Music is evidence of God!

[Hernia]

Music is so powerful!

I was just listening to Tina Turner's "Better be good to me" and 20 years later, it's just as moving as it was in 1984. I'm sitting here crying and sniffling, and I can just see her, an abused wife who really loves Ike, but sees herself dead at some point at the hands of her husband if she didn't somehow get out of that relationship - sad, angry, mournful about what could have been but can never be. Also makes me think about the struggles of black people back when she was with Ike, and how it mirrors somewhat the problems gays and lesbians face.

And it occurred to me, isn't it miraculous how sound waves from a cassette of titanium dioxide can make people cry? Or laugh or how can inanimate objects elicit such complex emotions and inspire people?

Evidence, if ever there was any, that there is a God. (Just don't ask me to explain my logic... :D )

[cuauhtemoc]

I don't know if music is evidence of God or not, but it's always nice when it makes you feel that way. Also, a lot of very condescending posts with many rolleyes smileys will begin to accumulate below. Try not to take them personally.

[Cajun Man]

Um . . . well . . . as Gaudere once told me, "If the thread title has the word God in it, it'll probably wind up in Great Debates."

Off to Great Debates (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=7).

Cajun Man
for the SDMB

[Lobsang]

To me it's just evidence of how, given enough time, evolution has some interesting results.



Smells are much more powerful for inspiring beautiful feelings from the past. They can be 'heavenly', so to speak.

[Marley23]

I'll be nice and put it this way: I love music as much as anybody I know, and I sure don't see it like that.

Just so as not to disappoint... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

;)

[elucidator]

No, dude, music is evidence of Eric Clapton. Eric Clapton is God.

[Marley23]

I thought I heard Lemmy was god. Whatever.

[elucidator]

Don't argue God with me. I'm from Waco.

[WernhamHogg]

Well, while everyone else is rolling their eyes, let me answer seriously: Maybe.

One aspect of humankind that isn't readily explained by science is the transcendent feeling one gets while creating or enjoying art. It isn't "God" in the sense of a big white guy with a beard, but it's some intangible thing you may as well call "divine," and that part of you that enjoys it may as well be called the "soul." Frankly, when I'm listening to the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth, I feel about as close to believing in some divine thing as I ever do. For that matter, I feel the same way when I listen to song "Let the Mystery Be," by Iris Dement, which may be the only Agnostic Spiritual ever written.

If you really want to explore aesthetic transcendence as a premise for theology, read the Romantic poets (Shelley, Keats, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Blake).

[presidebt]

I thought I heard Lemmy was god. Whatever.

Dude, Lemmy is god. Eric Clapton, on the other hand is the morning star. ;)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: (Just filling the quota...)

Why does every thread with god in the title end up in Great Debates? Wouldn't they fit better in MPSIMS?

[IWLN]

Well, while everyone else is rolling their eyes, let me answer seriously: Maybe.

It isn't "God" in the sense of a big white guy with a beardGod is white??!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[CurtC]

Well, it's every bit as good of evidence as any other that I've seen.

Also, skutir wrote:Frankly, when I'm listening to the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth, I feel about as close to believing in some divine thing as I ever do.Interesting that a strictly secular piece would inspire such a feeling.

[Paladud]

While I am generally inclined toward atheism, I have to agree.

Whenever I return home after a particularly tiring day, I listen to Chopin, usually the First Piano Concerto or virtually anything of his performed by Vasary. The emotions these pieces evoke are far more spiritual and powerful than anything I have felt from human contact or several near-death experiences.

[Dr. Love]

I'd just like to echo Paladud's comments. I lean towards athiesm, but if anything can get me to believe in a higher power, music is it.

[Aeschines]

The big dualism we need to overcome isn't mind/body but matter/spirit.

There IS NO difference between the two. Thinking there is so has caused our species millenia of frustration and conflict.

Music is certainly evidence of the power of what can be, the Divine--"God" if you will.

To me, the Divine is the vector of Sat-Chit-Ananda http://www.naturalhealthweb.com/articles/shanbhag2.html (just a nice little explanation here) which is the true nature of the Origin or One (thank you, Plotinus; it has this nature because any system based on evil or other self-destructive principle would not be mathematically coherent); Goodness is the greater actualization of this vector in any system, Evil its lack; Love is the will to promote the vector, Hate the will to hinder it.

But the grand thing about Existance is that it is not just a matter of more or less, but also HOW--and through music we actually take part in the creation and enjoyment of these amazing WAYS of being.

