muflax/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion synced 2024-06-26 10:26:48 +02:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

ported letting go of music

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
muflax 2011-09-04 23:22:44 +02:00
parent 1794b23103
commit 4109a4f13b
2 changed files with 419 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

5
content/references.mkd
View file

@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ is_hidden: true
[Spreeder]: http://www.spreeder.com
[nanoc]: http://nanoc.stoneship.org
[PhilPapers Survey]: http://philpapers.org/surveys/
[Berryz工房 - Dschinghis Khan]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7pui9Q6Vbo
[Using Neuroscience for Spiritual Practice]: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1030598948823323439
[Enlightenment, Self and the Brain]: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474604744218568426
<!-- Wikipedia articles (and similar) -->
[DXM]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DXM

414
content/reflections/letting_go_of_music.mkd Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,414 @@
---
title: Letting Go of Music
date: 2010-05-03
techne: :done
episteme: :discredited
---
Motivation
==========
It feels very unusual and strange, after thinking critically about the
arguments, assessing the evidence and forming a rational conclusion, to arrive
at a position that nowadays only two groups share: Christian puritans and the
Taliban. It makes me very uncomfortable, but I let's give the argument a good
shot anyway.
What conclusion am I talking about? *Music is a parasite*, or in practical
terms, *Music exploits you*. This is a radical statement, so initial skepticism
is very much understandable. If it comforts you, let me get one thing out of the
way: I do not object to music out of "spiritual" or "religious" reasons, which,
unfortunately, seems to be the most common case. Most likely, music does not
"corrupt your character" or "lead you away from God" or any such nonsense. It is
also not really an argument for asceticism. No, my main argument comes from
memetic theory and a cost/benefit analysis. It is, in principle, a very similar
argument broad forward by atheists against religion. The Four Horsemen of
Atheism (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens,
all truly awesome) have argued very much alike, but against religion. I will
try to show that their reasoning extends to more fields, one of which is music.
This is not meant to falsify or parody their position (I in fact agree with it,
at least partially), but to explore the real ramifications.
Being sensible never got anyone anywhere. I don't believe much in carefully
adjusting. Jumping right into a big unknown and then compromising always seemed
so much more natural to me. If things work out, you are a genius for getting it
right from the start. If they don't, you can always just deny everything.
Before I get going, let's clarify 3 things. Firstly, I will build on memetic
theory, so you will probably need to know what it's about to understand some of
my reasoning. You may want to read "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore or some
of Daniel Dennett's recent books, like "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", or at least
google it. The arguments aren't really very technical, but if you aren't
familiar with basic evolution or what a meme is, then my points may seem alien
to you. To understand the perspective of replicators, it will also help greatly
to read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
Secondly, let's establish a few terms. I will refer to "not having music" as
amusicality, analog to "not believing in god(s)" being atheism. This is totally
different from being tone-deaf, disliking music or the like. To be honest, I'm a
great fan of music, so this is also not a "disgruntled outsider" kind of
argument. Furthermore, I take it as a given that music is a highly advanced
memeplex (i.e. group of memes that support each other), in the same way as
religion or language, and as such is a replicator and subject to evolution, but
independent of genes.
And lastly, why I will bring no argument for amusicality. It might seem odd that
I only attack arguments for music, but have no strong argument of my own why
"not having music" is too be favored. This follows the same logic of atheism:
the one's making the claim are the one's in need of evidence and arguments. The
Null Hypothesis (i.e. "there is no correlation between A and B" or "A doesn't
exist" or similar) is the default position of science. We start off with an
empty set of assumptions and every one we want to add has to be substantiated.
To successfully defend the skeptic position, I only have to dismantle all the
evidence proponents show, not actively prove the impossibility of the claim.
Atheists are used to it in terms of religion: You only show there is no reason
to believe in god(s), you don't need to show there is any evidence against
god(s). This is logically evident, as disproving such claims is often impossible
or simply impractical.
However, my position isn't exactly that bleak. I actually *can*> make one simple
argument for "not having music": it eats up your time. Replace any time you
spend listening to music with something actually beneficial and you are in a
better position. But even if music were "free" (as in, would use up no
resources), my position might still be the rational one.
To be honest, the argument against music isn't entirely unmotivated. (It never
is.) I became so udderly obsessed with music that I just got sick of it all.
Comparing codecs, hardware, different players, optimizations, genres, recording
techniques, musical structure, correct labeling and all this crap, I just got
tired of it; and when I asked myself why I was doing all this in the first
place, what music gave me in return... I got nothing. Nothing worth the effort,
anyway. So it's probably fair to say that I wasn't exactly unbiased.
