue your fantasy with some meaning, no matter what meaning.

The Arts (reply)

BBella — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:16:47 +0000

- It seems to me that God could be considered the most basic commonality in all that is; change. The movement or the emergent, as Carl says above seems to fit. Without movement nothing is...right? So, you could replace movement, or change, or spirit (hebrew: breath)with the word God and still be on an even playing field. Isn't it all in what you choose to call it? Obviously, whatever you call it...IT IS. We are. And whatever IS is constantly changing...so who can grasp it? It would be like trying to grasp the wind. - dhw wrote: Richter's idea.... is not dissimilar to BBella's concept of vibrations. Perhaps somehow we are linked up to universal patterns of sound. - Possibly, this movement that IS, vibrates with sound which carries information as it changes. All the while, within change, different aspects of being emerges, as well as the appreciation of the different aspects of being within itself. The very force of movement drives ALL to be what IS within the constant change? The ability to behold (the eye to see) the change or movement within all that is, is to behold God (some might say). God recognizing itself as it beholds the change. We might question what "began" the first movement...why is it not possible there was no beginning movement, but that movement always was and IS and will always be. This what we have observed so far..right? This is what is spoken of in the Christian Bible as God. That which is without beginning or end. Maybe what we have been told was the "big bang" was nothing more than another spark of change within movement. Just some thoughts in the goo of change.

The Arts (reply)

Carl — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:42:51 +0000

Mark says dhw, "by focusing on the arts, and on the wider issue of consciousness, has exposed one of science's weakest areas." "I don't see how it is possible to give any account of the arts without speaking of transcendence: the human spirit reaching for something beyond..." "...the artistic impulse and the sense of the divine are linked." "Consciousness presents an even bigger problem to science. No scientist has the first clue how to explain consciousness from the bottom up, from physics." Consciousness is the great mystery that may never be solved by science. Mark is right that science has no real prospects for explanation at this time. Rational atheists must acknowledge they have nothing more than a belief that, if an explanation is found, it will be a natural one. Dhw is discussing how sensory experience triggers emotion in the consciousness. To say that the process is just activation of neural networks does not explain it. I have the experience of what I call the "unity of thought", the sense that all my consciousness is projected on a single screen. I also have sub-conscious process that are allowing me to walk or drive, that monitor my physical status for pain, hunger etc. that will interrupt whats playing on the main screen if attention is needed. Not everyone experiences the sense of the divine like Mark or the aesthetics of the arts like dhw, but these experiences are real. It is true they are produced by neural networks, but there is also a strong sense that there is something more. One small point of hope for naturalists is the parallels between the mind and computers. One codes a program which is converted into a string of ones and zeros represented by presence or absence of electrons. This string of electrons is routed to a block of silicone and exotic metals which generates more strings of electrons that are fed to other devices, and ultimately is displayed of a video screen or printer or something. The display is interpreted as house plans or news or a video game. The network is nothing but wires and silicone, but intelligent information is produced. There are many differences between computers and brains, but in both cases intelligence is produced by simple components. I will save David the trouble of pointing out that there is intelligence behind the computer program. The intelligence produced by the computer and the brain is emergent, relatively simple structures producing complex results. Much of what we think of as created, such as galaxies, solar systems, planets and life is really emergent rather than created. Perhaps God is emergent.

The Arts (reply)

