diff --git a/src/about.pdc b/src/about.pdc index dacb4ca..f2200b8 100644 --- a/src/about.pdc +++ b/src/about.pdc @@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ you want. All content is under a [Creative Commons] Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike 3.0 license. You can do with it whatever the fuck you want, as long as you don't -sell it or make it unfree. +sell it or make it unfree. You can also get the [source], if you want. +[source]: http://github.com/muflax/muflax.com [Creative Commons]: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/de [GPG]: muflax.asc diff --git a/src/changelog.pdc b/src/changelog.pdc index c824898..b0d8605 100644 --- a/src/changelog.pdc +++ b/src/changelog.pdc @@ -29,6 +29,6 @@ All major changes on the site [Determinism]: /reflections/determinism.html [Poetry]: /poetry/ [Rants]: /rants/ -[Good Sleep]: /experiments/good_sleep.html +[Good Sleep]: /experiments/sleep/good_sleep.html [Speed Reading]: /experiments/speedreading.html [Letting Go of Music]: /reflections/letting_go_of_music.html diff --git a/src/experiments/sleep/good_sleep.pdc b/src/experiments/sleep/good_sleep.pdc index 4162bc8..d8f7501 100644 --- a/src/experiments/sleep/good_sleep.pdc +++ b/src/experiments/sleep/good_sleep.pdc @@ -8,8 +8,7 @@ f.lux [f.lux] controls the level of blue your monitor shows and tones it down during the night to allow you to get tired naturally (and not stay up all night, playing ケロロＲＰＧ like _some_ people). There's quite a bit of research to back -it up and I'm actually quite excited. Hey, maybe I won't screw up my schedule so -much anymore! +it up and I achieved some really good results with it. (While [f.lux] has a Linux version, it's just an ugly binary. Use [Redshift] instead. All good distros have it in their repository (i.e., Gentoo).) @@ -50,6 +49,15 @@ angry reflex. Using something that slowly fades into awareness, like slow music, works way better. I also got good results by using TV shows. Waking up to something engaging and interesting is always good. +Unfortunately, I haven't yet tried a strong, gradual light sources, although I +do have my 3 TFTs set up to turn on each morning, so I suspect that it would +help as well. Regardless, all artificial light sources pale in comparison to the +sun, even on a very cloudy day. You aren't able to consciously tell how bright +something really is (because most of human vision is processed as relative to +its surrounding, not in absolutes), so it's easy to get this wrong, but during +my [polyphasic] experiment I found standing outside for even just 5 minutes to +be a great help in waking up. + Caffeine ======== @@ -73,8 +81,14 @@ be really sore and my heartbeat sounded very unhealthy. Nonetheless, getting enough caffeine, especially in the evening, each day greatly improves my sleep, my breathing and my ability to wake up. +Unfortunately, it still blocks adenosine, so I find it harder to fall asleep. +It's quite a paradox state to be in, when you can't fall asleep, but once you +do, you sleep great. I had even considered taking *both* an upper and a downer, +like caffeine and diphenhydramine, but found this too silly (and I dislike all +available downers, including melatonin). [Why Did I Sleep So Well?]: http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/09/03/science-in-action-why-did-i-sleep-so-well-part-10-2/ [f.lux]: http://www.stereopsis.com/flux/ [Redshift]: http://jonls.dk/redshift/ +[polyphasic]: /experiments/sleep/polyphasic_sleep.html diff --git a/src/experiments/speedreading.pdc b/src/experiments/speedreading.pdc index b6e1d06..19d50dc 100644 --- a/src/experiments/speedreading.pdc +++ b/src/experiments/speedreading.pdc @@ -45,22 +45,22 @@ split-brain patients, who don't have a connection between their left and right hemisphere, you actually get two independent consciousnesses and I did read up on people that tried to induce this with normal brains. -Because the left side of vision (i.e. left in both eyes) is handled by the right +Because the left side of vision (i.e. left in both eyes) is handled by the left hemisphere and vice versa, you can wear glasses that have either their left half on each glass blocked by tape or the right side, and only give visual input to one. This actually causes a significant effect if your two hemispheres are currently in disagreement. Some people with depression or anxiety were able to reduce it or turn it almost off temporarily while wearing such glasses! So for example, you feel very nervous with your therapist, block the left side, -everything is the same, then instead block the right side, wosh!, your anxiety +everything is the same, then instead block the right side, woosh!, your anxiety is gone. It comes right back when you take