I completely second your sentiment!

--Aeschines

[blowero]

One aspect of humankind that isn't readily explained by science is the transcendent feeling one gets while creating or enjoying art.
Emotions aren't explained by science? Sure they are. It's an electrochemical process occuring in the brain. It's been demonstrated under controlled conditions. People have been made to experience these types of feelings simply by artificial electrical stimulation of the appropriate area of the brain. Sorry - no God required. And believe me, nobody loves music more than I do.

[Marley23]

I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I don't think the effect of various tones and progressions on people is unexplained or unexplored.

[Urban Ranger]

One aspect of humankind that isn't readily explained by science is the transcendent feeling one gets while creating or enjoying art.

"Hey, lookie here, a GAP!"

:rolleyes: (obligatory)

[IWLN]

Emotions aren't explained by science? Sure they are. It's an electrochemical process occuring in the brain. It's been demonstrated under controlled conditions. People have been made to experience these types of feelings simply by artificial electrical stimulation of the appropriate area of the brain. Sorry - no God required. And believe me, nobody loves music more than I do.Emotions aren't really explained by these experiments. They have just learned to mechanically reproduce them. They cannot explain why auditory input from music affects your temporal lobe so much differently than speech and other sounds. In a healthy brain, pretty much all of our other emotional responses have a catalyst and involve some sort of learned reasoning process. This transcendental type response seems to be instinctive or reflex? It is an involuntary response. Why? Are you sure no God is required, Blowero? :)

[Siege]

I love music; I love God; I sing in a good church choir. Does anyone really think I popped in here to argue against the OP? ;)

The thing is, even people who are very vocal about their religion may not feel God and music are connected. Several years ago, I worked with a woman who was very vocal and obvious about her Christianity. One day, she was wondering if she was sinning because, instead of listening to the local Evangelical radio station, she listened to country music, instead. Leaving country music aside, I said to her of course God was in music -- just listen to Bach!!! Her response was, "Who's Bach?" :confused: My (mental) response was, "Oh, dear."

I am told there are non-musical people in the world. I suspect I may have dated one recently. To them, I suppose music may be no more evidence of God than my apartment building is. It's technically well-built enough, but transcendent? As for me, the pleasure I get from music is calorie-free, sin-free, disease-free, and profound. Not bad for arrangements of vibrations. ;)

CJ

[Jonathan Chance]

I'm not very religious at all but I do understand what the OP is describing.

Art is (allow me some leeway here) about connecting between people (or groups of people). And that connection, when made well, is powerful to the human psyche. Very powerful.

Hearing a piece of music that speaks to you, or seeing a painting, or what-have-you can place one in a space of connection with a greater group of humanity. And most people enjoy that.

Heck, you can see it in performers who seem to transcene the stage. When they connect with the audience as a whole the entire thing becomes greater than it was. Fred LeBlanc (of Cowboy Mouth, which most of you have never heard of) and Bill Clinton are both particularly good at this. And you can see how it lifts them when it happens.

[Cajun Man]

Originally posted by blowero

Emotions aren't explained by science? Sure they are. It's an electrochemical process occuring in the brain. It's been demonstrated under controlled conditions. People have been made to experience these types of feelings simply by artificial electrical stimulation of the appropriate area of the brain. Sorry - no God required. And believe me, nobody loves music more than I do.
I believe this was first documented by Dr. Wilder Penfield (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/bhpenf.html).

[norinew]

Originally posted by Siege
Not bad for arrangements of vibrations.
IME, the right vibrations often make me feel close to the Divine :D

I'm hangin' with Siege and the OP on this one. I love music, I love God, and it's my own personal belief that God gave us music to uplift the spirit. So here's a great big Thank God for music!

[WernhamHogg]

Emotions aren't explained by science? Sure they are. It's an electrochemical process occuring in the brain. It's been demonstrated under controlled conditions. People have been made to experience these types of feelings simply by artificial electrical stimulation of the appropriate area of the brain. Sorry - no God required. And believe me, nobody loves music more than I do.

I don't believe in God, so you're barking up the wrong tree. However, I don't quite get those kinds of "explanations." Artificially replicating the chemical processes behind feelings don't really explain them at all... it's just observing the physical reactions that make up emotions, it doesn't explain them, anymore than explaining the notes and durations of a piece of music explain why some noise is music.

[Greyson3]

Then Nickelback must mean God hates us.

