4 ms·

Is it so implausible that these creatures who have displayed startling emotional depth (Koko and her pet cat, anyone?) might also display musicality? Why are w

by rosser 11y ago

Is it so implausible that these creatures who have displayed startling emotional depth (Koko and her pet cat, anyone?) might also display musicality? Why are we so quick to dismiss the notion that anything not human might do something creative, like hum a happy little tune to itself? Oh, no. That's just "random noise".

said 11y ago
The grandparent might be specifically talking about the sound clips from the article. They don't sound melodic, let alone musical (at least to my human ears).
- msutherl 11y ago
  I believe it's more of a semantic thing. A melody is inherently non-random. "Random melody" is nearly oxymoronic.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    I think it's fair to call a non-repeating sequence of randomly selected, sufficiently tonal notes, on a familiar scale, in the right frequency range, a melody. So I don't think it's fair to say a melody is inherently non-random. I'd say that there only needs to be a sequence of sounds identifiable as individual notes, with a sufficiently dominant pitch as to sound tonal.
    - gohrt 11y ago
      In other words, random within a non-random subspace of the universe of possibilities. Like hitting random notes on a piano, without having a piano to start with.
    - msutherl 11y ago
      As someone who has composed aleatoric music and had many discussions with people who have devoted their lives to generative music, I have to say it's debatable whether what you described can strictly be called a "melody" unless you take the broadest dictionary definition ('a pleasing sequence of notes'), though I do think you can call it "melodic" as in 'melody-ish'. In other words, I think there's an essential difference between melody as conceived prior to the advent of generative music, which implies a decision by the composer that 'this is the melody', and a 'random melody' where that decision is made in a different manner, i.e. "whatever this process produces is 'the melody'". In the case of a randomly generated score, it gets a bit confusing because it's not clear if the composer used a generative process to determine 'the melody' or if it can meaningfully be called 'random'. Ultimately we just don't have words for such things. Perhaps conveniently, generative music still plays a very minor role in music culture outside of i.e. some of Brian Eno's recent work and the enduring influence of John Cage.
      - pluma 11y ago
        Aren't you then saying that melody-ness is being conferred by the composer? That would make it extremely difficult to confirm that something is a melody or not by observation alone (and thus likely impossible when determining whether other apes can come up with melodies). That said, I think the article is not using "random" in the literal sense but in the sense of "arbitrary", as in "novel" (rather than being simply a reiteration of a previously observed tune).
Laaw 11y ago
"Is it so implausible" isn't really the bar we're trying to reach, though.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
kevinmchugh 11y ago
> these creatures who have displayed startling emotional depth (Koko and her pet cat, anyone?) I'm not convinced that Koko is much more than a long-term, well-publicized Clever Hans. Can you explain what emotional depth you think is evidenced in this case? If possible, please do so without relying on the interpretation of Koko's main caregiver, who does not seem to abide by scientific principles.
- srean 11y ago
  The position of a 'skeptic' that you adopt is frequently adopted for things related to animal emotion, empathy, intelligence etc. It is often couched in a higher 'we have higher standards for a scientific method'. But it is somewhat misguided. I find these inferential questions no more fraught than the question that a fellow human, for example, you are capable of intelligence, empathy, emotion. All we can do is make external observations and not get into your psyche and feel what you feel. If the basis of assigning emotions etc to a second person is the fact that I am aware of my own emotions, then it is structurally very limited. It is incapable of making inferences beyond the human kind, and even then it is quite suspect. I am fine as long as the same standards are used for animals and as is used for humans, without resorting to arguments mirroring 'I know I feel therefore I know you do' or 'I know you feel because you told me so'.
  - kevinmchugh 11y ago
    If Bob says he has a message for you from Alice, and the message he delivers is exactly in line with Bob's incentives, are you skeptical of Bob? Even if you knew in advance Alice was sending you a message via Bob, does the fact that the message and Bob's incentives are in alignment not cause you any skepticism? I addressed Koko specifically because her case was brought up and is especially famous. I believe that a press release about the death of a celebrity who visited the gorilla once, 13 years before[1] is either a) cynical, exploitative fund-raising or b) misguided interpretation, relying on the interpreter's own emotions to decide those of the animal being interpreted. These declarations are made by the caretaker who has a long, intimate relationship with the animal. My skepticism is aimed not at the idea that non-human animals are intelligent, empathetic, or emotional, but rather that single human interpreters, working for decades with a single animal subject, are reliable scientific indicators of any possible conclusion. A decent Slate article here[2] goes beyond Koko. I am arguing that the evidence most commonly presented is weak, not the hypothesis. I found this article about parrots and PTSD[3] fascinating as some of the examples are almost certainly Clever Hans effect and others are in fact best explained via a close pair-bonding humans recognize as love. 1: http://www.koko.org/koko-tribute-robin-williams http://www.koko.org/koko-tribute-robin-williams 2: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/08/koko_kanzi_and_ape_language_research_criticism_of_working_conditions_and.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... 3: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/magazine/what-does-a-parrot-know-about-ptsd.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/magazine/what-does-a-parro...
jessriedel 11y ago
No, it's not implausible, it's just not supported by the evidence gathered. No one is dismissing the possibility, I am dismissing the idea that this observation tells us anything substantively new.