the glasses off, but still, way cool! So by being able to make each hemisphere dominant at will, you can really fuck -with your mood. Find where your language side is (typically the left hemisphere, -thus the right side of vision) and block it - you become more empathetic and -reading gets harder. Block the other, reading is normal, but relating to content -is harder. The effect is typically not that large because both sides are still -internally connected, but I found it quite noticeable. +with your mood. Find where your language side is (typically the left side) and +block it - you become more empathetic and reading gets harder. Block the other, +reading is normal, but relating to content is harder. The effect is typically +not that large because both sides are still internally connected, but I found it +quite noticeable. Anyway, I tried to improve on binocular reading by separating not only between eyes, but sides of vision. Let my left half of my left eye read one thing and @@ -86,24 +86,34 @@ Speed reading involves any technique that makes you read a normal text faster **without sacrificing comprehension**. No, it's not **skimming**: that only tries to give you a basic overview of the text. The idea is to be able to understand the text just as if you had read it "normally", even though the -process of getting there may be very different. +process of getting there may be very different. There are techniques to organize +your reading better, like first skimming through and getting a feel for the +structure and so on, and they are all useful, but that's *not what this is +about*. We want pure reading speed, nothing more, nothing less. But what can be achieved? First, measure your current reading speed. Say, pick a Wikipedia article, read it, time yourself and then count the words. Average -among most people is about *200-250wpm* (words per minute). Good college +among most people is about *150-250wpm* (words per minute). Good college students read at about *300-350wpm*. A fast conventional reader gets up to *500wpm*, maybe *600wpm* if they are really good. Speed reading, on the other -hand, falls into a range of about *800 to 1400wpm*. Because a normal page in a -book has about 350 to 450 words, depending on font size, people typically read -about 30 pages per hour, college students about 50 to 60 and speed readers about -150 to 250. Those numbers are of course averaged over a lengthy text and don't -have to be constant - a difficult paragraph may slow you down and a simple one -may just fly by. +hand, falls into a range of about *800 to 1500wpm*. For some texts and some +people, this can go even higher, but as a reasonable general limit, 1500wpm is +about it. + +Because a normal page in a book has about 350 to 450 words, depending on font +size, people typically read about 30 pages per hour, college students about 50 +to 60 and speed readers about 150 to 250. Those numbers are of course averaged +over a lengthy text and don't have to be constant - a difficult paragraph may +slow you down and a simple one may just fly by. What about **comprehension**? There are two components to it: **understanding** the text and **remembering** it. Understanding means being able to follow it, being able to give a summary of it and so on. Remembering involves still knowing -details, all characters or arguments involved and so on. +details, all characters or arguments involved and so on. Basically, if at the +end of the book, you don't sit around confused what the fuck just happened, you +*understood* the text (and didn't read James Joyce). If you can also pretty much +tell someone everything you just read, you also *remember* it. The two are +usually closely connected, but not always. I am only interested in techniques that *maintain* a high level of comprehension, typically a retention of 80-90% of the content. Sacrificing @@ -128,30 +138,31 @@ like high bandwidth and all the benefits that come with it, this just isn't for you. Finally, a note on **subvocalization**. When reading, there are basically 4 -different ways with regards to sound: +different aspects of sound: 1. *Reading out loud*. This is what beginners may do, or what you do when reading to someone. It was actually quite common in ancient times and the idea that you could read silently was very weird to many Romans. 2. *Reading to yourself internally*. You basically still do the same thing, including moving your tongue, but you don't produce a sound. This is often a - transitional period for early readers (and make no mistake: for every - language I learned, I went through that phase again). It will disappear with - practice. + transitional period for early readers (and quite useful - there is some + evidence, including my own experience, that learning new languages is easier + when subvocalizing). It will disappear on its own once you become more + confident. 