music and laughter, why?

Why do you assume that your sole purpose in life is to reproduce? It may be a primary purpose but -- "sole"?

It has something to do with that mysterious dimension of non-animality which only humans possess and which Darwinians needs must deny.

Have you never watched a scientific method fanatic try to dance or chat up the lookers?

Perhaps music and laughter is reserved for God's children.

i dont think it is in any of my priorities, at least consciously.

its that i wonder how such a loophole in our genetic strand has allowed itself to eventuate.

something like this would have to repeat itself millions of times, "hey, you, the one who likes to hear structured rythms, thats attractive, lets have sex"

or something along those lines.

maybe the "loophole" was "CREATED".

It does seem a bit inexplicable even to the scientists. Perhaps scientists don't resonate and they are trying to stop the rest of us doing and having all the fun.

Music and religious ceremonies have evolved hand in hand.

Did you ever hear any of that "scientific music" they tried to foist onto us a few years back. It was all head stuff. You had to be a Brains to appreciate it. Nothing for the body to dig and get all jazzed up jigging with etc. Anyway-it faded out. It didn't go in pubs. It hadn't got any shades of a jungle jug band whacking it out whilst the girls dance themselves into a totally irresponsible frenzy.

Thanks runryder- a further clean insight into scientists.

If anybody tries telling you that scientists don't think they have a right to run everything- laugh.

How do you know squirrels don't laugh?

actually, something like that probably is a legitimate hypothesis. musical ability would be favored by sexual selection--good rhythm could be an indicator of superior timing, for example, and singing complicated melodies an indicator of an excellent memory. recall, also, that before the invention of writing, cultural knowledge was transmitted through epics, which were sung. there's even a translation of the Odyssey that begins,
"Sing to me of the man, Muse, the man of twists and turns/ driven time and again off course, once he had plundered/ the hallowed halls of Troy."

Nuthin like puttin on some hot tunes when you're getting laid. It makes the mood right.

Great thread. Thanks yit. Loved the quote.

Hey- how do you explain scientists making it then. They are not noted for rhythm and timing. Some of them can't eat a soft-boiled egg properly.
And they can only memorise by rote and strenuous application which, as everybody knows, is rather odd behaviour. So they only know the froth of knowledge not the deep rich dark brown pools beneath which are transmitted by secret messages of which they know nothing.

"I can hear the ancient footsteps
Like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I think there's someone there
Other times it's only me
I am hanging in the balance
Of a perfect finished plan
Like every sparrow falling
Like every grain of sand."

They say Dylan cracked his vocal muscles singing that in the streets of Rome.

Good theory yit. Food for thought.

spendius, i doubt that scientists are inherently non-musical, but with the exception of musical prodigies, it's probably too difficult for one individual to master both science & music, or any other art. closest example to an exception i can think of is the russian chess grandmaster Mark Taimanov, a one time world championship contender, who was also a concert pianist. granted, chess is not science, but at grandmaster levels, i believe it requires at least as much rote and application as physical science.

I believe Einstein played the fiddle. Borodin, in his day, was far better known as a scientist, a chemist, than as a composer. That scientists, as a group, have no musical sense and no sense of humor is arrant nonsense.

The ones that have studied music are. Musicians are found everywhere, in every field.

MA & Shapeless, i wasn't denying that a scientist could study music & vice-versa, just skeptical that one could be prominent in both fields, either at the same time, or by switching from one to the other. Einstein indeed played violin, but not at a professional level. on the other hand, i was not aware that Borodin was a chemist.

I was talking about your ordinary average scientist who has creases ironed into his trousers to cut down wind resistance and goes on holiday in a camper van with a chemical toilet.

came across quite a lengthy list of musicians with science background:

http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/3941/thelist.html

i was impressed by this entry:

Charles Kavaloski - Phd in Physics/Former Principal Horn of Boston Symphony Orchestra/Horn Professor of University of Minnesota

on the other hand, i couldn't verify the claim that Tchaikovsky was a mathematician.

That is the same kind of stereotype as the image of a musician who desperately needs a haircut, wears only either tweeds or cords, and never goes on holiday because he is, literally, starving.

I am not clear on whether this thread is asking for a scientific discussion-- or asking for a fight. But, my better nature suggests I assume the former. I will also make the assumption that most people who are here do respect both rational thought and the discipline of science as practiced by most scientists.

First-- evolution has no purpose. Saying so is a anthropomorphism and a misunderstanding of science. There is another thread on this... but evolution is a process.

Saying the purpose of evolution is reproduction is like saying the purpose of fire is heat. Heat certainly is a result of fire... and it is an important part in the propagation of fire. But, of course, there are a lot more factors to the process of fire than just 'heat'-- and there are a lot more factors to the process of evolution than just reproduction.

I also want to make a comment on the meaning of "reproduction" . In order for you to pass on your genes-- you not only need to conceive the baby and care for the mother until it is born... you also need to raise it... provide for its needs and give it the resources until it can reproduce on its own.

If you have 100 babies, but none of them reproduce themselves (either becuase they die before they are of age... or something prevents them from reproducing) then you have not effectively passed on your genes.

For this reason-- reproduction in any evolutionarily meaningful way is not just sex and birth-- you must also be concerned with the ability to defend your kids and provide the resources they need to become reproductive adults.

Humans and other primates are social animals. We rely on social groups (families and neighborhoods and communities and friends) for survival.

Social groups have a whole lot of benefits to individuals in the species that form them. They provide for common defense, they allow sharing of resources and allow individuals to get an economic benefit by specialization (i.e. some people are hunters others are healers or builders).

This is why from the beginning of us being human we have formed social groups. Other primates do the same.

The trait of forming social groups is particularly important in species (like our own) where we don't have very many babies and the babies require a lot of energy to raise. Other species (i.e. turtles) have a different solution. They have thousands of babies and don't do anything to raise them... the idea being is that with a large number only a small percentage need to survive to ensure the genes survive.

The social skills that we have developed are very helpful to humans to form the social groups that we rely on.

Our anscestors, ever since they were human (and even before) formed together in social groups that made them much safer, allowed them to develop agriculture, taught them how to resolve fights without breaking up the group, let them develop a social framework (including religion).

Each of these things has made humans very effective by making it much more likely that their children would survive prosper and reproduce.children would survive and reproduce.

Traits, like laughter and music and language and religion, that are part of forming meaning social groups are certainly traits that are supported by evolution.