by rosser 11y ago

said 11y ago

The grandparent might be specifically talking about the sound clips from the article. They don't sound melodic, let alone musical (at least to my human ears).

msutherl 11y ago
I believe it's more of a semantic thing. A melody is inherently non-random. "Random melody" is nearly oxymoronic.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  I think it's fair to call a non-repeating sequence of randomly selected, sufficiently tonal notes, on a familiar scale, in the right frequency range, a melody. So I don't think it's fair to say a melody is inherently non-random. I'd say that there only needs to be a sequence of sounds identifiable as individual notes, with a sufficiently dominant pitch as to sound tonal.
  - gohrt 11y ago
    In other words, random within a non-random subspace of the universe of possibilities. Like hitting random notes on a piano, without having a piano to start with.
  - msutherl 11y ago
    As someone who has composed aleatoric music and had many discussions with people who have devoted their lives to generative music, I have to say it's debatable whether what you described can strictly be called a "melody" unless you take the broadest dictionary definition ('a pleasing sequence of notes'), though I do think you can call it "melodic" as in 'melody-ish'. In other words, I think there's an essential difference between melody as conceived prior to the advent of generative music, which implies a decision by the composer that 'this is the melody', and a 'random melody' where that decision is made in a different manner, i.e. "whatever this process produces is 'the melody'". In the case of a randomly generated score, it gets a bit confusing because it's not clear if the composer used a generative process to determine 'the melody' or if it can meaningfully be called 'random'. Ultimately we just don't have words for such things. Perhaps conveniently, generative music still plays a very minor role in music culture outside of i.e. some of Brian Eno's recent work and the enduring influence of John Cage.
    - pluma 11y ago
      Aren't you then saying that melody-ness is being conferred by the composer? That would make it extremely difficult to confirm that something is a melody or not by observation alone (and thus likely impossible when determining whether other apes can come up with melodies). That said, I think the article is not using "random" in the literal sense but in the sense of "arbitrary", as in "novel" (rather than being simply a reiteration of a previously observed tune).

Laaw 11y ago

"Is it so implausible" isn't really the bar we're trying to reach, though.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

kevinmchugh 11y ago

> these creatures who have displayed startling emotional depth (Koko and her pet cat, anyone?) I'm not convinced that Koko is much more than a long-term, well-publicized Clever Hans. Can you explain what emotional depth you think is evidenced in this case? If possible, please do so without relying on the interpretation of Koko's main caregiver, who does not seem to abide by scientific principles.

srean 11y ago
The position of a 'skeptic' that you adopt is frequently adopted for things related to animal emotion, empathy, intelligence etc. It is often couched in a higher 'we have higher standards for a scientific method'. But it is somewhat misguided. I find these inferential questions no more fraught than the question that a fellow human, for example, you are capable of intelligence, empathy, emotion. All we can do is make external observations and not get into your psyche and feel what you feel. If the basis of assigning emotions etc to a second person is the fact that I am aware of my own emotions, then it is structurally very limited. It is incapable of making inferences beyond the human kind, and even then it is quite suspect. I am fine as long as the same standards are used for animals and as is used for humans, without resorting to arguments mirroring 'I know I feel therefore I know you do' or 'I know you feel because you told me so'.
- kevinmchugh 11y ago
  If Bob says he has a message for you from Alice, and the message he delivers is exactly in line with Bob's incentives, are you skeptical of Bob? Even if you knew in advance Alice was sending you a message via Bob, does the fact that the message and Bob's incentives are in alignment not cause you any skepticism? I addressed Koko specifically because her case was brought up and is especially famous. I believe that a press release about the death of a celebrity who visited the gorilla once, 13 years before[1] is either a) cynical, exploitative fund-raising or b) misguided interpretation, relying on the interpreter's own emotions to decide those of the animal being interpreted. These declarations are made by the caretaker who has a long, intimate relationship with the animal. My skepticism is aimed not at the idea that non-human animals are intelligent, empathetic, or emotional, but rather that single human interpreters, working for decades with a single animal subject, are reliable scientific indicators of any possible conclusion. A decent Slate article here[2] goes beyond Koko. I am arguing that the evidence most commonly presented is weak, not the hypothesis. I found this article about parrots and PTSD[3] fascinating as some of the examples are almost certainly Clever Hans effect and others are in fact best explained via a close pair-bonding humans recognize as love. 1: http://www.koko.org/koko-tribute-robin-williams http://www.koko.org/koko-tribute-robin-williams 2: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/08/koko_kanzi_and_ape_language_research_criticism_of_working_conditions_and.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... 3: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/magazine/what-does-a-parrot-know-about-ptsd.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/magazine/what-does-a-parro...

jessriedel 11y ago

No, it's not implausible, it's just not supported by the evidence gathered. No one is dismissing the possibility, I am dismissing the idea that this observation tells us anything substantively new.