[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 271 KB, 1000x750, Alex_Grey-Prostration.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5628834 No.5628834 [Reply] [Original]

Why do we like music? why does it make us feel a certain way? why do we find some oscillating sound waves attracting and some not? what's the evolutionary point of that?

>> No.5628845

>>5628834

> what's the evolutionary point of that?

Why is it that everyone around here assumes there's an evolutionary purpose for every single facet of human behaviour? It's taking the whole thing a little far

>> No.5628867

>>5628845
Because they believe everything has a reason since they think a magic man in space created us from mud and magic.

>why do we find some oscillating sound waves attracting and some not?
Because physics.
F=ma

>> No.5628875

It's an artifact from our ability to convey emotional meaning to one another through sounds. Before we could make sounds complex enough to constitute a language, our vocalizations expressed general emotions like fear or anger or excitement. Other primates as well as species like dogs still do this. Certain sounds would be associated certain emotions and if someone was making them at you, you'd have an emotional response allowing you to communicate. These associations are still hardwired into the brain allowing certain sounds, ie music, to cause us to experience emotion.

Elementary.

>> No.5628895

OP smoked salvia while listening to music?

>> No.5628909

>>5628845
Sorta agree. Some things are directly involved with evolution, but they are kinda offshoots. As much as I hate psychology and sociology they do makes interesting points about how our culture influenced our development of a species, mentally at least. Music brings people together, it allows people without the same language to share a happy moment. The benefits of that are pretty obvious.

>> No.5628911

>>5628834
humans like repetition and patterns. music provides that.
/thread

>> No.5628942

>>5628911
Truth

>> No.5628949

>>5628875

you stupid fuck.
communication between humans is the far end of that. sounds describe our surrender, we better be able to make a distinction between sources, 1. then, identify different elements from the same source, be then harmonics, attacks or noises: 2. Musical harmony comes then, but i'm not quite sure that major=beautifu and minor=sad are communicationnal stuff. i would guess that beauty lies in the similarity with physical harmony, and the complexity (in natural harmonics) of a chord give birth to sadness

a fucking primal sadness

god i miss when i was mom and i didn't think in words

>> No.5628971

Music is the mixing of patterns for the purpose of stimulating the mind. The mind naturally finds patterns and music gives it patterns to find, but also constantly mixes it up by switching to new patterns. Thought isn't required, listening to music stimulates the mind without any conscious effort. Human music is tailored to match the pattern finding capabilities of the human mind, else it would seem too chaotic or too simple.

>> No.5629032

>>5628867
>because physics
at least explain yourself faggot, "because" is not an answer

>>5628895
no i'm kinda scared of salvia, its just a question i had for a long time

>>5628911
why? i can make patterns of ugly sounds but you wouldn't enjoy it now would you?

>>5628949
is a certain tone "physically" associated with an emotion? like if you play that tone to an animal would it feel the same emotion as you would? you know what I mean?
also do animals enjoy music also?

>>5628971
actually what I thought is that certain wave patterns "oscillate" with the mind because they are both made of the same patterns, like how everything is made of fractal patterns so if you have 2 of these patterns then they oscillate and make you "like" it or attracted to it, or something like that. but its just a thought.

>> No.5629053

>>5629032
Waves by definition oscillate, if that is what you mean.

And it's best not to specify music beyond the simple existence of patterns. I've taken a college music class and I learned practically any arrangement of sounds can be called music.

>> No.5629086

>>5629032
> i can make patterns of ugly sounds but you wouldn't enjoy it now would you?
dubstep. of course you could say dubstep sounds good, but that is an opinion. 'ugly' is not a science-friendly word.

>> No.5629095

>>5629086
Just wait until someone discovers and names the "ugly quark".

>> No.5629098

Is it the same reason birds sing?

>> No.5629101

>>5629032

>like if you play that tone to an animal

The animal has to have the social capacity and theory of mind in order to understand methods of communication. Chimpanzee's lack the elongated larynx that humans have so they aren't capable of creating as broad a range of sounds that humans can. Their vocal communication is significantly more primitive than ours but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8174000/8174534.stm

They can still appreciate music in a similar fashion as humans. This is important because they still use vocalizations to communicate because they are a strongly social species.

