"Music and dreams are similar, because they both involve, or can involve, the processing of feelings in response to situations that are not real." "This simila

"Music and dreams are similar, because they both involve, or can involve, the processing of feelings in response to situations that are not real." "This similarity between music and dreaming suggests that music and dreaming may actually serve similar biological purposes." This does not follow at all. We don't know why we dream, or why we evolved to make music. It's hasty to suggest the two are related based on the sole observation that both produce feelings. What's more, there's a big difference between feelings in dreams (which are responses to imagined situations) and feelings in music (which may result from formal qualities of harmony and melody, independent of any imagined situation.) The author explains this away by 1. focusing on music with lyrical and theatrical aspects, and 2. pretending that all listeners are supplementing the music with their own memories and imagined situations. As if nobody ever just heard a pretty tune and thought it sounded nice. Then the author proceeds to make tenuous connections and meaningless distinctions for the next several paragraphs, based on this flimsy assertion that music and dreaming are alike because they produce feelings. All the while, citing no research to make these connections. This reads like one of those post-structuralist nonsense papers that people on HN love to hate on. Why are we giving it the time of day?