Mark — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:40:28 +0000

dhw: I know that I am a mass of different materials, but do those materials actually create the scene of my emotions, consciousness etc., or are they just a medium? - This is an interesting thread because dhw, by focusing on the arts, and above on the wider issue of consciousness, has exposed one of science's weakest areas. I have scanned through the thread, and it seems to get nowhere. - George says: "I don't see that appreciation of art in any of its forms has anythng to do with atheism, theism or agnosticism. It is just part of human nature to appreciate visual and audible pattern and colour and variation." - Well, if the arts are just about appreciating sensations then it certainly does seem odd that we grant them such significance. I don't see how it is possible to give any account of the arts without speaking of transcendence: the human spirit reaching for something beyond, searching for meaning. I'm not saying that art is or should be necessarily religious, but that the artistic impulse and the sense of the divine are linked. Is it not the case that much art signifies that there is truth which is transcendent and cannot be contained in propositions? I question whether science could ever explain art. As G K Chesterton said "The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits." - Consciousness presents an even bigger problem to science. No scientist has the first clue how to explain consciousness from the bottom up, from physics. I don't just mean that there are no verified theories. There are no theories, i.e. no-one has an explanation which makes it seem at all possible to get from science to pain, beauty, morals, intentions etc. Now if I as a Christian try to make something of this by way of an argument for God I may in reply be reminded of all the other areas which science has explained in the past which people once needed God for. That is always a fair point, but this does seem different. Some atheists think that mind is irreducible, which leaves things rather untidy, having two types of explanation. God fits best with Occam's razor, for then the personal and material explanations are held in one.

The Arts (reply)

dhw — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:39:42 +0000

In my post of 26 September, replying to jwarshawsky's comments on the evolution of music, I asked, "Why do we aestheticize, and why is it so important to us that we do so?" Here are a few more thoughts on the subject. - The British mountaineer George Mallory was once asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, and his immortal response was: "Because it's there." This seems to be a common human trait. We are driven to explore anything and everything, existent and non-existent. We go down holes in the earth, we climb up bumps, we scan outer space, we probe our own minds. And since we have a sense of hearing, we also try out different sounds, and we devise new ways of making sounds, and we experiment with rhythms just to see what we can do. This doesn't explain why we like some sounds and not others, but perhaps it sheds a little light on why something irrelevant to physical survival nevertheless takes on an evolutionary pattern of its own. We explore the potential "because it's there", and if we get pleasure out of it, we persist. - There is a kind of parallel in sport. Of all human activities this has to be one of the most popular, one of the most transient, and one of the least meaningful in terms of relevance to survival. I'm not referring to the importance of physical fitness or to the original need to train the body, e.g. for hunting, but to the procedures and aims of the games we now indulge in for their own sake. Complicated rules are devised (Tom Smith's guide to the laws of cricket fills a book of 336 pages), and riots, even deaths occur when for instance a ball is kicked into a net. Or someone hits a tiny ball into a tiny hole with a club, and earns more for doing so than a surgeon earns for a year's lifesaving work. The arts, sport and entertainment have no apparent link to the actual fight for survival ... in fact, we even aestheticize that fight through novels, plays, films etc. ... but they provide a source of pleasure, even in societies where the struggle is far more direct and painful than our own. The pleasure explains the survival and development ... we cling to and enhance things we enjoy ... but where did such "pleasure", "enjoyment" spring from in the first place? The same question has to be asked about all emotions and about consciousness itself. How does matter develop these attributes? - A camera and a TV set are both a mass of different materials, and through these materials comes the picture. But the materials have first to be put together and then sparked into operation, and the scene has first to exist before it can appear on the screen. I know that I am a mass of different materials, but do those materials actually create the scene of my emotions, consciousness etc., or are they just a medium?

The Arts (reply)