So let's go and see all the arguments in favor of music. To be clear, it is rare
for anyone to defend *all* of them. But they are, as far as I know, all
proposed seriously and the list is complete. Here we go:
The Argument from History
-------------------------
> Humans have been playing music for, at least, thousands of years and
> probably millions of years. It is completely natural for us to do so. Evolution
> has shaped our brain to encourage this.
This is true, but a fallacy: what *is* can never inform us what *ought* to be.
Evolution has also made men good at killing and raping, for example. (And also
enabled us to use language and science, of course.) What has happened in the
past can inform us, but can not be our sole guide. You must provide actual,
current benefits.
The Argument from Social Integrity
----------------------------------
> Human society is, among other things, united by music. People engage in
> collective music, like festivals, camp fires or choirs. They define their own
> identity through it ("Are you a metalhead, too?"). It is one reason why human
> society is so stable and productive. Do you want to advocate chaos and
> anarchy?
This is probably the strongest general argument in favor of music. It is true
that music is a very important social "glue" and it might very well be true that
society as we know it would not function without it. But the same thing can be
said of religion. There is not a single historical case of a society that got
from family-sized tribes to city-states without major help from religion. That,
however, doesn't make any religion particularly true. And even if this were true
in the past, it doesn't have to be true for the future.
I'll have to admit that I can not completely disprove this argument. I would not
advice on any changes to society, like outlawing music, even though I'd love to
do a proper experiment. But I can point some things out.
First, there *are* societies without music. The most famous one are the Taliban,
who are thriving and have a stable history. They certainly are a competitive and
strong society. Also, the deaf community is active and very tight-knit. The
claim is probably overstated, but might have some justification.
Second, I do understand the danger of trying to experiment on this. What if the
argument is right and we accidentally do harm civilization? Is it really worth
the risk? (I'd like to think so, but I'm also willing to put up with a far
greater risk than most people.)
The Argument from Pleasure
--------------------------
> Humans take great joy from music. It invokes many emotions, from happiness to
> anger to sadness. It gives their life meaning, but also just passes boredom.
This one is easy to argue against, but hard to understand. You do not enjoy
music because of benefits, but because music is shaped (and has shaped you) to
be enjoyable. It (ab)uses your reward system, your fear response, anger response
and so on, to pass itself on. It is self-perpetuating, making you feel good so
you listen to it so you feel good so you listen to it... Memetic evolution
predicts this: brains that are "bored" without music will propagate it more, so
any successful music will incorporate selection for this property. This is
obvious to any outsider, as it is with any drug, but not for the afflicted.
Observe anyone under the effect of a drug, during a panic attack and so on,
while you yourself are neutral, unaffected. They will be blind to it; their
brain pays no attention to this fact.
Arguing that pleasure in itself is a good thing, is tautological at best and
addictive behaviour at worst. If you propose this, then you are in a really bad
position. It is very hard to make a good case for pleasure without also argueing
for direct stimulation of your reward center. You see, Electrodes can be
inserted, a little switch can be attached and you can sit there all day, feeling
great! But even most hedonists do not want to defend this.
The Argument from Morals
------------------------
> Music can influence our moral behaviour. Playing wholesome and delightful
> music to children will shape their character for the better!
This is a bold statement, especially because it has no evidence whatsoever.
There is no psychological study supporting this, no disproportionately large
chunk of deaf people in jail, no connection between crime rate and music
education. If there is any link, it is minuscule.
There is, however, a strong connection between indoctrination and music. Almost
every cult, religion or otherwise strong ideology will use music for its
purposes. Music's strong potential to move people's emotion can easily be
exploited to instill fake unity, bliss or aggression. I would not go so far to
disqualify music for this reason, but reject any moral claims as at least
neutral. If it has positive effects, it might as well have negative ones. You
can not advocate only the one part you profit from.
This argument is sometimes used negatively, e.g. "Modern music corrupts our
children!". If you believe it, you must accept this conclusion as well. Music
censorship, at least partially, would be the only responsible thing to do.
The Argument from Profits
-------------------------
> Billions of dollars are involved. Music is a very profitable
> industry.
So is heroin. I don't feel I have to say more about this; it is such an empty
argument.
The Argument from Benign Symbiosis
----------------------------------
> Music is useful to us. It enhances our ability to recognize patterns. It
> supports the learning of languages. It improves our ability to adopt other
> memes. It has been documented that children that learnt an instrument perform
> better in school. Music can help to treat mental illnesses.
