What is the difference between music and noise? [years-dead slappyfight revived]

[jopy]

To a dog (or any other animal), there is no difference between noise and (human) music.

I'm thinking there's a wee difference between hearing and having the capacity for abstraction -- an important aspect in hearing sound...be it music or otherwise.

Tell that to a bird or a whale. Animals have the ability to read into their own languages/sounds (on a simpler level though, so your point is valid).

True abstraction, as a thought process, requires brain development that is currently limited to humans. At least that's my take-=away from reading on the topic over the years. As for animals reading into their own sounds (and others), it's largely instinctual. Complex in its own way, to be sure, but not -- I think -- actual abstraction. These posts, OTH, would definitely be abstract.

what defines the difference between "abstraction" and "instinct?" these are horribly fuzzy concepts making it hard to say whether they are present only in humans or not. it is clear that many primates are capable of recognizing their own images in a mirror, can form complex cause and effect chains which generalize to novel situations, create mental maps, implement concepts like "fair" or "unfair," and use simple tools. to a lesser extent, these abilities have been detected in other mammals as well. so, i don't think the idea that there's a radical shift between humans and animals is at all warranted by the research; it's more a difference of degree rather than a difference in kind.

which means that some animals probably are capable of not only recognizing but also creating music.

[IncarnateX]

The difference is that noise does not really exist beyond the noise waveform in synths or white noise from tv or the radio. Looooong ago when I attended to ear training classes in music school it became a sport to listen for tones in everything. Suddenly the noise of a busy main station transformed from pure noise into a cacophony of tones and intervals. The step of high heels on the floor had a tone, the hum of incoming trains had their (deep) tones, peoples voices, a barking dog, announcements in the loudspeaker, a man opening the newspaper, the blowing of a train whistle, a bag pack dropped on the ground...every single little thing had their tone above or below all others. Eventually it drove me mad because I could not distract from such tones in the end. It sure isn't a dream to live in a cacophony of tones, so I had force my attention from it so my brain could consider it as noise again and leave it out of my consciousness.

And no, there is really no point to this story but my own pleasure of telling it.

[eduardo_b]

To a dog (or any other animal), there is no difference between noise and (human) music.

I'm thinking there's a wee difference between hearing and having the capacity for abstraction -- an important aspect in hearing sound...be it music or otherwise.

Tell that to a bird or a whale. Animals have the ability to read into their own languages/sounds (on a simpler level though, so your point is valid).

True abstraction, as a thought process, requires brain development that is currently limited to humans. At least that's my take-=away from reading on the topic over the years. As for animals reading into their own sounds (and others), it's largely instinctual. Complex in its own way, to be sure, but not -- I think -- actual abstraction. These posts, OTH, would definitely be abstract.

what defines the difference between "abstraction" and "instinct?" these are horribly fuzzy concepts making it hard to say whether they are present only in humans or not. it is clear that many primates are capable of recognizing their own images in a mirror, can form complex cause and effect chains which generalize to novel situations, create mental maps, implement concepts like "fair" or "unfair," and use simple tools. to a lesser extent, these abilities have been detected in other mammals as well. so, i don't think the idea that there's a radical shift between humans and animals is at all warranted by the research; it's more a difference of degree rather than a difference in kind.

which means that some animals probably are capable of not only recognizing but also creating music.

I think we can make a distinction between intelligence and abstraction. Some animals can use tools, if you will, to acquire food or work out "problems," which enhances their ability to survive and reproduce. And, as you note, there are "complex" chains of effects with higher priimates. But -- and I think the critical distinction -- this is not abstraction.

Taken from here:

Abstraction is a cognitive process by which higher, more abstract concepts are derived from the usage and classification of literal, "real," or "concrete" concepts. An "abstraction" (noun) is a concept that acts as super-categorical noun for all subordinate concepts, and connects any related concepts as a group, field, or category.