3. *Subvocalization*. You still *hear* the sound, but you don't feel that you produce it. Muscle movement doesn't exist (at least not any you would notice) and speed is greatly improved. You often skip words, or only hint at the sound. This is the normal mode for most people to be in, even many deaf (who often are not 100% deaf), and this is the *inner voice* most of us use to - think. + think, at least some of the time. 4. *Reading in silence*. Finally, reading without hearing any associated sound. No inner voice, but direct meaning, just as you look at a map, for example. Because visual processing is, for almost everyone, vastly superior to aural processing you can read much faster that way. Personally, I believe that the - problem is that understanding an inner or outer voice is necessarily - sequential, but the brain never *is* sequential, it is always parallel, so it - simulates it. This is quite slow. Visual processing, on the other hand, is - not - you can parse many parts of an image or scene at the same time and only + problem is that to understand an inner or outer voice, your brain has to + simulate sequential processesing, but the brain is only parallel. This + makes it all quite slow. Visual processing, on the other hand, is not - you + can parse many parts of an image or scene at the same time and only coordinate results at the very end. Also, your visual hardware is far more optimized and greater in size. @@ -168,10 +179,9 @@ that fast? I could credit reading practice. I do read a lot, especially on the web, but that's not all that plausible. I know enough people who easily read just as much -as I was reading at 14 years of age, and I was reading about 400wpm back then, -too. Sure, you need to be fully fluent in a language to do that, but most people -never seem to go beyond 300wpm, no matter how much practice they have reading -texts. +as I was reading at 14, and I was reading about 400wpm back then, too. Most +people never seem to go beyond 250-300wpm, no matter how much practice they have +reading texts. So what *do* I credit? Video games. I'm serious. I played a *lot* of shooters and racing games and this really improves your ability to react *fast* and react @@ -182,25 +192,56 @@ jumps around a lot faster than normal, no matter what they are working on. The typical example is taking a gaming teenager and having their teacher watch. Give the teen a computer menu to figure out, or a form to fill out or something -like this, and watch how desperately the teacher tries to keep up, even though -the teacher surely has plenty more reading practice. Still, no chance -whatsoever, and the same goes for all non-gaming teens. But any gamer will have -no problem, no matter the age. +like this, and watch how the teacher desperately tries to keep up, even though +the teacher surely has more reading practice. Still, no chance whatsoever, and +the same goes for all non-gaming teens. But any gamer will have no problem, no +matter the age. -So if you read only 200 or 300wpm, you are not playing enough. Get Quake 3 or Halo or -Starcraft, a big supply of caffeine and *train*. After a while, your reading -speed will pick up, I'm certain of it. Some people, especially those with ADHD, -may be better at this than others, but most gamers I know read fast, no matter -what their attention span normally is. +So if you read only 200 or 300wpm, you are not playing enough. Get Quake 3 or +Halo or Starcraft, a big supply of caffeine and *train*. After a while, your +reading speed will pick up, I'm certain of it. Some people, especially those +with ADHD, may be better at this than others. Sometimes, a short attention span +really pays.. oh shiny! Turning off subvocalization --------------------------- +The most important change to achieve any kind of real speed is getting rid of +the dependency on subvocalization. The rationale is simple: as long as sound is +involved, in any way, even just at the last step of comprehension, you will not +go faster than about 600wpm. Forget it, it's impossible. + +However, the idea is *not* to permanently turn off subvocalization. It does have +some useful purposes. It's quite good at understanding names, or unknown words, +or reading anything sound-based, like poetry. However, the vast majority of text +is entirely disconnected from sound. (Some languages maybe more than others. +French and English are already only remotely linked to their actual spelling, +but many Chinese languages have basically *no* written pronunciation. It also +has never stopped any scholar from reading old languages, whose sounds have been +lost to us.) Ideally, we would like to read visually whenever possible and only +resort to sound when necessary. + +So let's cut out the middleman. But how? I'm going to present three techniques that +worked for me, but before I do that, I want to address one common problem. + +It is quite typical to worry how to *suppress* subvocalization. How do you *not* +think in a certain way? The short answer is: you don't because you can't. +Thought suppression never works. You can't *learn* to not think of a cow by +*trying* to not think of a cow. Try it yourself! By giving attention to the idea +of a cow, and you must, otherwise you wouldn't know that you are not thinking of +it, it will always come to mind again. However, certainly *can* not think of a +cow - by not giving cows any kind of attention. The same goes for +subvocalization - the following techniques will simply not care about it and +will in fact make it impossible to use it. It will disappear on its own. + Chunking -------- -I highly recommend [Look, Ma; No Hands!], a book that teaches semantic chunking -very well. (And it's short and precise. You get results very fast.) +A chunk is the largest unit of information you take in at once. When you learn +reading, your chunk size is "one letter", slowly building up to "one syllable" +to "one word". Unfortunately, most people stop there. The goal is to enlarge +your chunks to multiple words, maybe even whole sentences at once. Chunking is +the whole meat of speed reading. It's the main trick to discover. Once you read at a very high speed, it really makes a huge difference how large your chunks are. Here's a little demonstration: @@ -209,9 +250,15 @@ your chunks are. Here's a little demonstration: ![chunk size 4](slow.gif) Both animations run at the same reading speed of 1000wpm, but the first one -shows every word on its own, while the second one uses groups of 4. +shows every word on its own, while the second one uses groups of 4. If you watch +it for a while, you should be able to read the second one, but the first one is +a lot more difficult. However, notice that it will also get easier once you know +what the sentence is. This is the trick behind chunking: pattern prediction. If +you have a good clue how a sentence is gonna develop, you can read more of it in +one go. This is why this will only work when you know the language well and the +text contains not too many unfamiliar ideas. -Once you go beyond about 10 chunks / second, visual processing starts lagging +Once you go beyond about 10 chunks/second, visual processing starts lagging behind more and more. After-images, too slow eye movement and so on start interfering with your reading. This means you can read maybe 600wpm if you read every word on its own, but increasing your chunk size from just 1 to 2 @@ -224,10 +271,25 @@ problem here is the size of the area you can keep in focus. Chunking a whole page at once is probably impossible because you could never get all words to be sharp and readable. -Font Size ---------- +A very useful technique for training purposes is **Rapid Serial Visual +Presentation**, or RSVP for short. That's quite a big word, when really, it just +means "flashing words really fast", exactly like the two animations before. -You can only succesfully chunk if you can actually get enough words into focus. +The best RSVP I found is [Eyercize](http://www.eyercize.com), even though it has +the stupidest name *evar*. Nonetheless, it's the only speed reading tool I know +with support for fixation points and complete customization. I usually set it to +2-3 fixation points per line, about 5 lines of context and increasingly higher +speeds. I occasionally ignore the marked line and read the upcoming context +instead, though. [Spreeder](http://www.spreeder.com) is also nice and maybe +easier to use at first. + +I would also recommend [Look, Ma; No Hands!], a book that teaches semantic +chunking very well. It's quite short and precise. You get results very fast. + +To make chunking possible, you have to watch out for the right **font size**. +You can only see about 5 degrees sharp enough to read. If you hold out your arm +and make a piece sign, then your index and middle finger are about 5 degrees +apart. So it is crucial to get enough words into focus. I was often reading texts at very high font sizes, like 30pt or so. Hey, I have bad eye sight and sit quite far away from my monitors. But I found that this @@ -240,36 +302,178 @@ compromise between readability and strain on the eyes. (I also find it hard to read Japanese below 10pt. There just aren't enough pixels left.) At those sizes, the font used matters a lot. I've always been very fond of the -Microsoft fonts, even though I haven't run any of their