diff --git a/content/references.mkd b/content/references.mkd index 85a0245..2c33edf 100644 --- a/content/references.mkd +++ b/content/references.mkd @@ -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 + + [DXM]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DXM diff --git a/content/reflections/letting_go_of_music.mkd b/content/reflections/letting_go_of_music.mkd new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8283241 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/reflections/letting_go_of_music.mkd @@ -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.