Applied to music, and assuming we are talking about more than an emotional reaction to sounds that may or may not be considered music (hence this thread), the ability to attach meaning and symolism to music (with or without lyrics) is an abstractive exercise that is unique to humans. I don't think emotions themselves are abstract, because we seem able to apply and express common terms for emotions that others also understand and experience.

[aciddose]

well, specifically they are both transmitted via a series of tubes and finally exiting a hose with or without a nozzle. noise travels clockwise, while music travels counter-clockwise in a spiral.

[hibidy]

well, specifically they are both transmitted via a series of tubes and finally exiting a hose with or without a nozzle. noise travels clockwise, while music travels counter-clockwise in a spiral.

It get confusing though when you are in the southern hemisphere....

[aciddose]

this may explain the strange noises made by certain aussies....

[trimph1]

this may explain the strange noises made by certain aussies....

you just made me spew coffee out my nose----ouch that hurts lol

[ero]

Is Vuvusela noise or music?

[aciddose]

it depends how far south of the equator you are.

anything south of and including kenya and congo, it's music since their sense of noise vs. music is reversed. anything north it's noise.

[vespers75]

To a dog (or any other animal), there is no difference between noise and (human) music.

I'm thinking there's a wee difference between hearing and having the capacity for abstraction -- an important aspect in hearing sound...be it music or otherwise.

Tell that to a bird or a whale. Animals have the ability to read into their own languages/sounds (on a simpler level though, so your point is valid).

True abstraction, as a thought process, requires brain development that is currently limited to humans. At least that's my take-=away from reading on the topic over the years. As for animals reading into their own sounds (and others), it's largely instinctual. Complex in its own way, to be sure, but not -- I think -- actual abstraction. These posts, OTH, would definitely be abstract.

what defines the difference between "abstraction" and "instinct?" these are horribly fuzzy concepts making it hard to say whether they are present only in humans or not. it is clear that many primates are capable of recognizing their own images in a mirror, can form complex cause and effect chains which generalize to novel situations, create mental maps, implement concepts like "fair" or "unfair," and use simple tools. to a lesser extent, these abilities have been detected in other mammals as well. so, i don't think the idea that there's a radical shift between humans and animals is at all warranted by the research; it's more a difference of degree rather than a difference in kind.

which means that some animals probably are capable of not only recognizing but also creating music.

I think we can make a distinction between intelligence and abstraction. Some animals can use tools, if you will, to acquire food or work out "problems," which enhances their ability to survive and reproduce. And, as you note, there are "complex" chains of effects with higher priimates. But -- and I think the critical distinction -- this is not abstraction.

Taken from here:

Abstraction is a cognitive process by which higher, more abstract concepts are derived from the usage and classification of literal, "real," or "concrete" concepts. An "abstraction" (noun) is a concept that acts as super-categorical noun for all subordinate concepts, and connects any related concepts as a group, field, or category.

Applied to music, and assuming we are talking about more than an emotional reaction to sounds that may or may not be considered music (hence this thread), the ability to attach meaning and symolism to music (with or without lyrics) is an abstractive exercise that is unique to humans. I don't think emotions themselves are abstract, because we seem able to apply and express common terms for emotions that others also understand and experience.

http://news.discovery.com/animals/monke ... ation.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =112752260

[eduardo_b]

http://news.discovery.com/animals/monke ... ation.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =112752260

But these do not alter the distinction between emotional response and the process of abstraction.

[jopy]

Abstraction is a cognitive process by which higher, more abstract concepts are derived from the usage and classification of literal, "real," or "concrete" concepts. An "abstraction" (noun) is a concept that acts as super-categorical noun for all subordinate concepts, and connects any related concepts as a group, field, or category.