systems for years. -Regardless, experiment and use something that is clean and very easy to read. +Microsoft fonts, even though I haven't run any of their systems for years. The +Google Droid font is also very nice. Regardless, experiment and use something +that is clean and very easy to read. Speaking of font size, column width matters just as much. It's no use if you see a lot of text, but the current paragraph fits into one huge line across your >20 -inch display. The maximum line length should be about 100 characters or 20 -words. +inch display. Ideally, you would get a whole sentence into your focus at once. +The maximum line length therefore should be about 100 characters or 20 words. If you are a console hacker, then I'd also recommend checking out bitmap fonts. They really shine at such sizes. Remember that you can only fix bugs in code that you see. The more lines fit on your screen, the better you can debug. -Rapid Serial Visual Presentation --------------------------------- +Faster pacing +------------- -Woah, that's a big word, when really, it just means "flashing words really -fast". RSVP +This is where the "speed" in "speed reading" comes from. Chunking is the +requirement, but it on its own won't make you faster. The human body, and that +includes the brain, is very efficient at avoiding work. It is a ruthless +optimizer and always do what is easiest *right now*. Being good at conserving +energy is the reason we are still here, but also why any kind of exercise is so +hard. If you *somehow* can get away with spending less, you will do so. That's +why you only get muscle growth if you push yourself hard enough to make it +absolutely necessary. You will never get stronger just by jogging, and you will +never get faster by reading at a comfortable pace. -Late Binding ------------- +To get faster, we need a kind of setup that makes it easier to process text +faster than anything else. The best way to do this is to externally enforce a +high speed. For digital texts, you can use the RSVP again. I prefer short +sprints, so take a text of at most 5000 words, which is about a longish blog +article. Take your current reading speed and multiply by 2. Use a chunk size you +are comfortable with, or about 3-4 words when in doubt. Try to keep up, but +never slow down. If you missed too much, try again, at the same speed. You may +change the chunk size, but never decrease the words per minute! -Late Binding is a concept from computer science. Basically, instead of resolving -what an expression means right away (like when the program is generated), the -system waits until the latest possible moment. +Don't worry that you will not get everything at first. In fact, don't worry if +the text makes no sense at all. Concentrate and try to get as much as possible. +At first, you may only make out a word here and there. Soon, you make out +groups. Whole chunks. The occasional sentence. Then some meaning returns. That's +when you do the next step - you go *faster*. + +Because the computer shows the text for you, you can't cheat. You can't fall +back and read a sentence again or slow down in any way. You must either pay +attention and use your eyes maximally efficient or you won't understand the +text. + +Here's an idea for an exercise and how I did it. Because I read at 400wpm, I set +my speed to 800wpm. I would read like that for about 5 minutes. Then I increased +my speed to 1000wpm, again for 5 minutes. Then go back a bit, to 900wpm, which +will now seem much easier. Continue alternating between "can kinda keep up" and +"can barely make anything out" for a total of about 30 minutes, maybe an hour at +most. + +The principle behind this is a bit like high-intensity interval training where +you run as fast as you can for 20 seconds, then jog for 10 seconds and repeat +this in total for 5-10 times. The idea is not to be able to always run as fast +as during those sprints, but by putting this huge, but short pressure on your +muscles, to greatly increase your normal speed. + +It is perfectly normal and actually good to be confused and not understand +anything during this exercise. :) This speed is far too fast for your internal +voice to keep up and your brain is under huge pressure to make any sense of what +you are reading asap. Once you go down to a more normal rate, you will actually +overshoot and read faster than you thought would be necessary. Voilà, you read a +bit faster! The brain gets used to this high speed and soon comprehension +returns. In fact, I found that I got bored now if I would read at 400 or 500wpm, +even after just one week! Be warned that this may annoy any non-speed-reading +observer. ;) + +As material I used minor blogs I enjoyed reading, but didn't care too