[nisosbar]

Then Nickelback must mean God hates us.

:D

[blasphmer]

Let me be yet another to couple your amazing poor grasp of reality with my decisive ability to link causes and effects.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[rkts]

I don't quite get those kinds of "explanations." Artificially replicating the chemical processes behind feelings don't really explain them at all...No, but it implies that they are explainable without the contrivance of some theory about a man in the sky.

Think of Occam's razor.it doesn't explain them, anymore than explaining the notes and durations of a piece of music explain why some noise is music.It can if your definition of "music" depends on that.

How to define "music," of course, is a debate as old as music itself and not one I feel like addressing at the moment.

[IWLN]

Let me be yet another to couple your amazing poor grasp of reality with my decisive ability to link causes and effects.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:Well you did figure out what causes the :rolleyes:, so you must be right about the universe. :rolleyes:

[MrVisible]

The feelings that the music brought on in you, Hernia, were created by Tina Turner. Unless you're of the opinion that Tina Turner is god (and she might be; it's as good a theory as any other) then crediting her accomplishment to god is pretty damned rude.

If I spent weeks writing, honing, perfecting a song that expressed a visceral, complex emotion, and then crafted a performance of the song that fit the message beautifully, only to have someone come along and claim that the accomplishment wasn't my own, I'd be pissed.

Art is an effective means of communicating emotions between one human being and another. Giving god the credit for creating a piece of art is devaluing the work of the artist.

[nameless]

Sure they are. It's an electrochemical process occuring in the brain. It's been demonstrated under controlled conditions. People have been made to experience these types of feelings simply by artificial electrical stimulation of the appropriate area of the brain. Sorry - no God required. And believe me, nobody loves music more than I do.

Oh no, it's the mind/body problem! RUN AWAY BEFORE IT CONSUMES US ALL!

[WernhamHogg]

"Hey, lookie here, a GAP!"

:rolleyes: (obligatory)

Meaning, what?

[WernhamHogg]

Let me be yet another to couple your amazing poor grasp of reality with my decisive ability to link causes and effects.
:rolleyes: (all but one deleted)

Um... what were you trying to say?

[WernhamHogg]

Oh no, it's the mind/body problem! RUN AWAY BEFORE IT CONSUMES US ALL!

Ah, here's another baffling post. Perhaps you can tell me what you are trying to say. Are you taking a position in this "great debate," and what is it?

[nameless]

Meaning, what?

Are you familiar with Leibniz's Gap? I think blasphmer's comment is pertaining to something in that vein.

Any time one tries to reconcile experiential phenomena with the physical neurochemistry that science uses to explain it, there seems to be a disconnect (a gap) between the two that many people (dualists) interpret as proof that there is something transcendent and unusual about the mind.

Or maybe I'm misinterpreting the situation entirely...

[WernhamHogg]

Thanks, nameless... that's interesting, and I'm curious to look it up now. Much more helpful than "you mean there's a GAP???"

I think the several posts I quoted recently are posts among old-time dopers who have a lot of inside jokes about debates that come up a lot... it can be a little mystifying to a newby.

[nameless]

Ah, here's another baffling post. Perhaps you can tell me what you are trying to say. Are you taking a position in this "great debate," and what is it?

Okay. The mind/body problem is a classic exercise in philospohical debate that attempts to reconcile the experiential aspects of a particular stimulus (in this case music) with the physical (neurotransmitters and positron emission tomography and such). I am a materialist, a.k.a. reductionist, a.k.a. monist--my position is that there is nothing special about the mind, and that it is a side effect of the neurochemical processes that occur within the body. I think that music is in no way a "proof" of God's existence--rather, it is a remarkable illustration of the human brain, it's complexity, and the extent to which we do not understand it.

The whole discussion thus far reminds me very much of the mind/body problem, which is rather intractable.

[Avalonian]

For someone who believes in God, I can see how music would have the effect it does on the OP. Music is a powerful force -- emotional, moving, inexpressible in any other way.

For me (an avowed atheist), music is evidence of the limitless capability of human creativity. Yesterday, while at work, I listened to a Bach violin concerto, the moody "space music" soundtrack for the game "Homeworld," and The Police "Message in a Box" collection. I marvel -- no, I worship -- the diversity and the power of the human creative spirit. It is truly capable of anything.

Certainly, it can be said that music can give anyone something to believe in. What that is depends on the listener... that's some of its power.

