muflax/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion synced 2024-06-18 09:16:48 +02:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

* added religion category

Browse source 
* ported con_exp, crucifixion
* moved nav header to bottom
This commit is contained in:
muflax 2011-09-05 14:50:29 +02:00
parent 4109a4f13b
commit 93b490712e
12 changed files with 263 additions and 675 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

11
content/changelog.mkd
View file

@ -8,8 +8,13 @@ All major changes on the site
{:#changelog}
- 2011/09/04: Converted whole site to [nanoc][]. Most of the content got
re-organized, but not widely changed.
re-organized, but not widely changed. The design is reasonably the same, with
some minor tweaks. The navigation bar is now at the bottom to deal with some
footnote issues.
Every page has an [Epistemic State][] now. This is an important step to
convert this into proper long-term content.
convert this into proper long-term content. Sites are also dated now.
I added the story [Milinda and the Minotaur][] I wrote some time ago, but
never felt like publishing. Thanks to [epistemic states][Epistemic State]
though, I now can.

1
content/index.mkd
View file

@ -20,4 +20,5 @@ the [Twitter][] feed or my [Blog][] for raw thought in smaller chunks.
<%= category :experiments %>
<%= category :reflections %>
<%= category :religion %>
<%= category :software %>

17
content/references.mkd
View file

@ -23,7 +23,11 @@ is_hidden: true
[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
[bible.org]: http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm
[How Dawkins got pwned]: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-5.html
[tripzine]: http://www.tripzine.com/listing.php?smlid=268
[Breaking the Spell]: http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1001
[Swartz Dennett]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dennettdumb
<!-- Wikipedia articles (and similar) -->
@ -38,7 +42,16 @@ is_hidden: true
[Trivialism]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivialism
[A-theory]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series
[B-theory]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series
[Julian Jaynes]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
[Sathya Sai Baba]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba
[Marcion]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope
[Simon Magus]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus
[Arising and Passing Away]: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away?p_r_p_185834411_title=The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away
[Robert M. Price]: http://robertmprice.mindvendor.com
[Tathagata]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81gata
[Langton's Ant]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_ant
[Multiple Drafts]: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Multiple_drafts_model
[Vilayanur S. Ramachandran]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran
<!-- internal links -->
[RSS]: /rss.xml

0
drafts/consciousness/LangtonsAnt.png → content/reflections/LangtonsAnt.png
View file