much about +if I missed anything, and novels I had already read or that were kinda +predictable. That way, if you go blank from time to time, you can find back +into the text easily. And it's a great chance to read Twilight without any +guilt! ;) (You can find usable novels in .txt or .pdf form in certain bays or, +for older texts, in the Gutenberg archive, for example.) + +It took me about a week to read 800wpm that way without missing anything. After +two weeks, I could keep up 1000wpm almost all the time, and 1200wpm if I really +concentrated. You don't have to do this all day, but try to do at least 20 +minutes daily. Reading nonlinearly ------------------- +Finally, it's time to fully exploit the parallel processing and to do more +aggressive pattern prediction. It's time to throw away the chains of ~~oppression, +comrade!~~ intended text flow that the author gave us and to read in any order +and any direction that gets to the meaning faster. +Reading nonlinearly means you read text just like you normal look around. You +jump to the points that look most interesting, figure out the context around +them, then jump to the next spot. But if you read everything sequentially, you +can't do that! At least, you'd have to go back and start reading the current +sentence you're in. + +Imagine you looked around like you read. You go into a room and move your eyes +to the upper left, start moving them to the right, line by line, until you have +scanned the whole room. Sure, you would *see* everything eventually, but it +would be *way* stupid and inefficient. Instead, you first have a quick look +around, maybe 2 or 3 unconscious eye movements, to figure out if anyone is in +the room and where the interesting stuff is. Nothing unusual on the floor or +ceiling, so you skip those areas altogether. But you saw something like a face +over there, so you concentrate more on this point until you recognize who it is +(and in what mood they are). This takes maybe a second or so in total, and you +may have only actually looked at 5% of the scene, but you sure know everything +that matters. So why not read that way? + +A good exercise I found was to enforce a time limit per page. I set up a +timer[^pororo] to give me a little beep every 20 seconds, following which I +would *have* to turn the page, no matter how far I was. This would equal a +reading speed of about 800wpm for a small paperback. You do this for maybe 5 +minutes, then go faster. Go to 15 seconds, then 10, then 5. Finally, go back to +20 again. It will now be far easier. + +Sometimes, it was no problem to read a page very fast, but soon I could tell on +first sight if I would be able to make it or not, *before* being conscious of +any content. If I recognized the page as hard, I would scan it rapidly first, +working out the structure and main phrases on it. This would take only a few +seconds, but reduce the difficulty of the page drastically. I could then clarify +the missing pieces, reading them far faster than before. Like with vision, you +first establish where core ideas (=people) or interesting words (=colors) are, +then concentrate on them exclusively. + +Instead of going for whole pages, you can also train to read multiple lines at +once. At first, start with 1 second per line, for maybe a minute. Read any way +you want, but after 1 second, move on to the next line. It helps to trace the +lines with your finger or a pen to enforce a consistent speed. Then do 2 lines +simultaneously in 1 second, again for a minute. Then 4. Then whole blocks of +texts, ideally whole paragraphs. Such huge blocks are very nice for skimming and +getting a feel for the book, where everything is and what the main ideas will +be, but it's a bit troublesome for normal reading. Still, it took me about 2 +weeks to get used to reading about 2-3 lines at once. I now have a far broader +pattern in which my eyes move over the page, not clinging to every word, but +rather "painting" the page in a zig-zag pattern with a brush about 2-3 lines +thick. + +Another good exercise is to read *backwards*. You start at the end of the line +and right to the beginning, i.e. for an English text, you read right-to-left. +Once you got a bit of practice at that, you can alternate and read in a zig-zag +pattern. The advantage is two-fold: you save a lot of eye movement and you get +used to understanding sentences out of order. + +Combined with a harsh time limit, I found that this exercise greatly improved my +ability to jump in the middle of a paragraph, figure out what's going on and +assemble meaning by moving into all directions, not just left-to-right.