This has been a Rolleyes-Free Post. (tm)

[WernhamHogg]

Okay. The mind/body problem is a classic exercise in philospohical debate that attempts to reconcile the experiential aspects of a particular stimulus (in this case music) with the physical (neurotransmitters and positron emission tomography and such). I am a materialist, a.k.a. reductionist, a.k.a. monist--my position is that there is nothing special about the mind, and that it is a side effect of the neurochemical processes that occur within the body. I think that music is in no way a "proof" of God's existence--rather, it is a remarkable illustration of the human brain, it's complexity, and the extent to which we do not understand it.

The whole discussion thus far reminds me very much of the mind/body problem, which is rather intractable.

Thanks again, nameless. I've read William James extensively, and none of this is new to me... I just wasn't sure what your position was. I agree with you, and I believe my previous posts may have lead people to believe otherwise. I was merely saying that in my life, the closest thing I come to "spirituality" is aesthetic "rapture," not that Beethoven makes me believe in God, but that there is something transcendent about it that approximates a religious experience... hence I also mentioned I have the same feeling when listening to the agnostic spirtual (as I see it) by Iris Dement, the song "Let the Mystery Be" (I get misty every time I hear it).

Whether or not they can see how the nuerons fire or replicate it hardly explains the bigger WHY... anymore than a baseball scorecard indicates what was fun/enjoyable about the game. I don't quite get what I am supposed to understand by the information... William James new that religious and emotional experience was physiological, but didn't stop there and think he'd settled how to live or how to be happy.

[agiantdwarf]

My teacher once said that because Pi and e (2.718...) were so prevalent in all of mathematics, it suggests some higher power. I thought that's kind of stupid, since we can prove all of the places it shows up. I like to think of it as merely the logical following of accepting axioms as true.

[lt180ml]

It seems both Pythagoras and Johann Kepler thought music was supernatural. I tried to find a decent link for this, but nothing seemed both informative and reliable. If anyone's interested, try looking for 'music of the spheres.' However, it looks like Kepler knew a lot of what he was doing was astrology rather than serious science.

[presidebt]

It seems both Pythagoras and Johann Kepler thought music was supernatural. I tried to find a decent link for this, but nothing seemed both informative and reliable. If anyone's interested, try looking for 'music of the spheres.' However, it looks like Kepler knew a lot of what he was doing was astrology rather than serious science.

T.S Eliot believed it too...google for Four Quartets. I believe the copyright has expired. However, I'd like to point out, in my estimation, that Eliot was, like the OP, extrapolating from thin air, however marvelous his poetry.

For those interested, another Christian inspired work by T.S. Eliot is The Rock.. He was never as good as Prufrock or the Wasteland--he lost something after that--however, in my well-read (at least as far as poetry goes) opinion.

[Lobsang]

To me, music is a very lucky coincidence that the fact that certain things make interesting sounds when hit or plucked, combined with the ability of humans to experiement with things, combined with time - produces very very pleasurable results.


In fact now that I think about it, just like the 'miracle' of life - time is the key. Given enough time banging a stick on some stretched animal skin becomes classical music.

[Lobsang]

It's like what some famous dude said - "Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic" (paraphrased)

The same applies to so called 'miracles'.

[Marley23]

It's like what some famous dude said - "Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic" (paraphrased)
That was Arthur C. Clarke, I think.

[blowero]

I don't believe in God, so you're barking up the wrong tree. However, I don't quite get those kinds of "explanations." Artificially replicating the chemical processes behind feelings don't really explain them at all... it's just observing the physical reactions that make up emotions, it doesn't explain them, anymore than explaining the notes and durations of a piece of music explain why some noise is music.
I don't follow you. What do you mean by "explaining" emotions? If you punch me in the face, I will feel pain. If you perform J.S. Bach's b minor Mass, I will feel rapture. That's because each stimulus causes excitation of a very specific area in my brain. That electrochemical activity IS the emotion. Artificially inducing emotions DOES exlain them; it demonstrates that they originate in the brain, and shows that it is unnecessary to posit a supernatural explanation.