>make you "like" it

Most people look at the grammar of a sentence and can say that it "sounds" right or wrong even if they know very little about the actual rules. The "rightness" of the rhythm, tone, timbre etc of a sound is required for us to all agree on in order for humans to form a language. Grammar rules didn't predate speech; we had to be able to talk in order to agree that this would be correct.

>> No.5629141

>>5629098

Birds sing usually for sexual selective purposes but some species vocalize to call for help from the flock or alert it to the presence of a predator among other reasons. I think it's pretty telling when you listen to songs from birds that flock and compare it to those who don't. For instance, a mourning dove has a pretty distinct song and there is very little variation between individuals. A bird like a grackle flocks and has a very diverse song, such that it sounds very much like noise. A mourning dove doesn't need to compete in advertising its fitness because it doesn't flock but grackles do.

>> No.5629144

>>5629053
I mean reasonate, sorry

>>5629086
I meant in a sense that no one would listen to it, not a matter of taste. if i cut a dubstep song to pieces and put them back together in a different order it would sound so horrible nobody will listen to it even tho it has patterns.

>>5629098
thats a good question but maybe for us they are singing and for them its like a language. what if when we talk normally it sound like singing to birds?

>>5629101
has it been confirmed for other animals as well (that they appreciate music)?
you are implying that tone has an emotion connotation with it because of society, but if i remember correctly babies could "sense" emotions depending on tones as well even though they have not been indoctrinated by society yet.
also if it is indeed a phenomenon that animals have as well then it implies that our common ancestors must had a taste for music too?

what you are saying is that for us to appreciate music we have to "learn" to appreciate it? so the guy that invented strings and made a song that sounded good to him, how did he know it was good?

another thing I noted is that small kids typically do not enjoy music as much as adults, why? is musical taste developed when you grow up?

>> No.5629199

1) I see you're a Tool fan. Sweet.
2) This is one of those nature/nurture things. I'm sure there are evolutionary reasons for the development of music, but it's also learned behavior. Interestingly enough though, it's almost universally recognized (even by cultures with primitive forms of music) that songs in a minor key are sad or distressing, while songs in a major key are happy or uplifting. There's some pretty good research out there on our sensitivity to odd/even order harmonics that explains some of this. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-harmonics.htm

>> No.5629209

heartbeat

>> No.5629239

>>5628949

If anyone you're the stupid fuck. He answer was perfecetly acurate though not 100% complete. You answer on the other hand, was not the first god damn bit comprehesible.

>> No.5629257

singing and beating on drums/logs/whatever to make music is an excellent way to form social bonds between huge numbers of people.

>> No.5629267
File: 14 KB, 300x330, someone is wrong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5629267

>>5628834
music is probably too complicated a phenomena to be explained by evolution alone, or by any one cause, for that case
the fact that we have a simple name for it doesn't make it a simple phenomena

>>5628911
>>5628942
you clearly are not musicians and are thinking of only one or a few kinds of music

>> No.5629299

>>5629144

>because of society

No, quite the contrary, I'm saying that sound patterns (i think tones are too basic) have to be hardwired to elicit the same emotional reactions in order for them to be effective means of communication. If a sound would produce a different meaning depending on what was associated with it through exposure, it would fail as a means of communication. I think our ancestors did indeed have a taste for music. However, I don't think the division between what is music and what is language was so drastic, especially our ancestors had underdeveloped wernicke's/broca's areas. There are just sounds that mean things to the pre-neocortex brain and sounds that don't. The sounds that evoked the toe-tapping, uplifting emotions would be the equivalent of saying "I feel happy and it feels like this."

>>5629239

I appreciate the praise but you're no more legible than >>5628949. Yes, I know I'm a typing nazi.

Anyway, what else do you think should be added to my answer? I'm talking strictly scientific aspects of music; the cultural aspects are a little too diverse for my understanding.

>> No.5629330

>>5629299
I didn't see that I missed anything in my response other that a comma in the first sentence. Anyway, that's unimportant.