[^ltr] + +[^ltr]: + It may help if you are used to multiple languages that have a different + word order or writing direction. German and Japanese, for example, build up + quite large word stacks and you may end up with a sentence that keeps on + piling up modifiers and objects without revealing the crucial verb or target + at the end, so maybe this practice makes it easier for me to adapt to + backwards reading than for others. Also, Japanese is read both left-to-right + and up-to-down (and then right-to-left), depending on context, so I'm already + used changing directions. + +Once you go beyond a certain speed, it stops being uniform. I noticed that I can +read consistently at 300-400wpm using my previous techniques, but when speed +reading I vary among 700wpm to 1200wpm from page to page. Especially dialogue +really slows me down. This also means that each book has its own speed, so +measuring reading speeds in "words per minute" stops being useful. "Bits of +information per minute" would be better, but how do you calculate that? [Look, Ma; No Hands!]: http://www.semanticrestructuring.com/lookma.php + [Consciousness Explained]: /reflections/con_exp.html + [DXM]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DXM + +[^pororo]: + I wrote my own timer for such purposes. You can check it out at + http://github.com/muflax/pororo. Basically, you set a timer for each level + of the task, like a 23s timer for the page and a 200page timer for the book. + Alternatively, I used the metronome function of my mp3 player, especially + when reading on the train or when waiting for something. diff --git a/src/reflections/letting_go_of_music.pdc b/src/reflections/letting_go_of_music.pdc index 9335d92..c49b88f 100644 --- a/src/reflections/letting_go_of_music.pdc +++ b/src/reflections/letting_go_of_music.pdc @@ -301,10 +301,10 @@ mystic experiences, not believe in woo) as bad in itself, but this is very rare even among hardcore atheists and materialists. The argument that mystic experiences will lead to pseudoscience or superstitions -is easily disproved; just have a look at how many both scientists mystics are -still clearly rational. Good examples may range from Michael Persinger on the -science side, to Sam Harris somewhere in the middle, and the Dalai Lama on the -religious side. Sure, like any counter-intuitive and large open question, +is easily disproved; just have a look at how many both scientists and mystics +are still clearly rational. Good examples may range from Michael Persinger on +the science side, to Sam Harris somewhere in the middle, and the Dalai Lama on +the religious side. Sure, like any counter-intuitive and large open question, spirituality lends itself to false believes, but that's a general human problem, not something specific to the topic. The answer are good rational practices, not abandoning music. @@ -315,11 +315,11 @@ Conclusion In the end, one thing stands out: many attitudes towards music, and their rationalisation, are indistinguishable from memetic addiction. People are being exploited by music. It has shaped our brain for its reproductive advantages. -Sure, we may have won some sexual selection yourself, but this is of little -concern to music. The memeplex has all characteristics of a virus. It eats up as -much of individual resources as it can without disabling its host. We are -constantly encouraged to listen to more music, get more music, recommend it to -our friends and so on. It spreads for the sake of spreading. Good music is +Sure, we may have won the game of natural selection sometimes, but this is of +little concern to music. The memeplex has all characteristics of a virus. It +eats up as much of individual resources as it can without disabling its host. +We are constantly encouraged to listen to more music, get more music, recommend +it to our friends and so on. It spreads for the sake of spreading. Good music is judged not by its inherent benefits to individuals or the species, but by how popular it is, that is, how good it is at spreading. Being an ear worm is a *good* thing for music to be. If someone states they doesn't listen much to @@ -332,7 +332,7 @@ It sure looks like the behaviour of addicts. If you are not devoted to music, at least a bit, you must try harder! These are memes that ruthlessly exploit their hosts. Natural selection has shaped them to be highly resistant, persuasive and addictive. All of music theory and education is only occupied with how to make -more popular music, how to spread it better, how it increase its impact. It +more popular music, how to spread it better, how to increase its impact. It conveys no message (or only an empty shell of one), it teaches nothing, it gives you nothing except pleasure. It circumvents the purpose of a reward system by directly stimulating it without giving something in return. It is a parasite.