dhw — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:15:06 +0000

Jwarshawsky has offered us two interesting observations about music: 1) It "creates moods because the sounds are similar to real tonal expressions of sadness [and] joy" and perhaps "its tonality echoes some atavistic vocalization of, say, mourning." 2) Since music can link generations, perhaps "its status in human evolution can be said to run parallel with that of language." - Other animals also vocalize their emotions, and we ourselves continue to emit screams, howls, moans, squeals of horror, anguish, grief, delight etc. The difference, though, is that these are spontaneous responses to outside stimuli, as part of day-to-day living. Music is created for its own sake ... as an aestheticization of emotion ... and it's still hard to pin down what function it serves in the evolutionary pattern. Why do we aestheticize, and why is it so important to us that we do so? - You're right to query my comment about the written word being the only form of direct communication between the generations, because in fact all the arts achieve this. But the written word passes on articulate thought, experience, ideas, knowledge, all of which enable us to learn directly from past generations. Music itself evolves (the chanting monks would never have envisaged Beethoven, and I doubt if Beethoven ever envisaged Philip Glass or hip hop), but unlike language, it doesn't have any apparent relevance to our physical survival. - Richter's idea, which you have quoted, is not dissimilar to BBella's concept of vibrations. Perhaps somehow we are linked up to universal patterns of sound. - As usual, Mr Shakespeare got there before us: "There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st But in his motion like an angel sings." - The speech continues: "Such harmony is in immortal souls, But whilst this muddy vesture of decay Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it." (M. of V. Act 5, Sc. 1) - Many thanks for reopening this thread. It's an endlessly fascinating one.

The Arts (reply)

jwarshawsky — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:32:11 +0000

I've just been reading a text by the German artist Gerhard Richter, in which he posits that 'music ... creates moods because the sounds are similar to real tonal expressions of sadness [and] joy...'. If true, this would explain how, for example, we 'know' that a sad song is sad - its tonality echoes some atavistic vocalization of, say, mourning. This strikes me as both plausible and beautiful. - In dhw's posting of August 25, he writes about 'the written word, which alone enables us to communicate directly with past and future generations'. Maybe - if conditions remain in place for listening to recorded sound (or even if parents continue to sing soothing lullabies to their children) - music, too, can be said to enable direct communication - of emotion, at least - from generation to generation. In this way, perhaps its status in human evolution can be said to run parallel with that of language.

The Arts (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:44:43 +0000

I'm still not exactly sure what the experience could be called, but probably an OBE (Out of Body Experience). > > So far, it seems the connection between mysticism and quantum physics seems to come closest to my own experience...which is how I came across certain books that addressed these connections, like: The Holographic Universe, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, and others like them. > Hope this wasn't too long and boring and sorry it took me so long to respond. - Thank you for taking the time to tell us about your experience and giving it in such rich detail. From my reading in the literature on meditation, OOB and NDE experiences, it seems to me you reached a deep meditative state. The books warn that one should have training to do this, but obviously the first meditators learned how to reach that state on their own. In OOB's generally the person leaves their body and observes events around it or "flies" around and observes other events nearby. One friend of mine described leaving her body in the operating room during her hysterectomy; she went to her priest to get reassurance that she had not done something wrong, and discussed it with me for reassurance also. In one famous story corroborated by a third party, the woman was having a heart attack in the ER, left her body and floated up outside the third floor of the hospital, and through a window saw a tennis sneaker on top of a high filing cabinet with one shoelace tucked under it. The tennis shoe was found a few days later, just as described. - I agree with you that the most apparent connection with mysticism is quantum physics, and it is why I believe our consciousness arises at a quantum level in the brain.

The Arts (reply)

dhw — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:12:17 +0000

BBella has given us a personal account of an Out of Body Experience. - There have been many fascinating and thought-provoking contributions to the website, but this one really takes us into a new dimension. Thank you so much for sharing it with us. One of the problems when we read about such experiences is that normally there's a certain distance between reader and text, but your account is so direct (you are one of "us") that it opens up all the emotional as well as intellectual avenues. You've presented us with very special insights into a different plane of reality, and the connection you've established between creativity, mysticism and quantum physics is one which begs for more exploration. - I'd like to link it with a comment George made under the Atheism thread (21 August at 18.13): "What does it mean to talk about something 'beyond the natural, physical world'? If it is something we can sense in some way, perhaps using special hitherto undeveloped senses, then surely it must be natural or physical." None of us know where the borderlines are between the physical, the natural and what we tend to call the spiritual, but what you have described is the living proof that even within our own limits, we still have a vast area of untapped potential. - May I finish on a note of admiration. You have clearly survived the most terrible ordeal with extraordinary courage and not a trace of self-pity, and I'm sure your story will be inspirational to everyone, whatever their beliefs.