Our ancestors had a much more primitive mind, the five senses were much less complex. I'm going to use smell for this example as it is much simpler. Thousands of years ago our reaction the scents were very limited, for bad smells we would recoil in disgust wrinkling or brow ect.. We only enjoyed smells at that time. Our ability to differentiate between smells came much later, this is why we have different perfumes and while some people like them others don't. This is the same with music, but now that we are more advanced we have developed personal tastes.

>> No.5629331

I thought it was because music triggered a release of dopamine.

>> No.5630103

>>5629299
well if it was really hardwired into our brains wouldn't you think that in order for us to enjoy music we would have to listen to exactly the same patterns? so if pattern A makes you happy for example, but pattern B does the same thing even thou they do not sound the same and structure of the pattern is different then how would you explain it? wouldn't it rather imply that our brains "figure out" what emotion or feeling a pattern of waves is associated with depending on the changes and timing of tones etc. rather than looking for a certain pattern?
you are right in saying that language and music are not really different because they both communicate to you some meaning but in a different way, you cannot tell a complicated story with sounds only (in a way that a book does).

>>5629330
its just a matter of personal taste, because if I don't like certain perfume i would still definitely like it more that smelling shit, so I think the same applies to music.

>>5629331
pardon my ignorance but which is it?
1) hear music -> feel happy -> release dopamine
2) hear music -> release dopamine -> feel happy

>> No.5630167

In its rawest form, it facilitates dance. Dance is essentially a human mate-choice ritual. Those who respond most to music are more likely to lose their inhibitions and dance convincingly.

>> No.5630173

>>5629331
Yeah, it does, but that's dependent on whether you enjoy the music or not, so it doesn't explain why we actually enjoy music.

I'm studying neuroscience and from my completely baseless educated guess, it's a mixture of things. For one thing, I imagine repetitive activation of neurones in the ear is important. Taste and smell come from different patterns of activation of taste buds and smell receptors, (it's believed we have tastebuds specific to sweet, sour, bitter and salty flavours, and it's the mixture of these tastebuds firing that provides the taste). This is similar in the ear, where receptors for sound waves are arranged so that they only pick up a small area of the audible spectrum. Considering this I'd assume mixtures of different frequencies and amplitudes of sound waves being repeated have a similar effect on the brain as a tasty snack or nice smell. This also explains why genres such as serialism and jazz, which try to break musical convention, are often seen as harder to appreciate fully, because they don't have a naturally pleasing audio pattern. As well as that you've got the social context of the music you're hearing and the emotional state you're in.

Again, this is pretty baseless, but it's just my guess.

>> No.5630191

>>5628845
because obviously when life beings first developped sensorial receptors for sound, no sounds should have been pleasurable or not for the being, yet we can trigger some emotion with sounds (and well all get the same emotion from the same music), so we evolved this capability, so it's only natural to ask what environmental pressure favorised this.
You are just retarded and/or religious for not understanding that.

>> No.5630208

>>5629267
if you're talking about noise music(or another genre that doesnt really follow a beat) that would probably be a more instinctual reaction. it is something you arent familiar with(think walking in the wild or whatever, you hear a wierd noise) it would elicit a fear response, and possibly some curiosity. in conclusion, fuck you for being an uptight 'musician' who thinks he knows everything.

>> No.5630224

>>5628909
What is there to hate about psychology and sociology? Just because they're not bound by physical laws?

>> No.5630259

>>5628834
I don't see why this has turned into a nature nuture arguement.
I think liking sounds is to do with evolution, but liking certain types of music is to do with nurture.

As for why we like music due to evolution, >>5628875
sounds the most plausible

Anyway, I'm afraid this will be one of those mysteries op.

>> No.5630318

>>5630224
>What is there to hate about psychology and sociology?
I think it's just pretentiousness

>> No.5632147

>>5630103
As I said in reply number,
>>5629330
music to hearing is in the same sense what perfume is to smell. We can like many different smells, some we like more than others. Even though one scent may smell good to us, it might smell badly to another person. All music doesn't have the same patterns but we like a multitude and they all make us happy.

>> No.5632156

>>5630318

I think you are pretentious for thinking psychology is pretentious.

>> No.5632491

>>5632156
I am saying people who don't like psychology or sociology are pretentious.