Now, if you're asking "Why does x event cause y emotion?", the answer can be very complex, and possibly beyond our ability to explain. That doesn't mean there isn't a reason; it just means it's complex. I don't know exactly how my car runs, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

I have some very basic ideas as to why music has the effect on us it does. One, when we hear a sound, we perceive a very complex pattern of harmonics because of the way the sounds waves vibrate. Tonal music, at least, mimics these naturally occuring harmonics. So we recognize an element of nature, which is usually not in the forefront of our minds, being mimicked in the music, thus making the music strangely compelling to us. Two, the rhythm of the music imitates another element of nature, that of repetition, like our heartbeat for example. So when music takes a steady pulse and varies it in interesting ways, that's compelling as well. I think the response is much too complex to ever be explained completely, but I don't see how that is cause to believe it to be supernatural.

I suspect we're in agreement, actually, and we're just coming at the problem from different directions.

[Already in Use]

It seems both Pythagoras and Johann Kepler thought music was supernatural. I tried to find a decent link for this, but nothing seemed both informative and reliable. If anyone's interested, try looking for 'music of the spheres.' However, it looks like Kepler knew a lot of what he was doing was astrology rather than serious science.This presupposes a dichotomy between astrology and science that didn't exist at the time, at least not in the way it does today. I would argue that Kepler's "music of the spheres" scheme proposed in Harmonice Mundi was more of a last gasp of the pre-Newtonian philosophy of science, in which scientific theories had to conform to certain aesthetic standards in order to support the premise that the universe follows a divine order.

Harmonice Mundi and its predecessor, Mysterium Cosmographicum, are, however, fascinating works. It's interesting that, given new evidence contradicting his theory of nested Platonic solids, Kepler didn't reject it, but first added an "echinus" (small stellated dodecahedron) and later decided that the whole business about the solids was just God's rough draft, and that the "music of the spheres" model was His finished work.

[blasphmer]

Are you familiar with Leibniz's Gap? I think blasphmer's comment is pertaining to something in that vein.

Any time one tries to reconcile experiential phenomena with the physical neurochemistry that science uses to explain it, there seems to be a disconnect (a gap) between the two that many people (dualists) interpret as proof that there is something transcendent and unusual about the mind.

Or maybe I'm misinterpreting the situation entirely...

Yes, You elegantly and succintly summed up my rather agressive post. I was trying to make the point that jsut because the OP does not "understand" emotions or human reation to stimuli in no way makes it magical, anymore than the fact that people build two story houses is evidence of God.

[WernhamHogg]

It's like what some famous dude said - "Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic" (paraphrased)

The same applies to so called 'miracles'.

That famous dude was Marshall McLuhan.

[WernhamHogg]

Yes, You elegantly and succintly summed up my rather agressive post. I was trying to make the point that jsut because the OP does not "understand" emotions or human reation to stimuli in no way makes it magical, anymore than the fact that people build two story houses is evidence of God.

You are the first one to use the word "magical" in this entire thread.

[blowero]

You are the first one to use the word "magical" in this entire thread.
What exactly is wrong with blasphmer's choice of words? "Magic" seems as good a word as any to describe a phenomenon that is purported to be without a scientific explanation.

[WernhamHogg]

What exactly is wrong with blasphmer's choice of words? "Magic" seems as good a word as any to describe a phenomenon that is purported to be without a scientific explanation.

In my opinion, what the OP and others have offered as mere reflective wonder is quickly and contemptuously dismissed as superstition and silliness by the "smarter" posters. The word "magical" is in this vein of discussion board alpha doggism.

[Marley23]

Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And Lobsang made reference to this before blasphmer did. I think the fact that people consider religious/supernatural stuff to be dignified and magic to be undignified is precisely the point, since they're equally valid as explanations.

[blowero]

In my opinion, what the OP and others have offered as mere reflective wonder

I strongly disagree. The OP clearly says: "Evidence, if ever there was any, that there is a God". That does not constitute mere reflective wonder, but rather a positing of a supernatural entity.

is quickly and contemptuously dismissed as superstition and silliness by the "smarter" posters. The word "magical" is in this vein of discussion board alpha doggism.
I think you're just reacting to his earlier post, which was rather sarcastic. IMO you're criticizing the wrong thing. There's really nothing elitist about using the word "magic" in this context. I don't see any reason that it can't be a synonym for "supernatural".

[WernhamHogg]

Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And Lobsang made reference to this before blasphmer did. I think the fact that people consider religious/supernatural stuff to be dignified and magic to be undignified is precisely the point, since they're equally valid as explanations.

Thanks Marley. McLuhan cites this in "The Medium and the Message," and my memory was fuzzy.