The Arts (reply)

BBella — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:05:08 +0000

Ever since a dozen or so of my patients described NDE's and OOB's to me I've been fascinated by the phenomenon, and the ultra-awareness that occurs afterward. I hope that you will be willing to describe your experience to us, the actual events in the NDE.< - I'm still not exactly sure what the experience could be called, but probably an OBE (Out of Body Experience). I had become very ill and was confined to bed for all of the late 90's (about 5 yrs). I was in an inflammatory state of Rheumatoid and Psoriatic Arthritis. Nothing I did medically or naturally seemed to be able to cut thru the pain to give me any relief. I decided I could take the suffering no more and began to will myself to die. I wouldn't eat or drink I told myself and I would just go into myself and find that door to death and open it and walk thru it. Simple as that! I began by imagining myself on the otherside of death and cremation. I imagined I could see my family walk to the bridge where I had asked my family to throw my ashes into the rushing river below. I imagined myself becoming one with the flowing river rushing toward the sea I had so loved to visit but hadn't been able since my pain had become so severe. I could feel the joy of the flow and felt truly happy for the first time in so long, until the waves of the sea began to push be back onto the shore. I at first felt disappointment but then watched as my ashes began to form a new body from the golden sand on the beach. My body sparkled as the sun reflected the golden sand I was made of. I was really shining brightly!!! At that very moment one of my children entered the room and brought me abruptly out of my peaceful state. - The first thing I noticed was that my body was no longer in pain! I got up and walked around effortlessly and felt like something very extraordinary had happened to me that I couldn't explain right at that moment to my daughter as I didn't really understand just what or how it happened. At that moment we both felt a miracle had happened...like one of those things you read about but find hard to believe. Eventually, after several days passed, I did begin to feel the pain start to creep back in...but, it never returned to the level of pain as it was before the OBE, or whatever it was. - Nevertheless, it dawned on me that that I had within my own mind an untapped resource which had brought hope and excitement back into my life. My passion for living was renewed as I felt a whole new world had opened up for me to explore....the unknown world within me. Before this, nothing outside me had even brought a moments relief of pain, except for sleep. Yet, within my own mind, I found what nothing else could give me...relief, hope and an endless space to explore possibilities. Also, I began to feel and experience the world around me in a totally different way. I became more sensitive to sound and almost felt as if I never really heard or felt the world around me before. My mind may have been so loud before that my senses to the world around had become numbed. As I explored my mind I felt my body slowly begin to awaken and I began to notice how everything that happened around me effected me physically as well as emotionally. Eventually I found a link between my reactive emotional state and my physical pain. - After the initial experience, I began to record my journey within thru creativity. It just seemed like the most natural path to take at the time. I've read a lot of other people's experience since, and it does seem that many of these experiences tend to lead a person toward a more creative path. It's like a side effect or something. I also began to study to understand more of just what happened to me from a scientific and even spiritual standpoint. So far, it seems the connection between mysticism and quantum physics seems to come closest to my own experience...which is how I came across certain books that addressed these connections, like: The Holographic Universe, The Dancing Wu Li Masters, and others like them. - Hope this wasn't too long and boring and sorry it took me so long to respond.

The Arts (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:10:02 +0000

some of us are satisfied just to call it a mystery. - It is an absolute mystery, and is best described as an emergent property of the brain. Roger Penrose, in his book, "The Emperor's New mind", states that Artificial Intelligence research will never create a mind in a computer. I'll bet he is correct. I suspect our 'mind' is a holographic quantum effect that extends beyond the simple reality of three dimensions seen upon examining a brain at autopsy. PET scans, MRI's and CAT scans may light up some functioning areas during thinking, but they cannot show 'thinking' as it really is.