There exists barely any valid research for any of those claims. The strongest is
probably the learning of languages. Basically, this uses musics strong
reproductive capabilities by hijacking it. You take language memes, like a poem,
or just some words, and apply them as text to some music, thereby making them
"stick" a lot better. This seems to work, as far as we can tell. There is, of
course, no conclusive evidence. (This is mostly because of the failure of
language education and linguistics, and unrelated to music, in my opnion.)
But is this worth its price? Are you able to contain it? Recall that you are
using music exactly because it is so fertile. It seems like the opposite of a
safe operation to me. Also, is it really effective? Instead of using music to
get small benefits in school or elsewhere, read books. Learn critical thinking.
Solve puzzles. Address the problem directly, instead of trying to do it through
some remote synergy with a symbiont.
However, it can be argued that music was a major driving force behind the
development of our big brains. We needed more and more capable meme machines to
spread music more reliably, so we were selected for it. We profit from this
because the human brain is largely a universal machine, not specialized for any
particular meme and so all kinds of useful memes spread better as well. Everyone
wants a better memetic "soil", if you want. But if this is true (I suspect it
is), then there is a fiendish little twist to it: We can exploit the parasite
now! Sure, music used us for its own purposes, endowing us with bigger brains to
get a better chance itself, but now that we have those brains, we don't need to
have any affiliation to music anymore! What do we care if music survives? Let's
use those brains for something *good*! So long, and thanks for all the
neurons!
The medical use of music might be justified. Psychotherapy is in a terrible
state right now, but the existing studies seem to support effectiveness of music
in some cases. While I personally would prefer other methods, I would
nonetheless agree that a reasonable case can be made for music *in the hands
of a professional*. And this is the crux: we are talking about serious
illnesses and therapy, certainly not recreational use.
Finally, I feel that this argument is very dishonest. It is really a
rationalisation. No one sits down, thinks "Hey, singing those songs would get me
better test scores in 10 years!" and then does so. You listen to music because
you like it. Later on come the "reasons" and "beliefs" on why it really is good
for you. If I showed studies disproving all such claim, would it change the
argument? Most likely not. You would still listen to music, those scientists be
damned. They are probably frauds anyway!
Argument from Spirituality
--------------------------
> Entweder durch den Einfluss des narkotischen Getränkes, von dem alle
> ursprünglichen Menschen und Völker in Hymnen sprechen, oder bei dem
> gewaltigen, die ganze Natur lustvoll durchdringenden Nahen des Frühlings
> erwachen jene dionysischen Regungen, in deren Steigerung das Subjektive zu
> völliger Selbstvergessenheit hinschwindet. Auch im deutschen Mittelalter
> wälzten sich unter der gleichen dionysischen Gewalt immer wachsende Schaaren,
> singend und tanzend, von Ort zu Ort (...). Es gibt Menschen, die, aus Mangel
> an Erfahrung oder aus Stumpfsinn, sich von solchen Erscheinungen wie von
> "Volkskrankheiten", spöttisch oder bedauernd im Gefühl der eigenen Gesundheit
> abwenden: die Armen ahnen freilich nicht, wie leichenfarbig und gespenstisch
> eben diese ihre "Gesundheit" sich ausnimmt, wenn an ihnen das glühende Leben
> dionysischer Schwärmer vorüberbraust.
>
> -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Geburt der Tragödie [^trans]
[^trans]: Translation:
> Even under the influence of the narcotic draught, of which songs of all
> primitive men and peoples speak, or with the potent coming of spring that
> penetrates all nature with joy, these Dionysian emotions awake, and as
> they grow in intensity everything subjective vanishes into complete
> self-forgetfulness. In the German Middle Ages, too, singing and dancing
> crowds, ever increasing in number, whirled themselves from place to place
> under this same Dionysian impulse. (...) There are some who, from
> obtuseness or lack of experience, turn away from such phenomena as from
> "folk-diseases," with contempt or pity born of consciousness of their own
> "healthy-mindedness." But of course such poor wretches have no idea how
> corpselike and ghostly their so-called "healthy-mindedness" looks when the
> glowing life of the Dionysian revelers roars past them.
This is in my opinion the strongest and at the same time rarest argument. It
surprised me a bit that so many people seem to listen to music for any *other*
reason than this.[^after] But then, mystics have always been in the minority, so
there.
The use of music for spiritual purposes extends to virtually all mystic
practices, be they shamanistic rituals, prayer, meditation or the more modern
drug-based practices, as exemplified by Leary or Crowley.
[^after]: This is a bit after-the-fact rationalisation, though. Like most
people, I started listening to music not voluntarily, but was exposed to it and
simply liked it. Only much later did I discover its great potential and changed
my usage.