I'm still having trouble seeing how animals can't be said to make abstractions, even with this definition of "super-categorical nouns." Animals do make abstractions, even at a very crude level. First and foremost, the ability to use language to symbolize other concepts, as is clearly present in most great apes (albeit to a significantly less extent than in humans). So nouns are not unique to humans. Using a symbol to represent other objects is an abstraction. Animals can also be trained to associate certain colors (and colors are abstractions) with certain stimuli; this generalization from one stimulus to a class of similar stimuli requires abstraction from the features perceived by the animal--although here it's a super-categorical adjective (isn't class membership usually an adjective and not a noun though?). As another example, it's possible to teach apes to sort objects based on color, then to take the same objects and sort them by shape, which again involves an abstraction and does mean making cross-cutting categories of mental objects.

My point is not that humans have the same skills present in animals, but rather, than animals do have some processes that are close to those present in humans--consciousness at the human level is an evolutionary step. I think that classification of some series of tones or sounds as subjectively appealing is something many animals could do, especially those animals with more developed brains. So I don't necessarily think one can say definitively that humans are the only species that can recognize music as distinct from ambient sounds in the environment. Of course, humans are the only creatures that can produce complex compositions, so don't take me to be making too radical a point.

[tetraplan]

well, specifically they are both transmitted via a series of tubes [...]

... And not by truck.

Groet, Erik

[eduardo_b]

I think that classification of some series of tones or sounds as subjectively appealing is something many animals could do, especially those animals with more developed brains. So I don't necessarily think one can say definitively that humans are the only species that can recognize music as distinct from ambient sounds in the environment. Of course, humans are the only creatures that can produce complex compositions, so don't take me to be making too radical a point.

Given that abstraction as a cognitive process is, by definition, complex, I don't see this being applicable to animals in general. As someone who has been very interested in evolutionary biology for a long time, the complexities of instinct and behavior (including response) can be mistaken for more than they are, but they are not abstraction.

Response to music doesn't indicate abstraction. Even among humans the ability to process abstractive thought varies to considerable degree, which seems linked to intelligence (what we refer to as IQ). A perfect example is music theory. One can love music and know absolutely nothing about music theory, which is 100 percent abstraction and beyond the capability of any animal except some humans to comprehend and understand. Theory itself is purely a human abstraction. So are music genres. It's a long list.

/edit
There's the old joke about a roomful of monkeys at typewriters eventually resulting in a book, but in reality that's simply not true. One cannot write a book without abstractive thought. Which leads to the question of animals creating music. And, ironically, right back to what is music and what is noise.

[xh3rv]

consciousness at the human level is an evolutionary step.

Well, I think it's a result of evolutionary mechanisms but I really feel like there's an argument to make here. We know socialization at very young ages changes the course of the development of the human brain. It's very clear with language, after a certain age if someone hasn't been exposed to any language they become unable to learn language with anything like a human capacity. This probably applies to all sorts of social or cultural things, there's a ton of research about it, and it shows up in the physiology of brains.

But we're at a chicken-and-egg sort of paradox here - obviously language and culture were invented after the human brain developed the capacity to use them. It's nothing to do with the biology of the brain, yet it alters the biology of the brain. Our consciousness is clearly rooted in language and culture, and in some sense it's a result of evolution, but I think that's missing a more interesting explanation of what language and culture are on the biological level! This kind of loopback to me makes the argument that it's not exactly evolutionary, in imprecise terms.

Just as a side note, it's also worth noting that genetics is a lot more complicated in practice than is often perceived. While we often think one set of genes is often associated with one biomorphology, it's becoming clearer and clearer that certain genes can be activated or deactivated by environmental pressures, including during an organism's most critical developmental periods. It seems plausible to me that exposure to the more evolved aspects of human consciousness could be one of these environmental pressures.

So I don't necessarily think one can say definitively that humans are the only species that can recognize music as distinct from ambient sounds in the environment.

One feature of the human brain that isn't seen in other primates is fine motor control and temporal perception regulated by the basal ganglia, this is needed for vocalization and music among other things. I think there's some irreducibly essential brain hardware at play here that separates human music from what a hypothetical animal music would be, and probably a gap wide enough that music might not be the best word for sound that alters mental state in animals.