[WernhamHogg]

Supernatural: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

Magical (2): having seemingly supernatural qualities or power

Fair enough, blowero. I didn't take the OP that literally. I think the word we need to introduce to the conversation is "sublime." I think you can be pretty much agnostic and still have a sense of the "sublime" in the arts. It's not very interesting to me to say, "wow, that new Alison Krauss CD really caused my brain to release such and such a chemical and blah blah blah." I'd prefer to just call it "sublime." Anyway, I don't know that the chemical reactions observable aren't an effect. Maybe to call the chemicals themselves the experience is a kind of map-for-the-territory fallacy. It's not like we fall in love because our pulse quickens... it's the other way 'round. As I've said before, for at least 100 years people have studied an observed the corresponding physiology to even the most complex emotional states, but the best of these scientists and philosophers did not feel they had either explained or solved the nature of the experience itself.

[nameless]

As I've said before, for at least 100 years people have studied an observed the corresponding physiology to even the most complex emotional states, but the best of these scientists and philosophers did not feel they had either explained or solved the nature of the experience itself.

Personally, I like the way Paul Churchland argues the mind/body problem the best. He says that physiological, scientific descriptions and experiential phenomenon are simply two different but equally viable ways of interpreting the same internal processes. You interpret these internal processes as an emotion or an experience (with the help of your somatosensory system) and the scientist interprets the internal processes as chemical interactions and equations and so forth. Does comprehensive knowledge of either one lead you to comprehensive knowledge of the other? Of course not, and why should it?

[Urban Ranger]

Are you familiar with Leibniz's Gap? I think blasphmer's comment is pertaining to something in that vein.

Any time one tries to reconcile experiential phenomena with the physical neurochemistry that science uses to explain it, there seems to be a disconnect (a gap) between the two that many people (dualists) interpret as proof that there is something transcendent and unusual about the mind.

Leibniz's Gap specifically, and "God of the gaps" in general.

"God of the gaps" is a very common tactic (read: fallacy) used by theists to "prove" the existence of their god. A theist will point to a gap in our knowledge, something we so far can't explain, and proclaim, "This is where god is."

[blowero]

I didn't take the OP that literally.

I don't know why you didn't. The thread title, "Music is evidence of God" seems pretty straighforward to me. If the OP just wanted to say how great music is, it should have gone in Cafe Society.

I think the word we need to introduce to the conversation is "sublime." I think you can be pretty much agnostic and still have a sense of the "sublime" in the arts.

Of course; I already said so. You can worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn for all I care, and still think music is sublime. But that's not the discussion we're having.

It's not very interesting to me to say, "wow, that new Alison Krauss CD really caused my brain to release such and such a chemical and blah blah blah."

Hmmm...I find such a statement far more interesting than, "That new Alison Krauss CD makes me happy because the supernatural man in the sky made it that way and blabbity blabbity blah."

I'd prefer to just call it "sublime."

Yes, but you didn't start this thread. The person who started this thread didn't just say "sublime", but rather "proof of God". Otherwise, he/she wouldn't have gotten any argument from me.

Anyway, I don't know that the chemical reactions observable aren't an effect. Maybe to call the chemicals themselves the experience is a kind of map-for-the-
territory fallacy.

So you believe that we have emotions first, and that causes the electrochemical processes in the brain? And then what do you believe causes the emotions? God? If so, what process does God use to cause the emotions? Sorry, but I've gotta call Occam's Razor here.

It's not like we fall in love because our pulse quickens... it's the other way 'round.

When did we start talking about blood circulation? Do you think the brain is the same as the circulatory system? That's just silly - brain damage has been observed to dramatically affect people's behavior and emotions; heart damage has not. The function of the brain vs. the function of the heart is extremely well documented. You're trying to set medical science back about 500 years in one fell swoop.

As I've said before, for at least 100 years people have studied an observed the corresponding physiology to even the most complex emotional states, but the best of these scientists and philosophers did not feel they had either explained or solved the nature of the experience itself.
But that doesn't mean we don't know what causes the experience. Experimental data confirms that emotions originate in the brain; we don't have to know exactly why the subjective experience of consciousness exists in order to know from where it originates. I don't know exactly how my computer gets from silicon chips to these letters glowing on my screen, but I know that if I pull the plug right now, the letters aren't going to be there any more, so it's a pretty good guess that they're not being beamed here from Alpha Centauri.

Tell me, what theory do you have that better explains where emotions come from? To say they come from "God" doesn't explain it any better than I have, and has the added disadvantage of not fitting the observational data.