In fact, I suspect there is a strong correlation with "being spiritual" and
"liking music". The link may be the ease with which memes can enter your brain -
your memetic immune system, if you want. This holds true for me (I was a gnostic
theist for a long time, having personally talked to several gods and all. It was
a hard struggle towards logic and reason for me.) and many people I know.
Also, there is a strong connection to the amygdala and temporal lobes. I don't
want to reiterate the point here and will just point to the awesome talks on
neurotheology by Todd Murphy, specifically [Using Neuroscience for Spiritual
Practice] and [Enlightenment, Self and the Brain]. There is some great research
popping up in recent years for sure.
Honestly, I don't know how to retain my contrarian attitude here, seeing that I
agree with the argument. You may try to attack spirituality (in the sense of
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 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.
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 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
music, then the most common response is one of disbelief, utterances of "How
empty and meaningless my life would be without music!", of "What is wrong with
you? Are you depressed?", followed by hundreds of recommendations because "There
has to be some music out there that you like! Just listen more to it!".
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 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.
But what now?
> I thought, "Okay, calm down. Let's just try on the not-believing-in-God
> glasses for a moment, just for a second. Just put on the no-God glasses and
> take a quick look around and then immediately throw them off". So I put them
> on and I looked around.
>
> I'm embarrassed to report that I initially felt dizzy. I actually had the
> thought, "Well, how does the Earth stay up in the sky? You mean we're just
> hurtling through space? That's so vulnerable!" I wanted to run out and catch
> the Earth as it fell out of space into my hands...
>
> I wandered around in a daze thinking, “No one is minding the store!” And I
> wondered how traffic worked, like how we weren't just in chaos all the time.
> And slowly, I began to see the world completely differently. I had to rethink
> what I thought about everything. It's like I had to go change the wallpaper of
> my mind.
>
> -- Julia Sweeney, "Letting Go of God (which my title is, of course, an allusion
> to)
That's a bit how I felt at first. Really, can my reasoning be right? It *must*
be wrong! Dvořák's 9th symphony, a parasite? ゆらゆら帝国's "Sweet Spot",
detrimental? Demons & Wizards, really a satanic band? Impossible! And even if,
can I ever be able to let go of them? Can I *not* listen to music? Will I not
die of boredom, depression, isolation? Will it not cheapen my life to be
amusical? Will nostalgia not overpower me?
It began to settle in. I remember the same thing happening to religion. Not
praying, not talking with the gods, not feeling this sense of mystical bliss,
this was really hard for me to accept. But it seemed the only honest thing to
do. The only true understanding you can have. And after a while, the old way
seemed silly. You begin to truly understand the world a bit better, not making
excuses, running down dead ends, but learning an actual powerful lesson. Trying
to understand or work with anything without embracing rationality and science is
always a bad idea.
Safer Use
---------
But there is something important to clarify here: Just because something is a
parasite doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. In fact, most parasites are actually
quite useful to their host. They share a common interest in the hosts well-being,
after all. The crucial thing to understand, though, is that the virus is
interested in its own replication the most. The host will always have to fight
hard to ensure that the relationship is still symbiotic and not exploitative.
Basically, the normal safer use rules apply. Don't overdo it. Establish pauses,
don't repeat anything too much, diversify your tastes. Avoid mainstream sources,
which are mostly characterized by pure popularity. (And ruled by agents that
have the moral strength of tobacco companies.) Don't mix activities too much:
doing something "on the side", all the time, is always strong evidence that it
has become an addiction. You know the drill - make sure you still benefit
enough to make it worth it.
The Future
----------
New habits will grow to fill the void, better habits. New memes will come. The
world goes on.
But then I found this on Youtube: [Berryz工房 - Dschinghis Khan][]
Yes, it's a Japanese cover of the German song *Dschingis Khan*. I don't
know whether they are playing it in heaven or hell, but probably both. So good,
yet so bad... If you ever needed proof that humanity has gone batshit insane,
well... JPOP's the end of all theology, the end of all faith. You may believe
whatever you want why there are no gods around today, but no one, religious and
atheist alike, ever proposed that they simply got too alienated with us. I mean,
JPOP, for Cthulhu's sake! You had all those great ideas for humanity, visions of
paradise, or eternal servitude, or food, or whatever, but at some point, humans
just stopped caring about the sacrifices and the prayers and just went on
covering 70's pop. There's no chance of redemption anymore and from that day on,
the gods simply didn't believe in us anymore. Nyarlathotep might have given us
the atomic bomb, but even he is freaked out by *Hello! Project*. The mad,
monotonous music surrounding Azathoth's throne, I might have identified it.