The Arts (reply)

Carl — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:59:11 +0000

dhw says of creativity "it would be a bold man who claimed that it can all be explained in physical terms". We have bumped into the mystery of mind. Materialists claim it is just complex chemistry, the religious claim it is our divine soul and some of us are satisfied just to call it a mystery.

The Arts (reply)

dhw — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:42:19 +0000

Carl wrote: "Language and music must have grown from the same source, animal calls. Calling is used for normal communication, for territory marking and for mating. All of these contribute to natural selection." - David wrote: "...the Darwin approach would have to reason that Beethoven's talent was necessary for our survival." - Earlier Carl wrote: "Exactly what neural networks are being tapped and why they work is beyond my knowledge however, and that is probably the question you are asking." - It is indeed. The fact that music itself has evolved is clear, and if it didn't have the effect that it does, it wouldn't survive. But although it's easy to see why flight, hearing, language, eyesight etc. should convey advantages, there's no advantage to be gained from a pleasing collection of sounds. I find the mating link hard to swallow (except in the realm of musicals and opera, where the handsome [fat?] tenor woos the gorgeous [wobbly?] soprano!), but in any case that's not what I'm concerned with. People don't write symphonies in order to attract a mate ... except possibly Berlioz in his pursuit of Harriet Smithson. We know that music can be used for therapeutic, religious, martial, romantic purposes etc., as you say, but the question is how can pure sound (let's forget about music with words) create such effects? - Carl says that "some species seem to make noise just for the pure joy of it", which gives us an aesthetic link to other animals, but has this ever been proved? We need the input of a zoologist here. I was interested in BBella's ideas on vibration, which fit in with the extraordinary story of Evelyn Glennie, who as a deaf percussionist apparently senses the music through its vibrations. Beethoven himself went deaf, of course, and never even heard some of his greatest works except in his head. Nor for that matter did Schubert, although for different reasons. Composers, performers and listeners all link up to this extraordinary world of meaningless sound, all agree that it has a certain effect on them (albeit one that varies according to the individual), and yet no-one can explain why. Nor can they explain why ideas, forms, themes come into someone's mind. Music and the other arts satisfy our aesthetic sense; they emanate from and appeal to what we like to call the subconscious. (Automatism and to a degree Surrealism actually made art out of precisely this mystery.) But the fact that we have found linguistic terms to designate these regions of ourselves does not provide an explanation. If an idea has a practical or tangible connection, the source may be obvious, but for many artists the origin of ideas is as mysterious as the impact of their work. Michelangelo once said that the statue was already in the marble. His task was to find it. As I've pointed out earlier, not all artists/composers are religious, and I certainly wouldn't want to read any sort of divine inspiration into the mystery. But it is a mystery, and it would be a bold man who claimed that it can all be explained in physical terms. If not physical, then what?

The Arts (reply)

Carl — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:01:52 +0000

David says of music, " if survival by natural selection, the Darwin approach would have to reason that Beethoven's talent was necessary for our survival. " I cannot see that evolution requires that every aspect of an organism must contribute toward natural selection, only that it not impede it. But natural selection began ceasing to apply to humans when they ceased to be hunter-gatherers, and it was not much a factor in the time of Beethoven. Modern society with its emphasis on protection of the weak and ill prevents natural selection from operating, with the partial exception of immunity from disease. We tend to forget the second part of natural selection, which is reproduction. It is at least as important as survival in passing on our genes. If one survives without reproducing, then the best one has to contribute is the genes of one's siblings. So, if the Beethoven effect improved reproduction, it improved natural selection. Language and music must have grown from the same source, animal calls. Calling is used for normal communication ,for territory marking and for mating. All of these contribute to natural selection. It would be interesting to know at what point music separated from language, but most of the primitive hunter-gatherer cultures had music in some form when they were discovered. There may have been a group bonding effect that aided natural selection. Also, some species seem to make noise just for the pure joy of it.