Side by side Swipe Overlay

Before

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 1.2 KiB

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 1.2 KiB

241
drafts/consciousness/con_exp.mkd → content/reflections/con_exp.mkd
View file

@ -1,11 +1,16 @@
% Consciousness Explained
---
title: Consciousness Explained
date: 2010-05-13
techne: :done
episteme: :discredited
---
This is a little series of thoughts on the book "Consciousness Explained" by
Daniel Dennett. I was having a lot of problems the first time through and gave
up in a rage, but enough people I respect recommended the book. So to find out
if it's just me and my personal bias, I started to read it again, giving Dennett
more credit than before. I comment on most of the book, but might skip parts I
simply agree with and have nothing to say about. I planned to have at least a
simply agree with and have nothing to say about. I planned to have at least a
detailed criticism the second time through, but actually was influenced so much
by it that it quite literally changed my life and whole way of thinking, trying
to sort it all out and somehow refute Dennett.
@ -143,7 +148,7 @@ Susan Blackmore has extensive drug and meditation experiences, as has Sam Harris
and almost everyone else I know that is interested in some aspect of their own
mind. I find it really hard to imagine the mindset of a person that wants to
understand minds, yet doesn't start hacking their own one right away. The term
"ivory tower academic" never seemed more appropriate.
"ivory tower academic" never seemed more appropriate.
But back to the book itself. As I mentioned, I was still, at least partially,
convinced I had experienced strong hallucinations before. So is Dennett's
@ -171,7 +176,7 @@ called "Psychoanalysis":
> [in spite of the final t, applying the noncontradiction override] When the
> dupe returns to the room and begins questioning, he gets a more or less
> random, or at any rate arbitrary, series of yeses and noes in response. The
> results are often entertaining. Sometimes theprocess terminates swiftly in
> results are often entertaining. Sometimes theprocess terminates swiftly in
> absurdity, as one can see at a glance by supposing the initial question asked
> were "Is the story line of the dream word-for-word identical to the story line
> of War and Peace?" or, alternatively, "Are there any animate beings in it?" A
@ -195,7 +200,7 @@ intentions, geometric patterns and so on), and this isn't particularly hard, you
really only need to cut off the regular input (as when sleeping), then the
narrative parts of the brain are in quite a tricky situation. Their job is to
make sense of all that, rationalizing both the outside world and your own
behaviour. This is crucial in social situations; you really wanna figure out
behaviour. This is crucial in social situations; you really wanna figure out
fast who is plotting against you and whom you can trust. In fact, it is so
useful, that even quite a bit of false positives isn't so bad. Some paranoia or
thinking your PC hates you isn't so bad and can even help you analyze situations
@ -205,13 +210,13 @@ given (pseudo-)random noise, it will impose any story it thinks is most natural,
i.e. most of the time other human(oid)s, recent emotions and so on. This is
exactly how dreams work and, in fact, most drug-induced hallucinations as well.
The exact distortion and resulting flexibility in making up a good story depends
on the drug, of course, and is quite interesting in itself.
on the drug, of course, and is quite interesting in itself.
But does this really explain my own strong hallucinations? I was reluctant to
accept this at first, but now have to agree with Dennett here. Thinking back,
accept this at first, but now have to agree with Dennett here. Thinking back,
and based on the most recent experiments, I am forced to concede this point. I
never met an agent, or phenomenon at all, that was able to act against my own
will. James Kent describes this on [tripzine]:
will. James Kent describes this on [tripzine][]:
> However, the more I experimented with DMT the more I found that the "elves"
> were merely machinations of my own mind. While under the influence I found I
@ -226,10 +231,10 @@ will. James Kent describes this on [tripzine]:
> any piece of data I did not already know, nor could their existence be
> sustained under any kind of prolonged scrutiny. Like a dream, once you realize
> you are dreaming you are actually slipping into wakefulness and the dream
> fades. So it is with the elves as well. When you try to shine a light of
> fades. So it is with the elves as well. When you try to shine a light of
> reason on them they dissolve like shadows.
And so I gave up on believing in them, as reality, as Philip K. Dick said, "is
And so I gave up on believing in them, as reality, as Philip K. Dick said, "is
that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". One last thought
one the topic, though: Dennett contradicts himself here. If it is so relatively
easy to lie to the brain, to convince it to see patterns that aren't there - and
@ -255,7 +260,7 @@ Descartes' mind vs. matter, or a more toned down version Dennett calls the
central place where consciousness happens, a seat of the "I", if you will. It is
unfortunate that we still have to deal with this (even though it has been
dismantled by Greek, Indian and many other thinkers for at least 2000 years),
but the illusion is still powerful and has to be addressed.
but the illusion is still powerful and has to be addressed.
I also want to add that Dennett's point here (and later on, when he goes into
the details) is that there is no one central point _where consciousness
@ -321,13 +326,12 @@ like:
> all blurry!" Now didn't you use an image or fleeting diagram of some sort to
> picture the mistake the speaker was making?
I didn't. Humor, or stories in general, tend to be non-visual for
me. They happen "as language", not "as vision", if that makes any
sense. But for other experiences he doesn't emphasize the visual
component and I wonder, doesn't he have one there? He talks a lot
about music and tones, but never mentions seeing music, which I do,
to a degree. Different tones *look* different to me, but they don't
*sound* very different - and least not in any meaningful way.[^vis]
I didn't. Humor, or stories in general, tend to be non-visual for me. They
happen "as language", not "as vision", if that makes any sense. But for other
experiences he doesn't emphasize the visual component and I wonder, doesn't he
have one there? He talks a lot about music and tones, but never mentions seeing
music, which I do, to a degree. Different tones *look* different to me, but they
don't *sound* very different - and least not in any meaningful way.[^vis]
Now, this in itself is not a problem - different parts of the brain doing the
parsing and so on, which (for a multitude of reasons) is very different among
@ -354,11 +358,11 @@ very idea, that like we mean the same animal when we say "dog" (with small
caveats), we mean the same mental state when we say "think of a dog", is, to me,
almost absurd. There is some functional equivalence going on, sure, otherwise
communication would be impossible, but the exact implementations vary so much
that such a catalogue is doomed from the start.
that such a catalogue is doomed from the start.
There is a common advice among users of strong hallucinogenic drugs: If you feel
something discomforting and can't figure out what it is - like you never had
this experience before? Almost certainly, you just have to pee. "When in doubt,
this experience before? Almost certainly, you just have to pee. "When in doubt,
go to the toilet." has so far never let me down, even though the same thing has
felt very different every time.
@ -369,30 +373,30 @@ Die Entdeckung der Langsamkeit
> didn't want to give them an excuse to throw the book across the room. I wanted
> them to feel a little bit bad about their throwing it across the room, maybe
> go and retrieve it and think well, hang on, yes, this irritated me but maybe I
> don't have the right to be irritated.
> don't have the right to be irritated.
>
> -- Daniel Dennett, about [Breaking the Spell]
> -- Daniel Dennett, about [Breaking the Spell][]
Although Dennett meant a different book, he still pretty much sums up how I feel
about "Consciousness Explained". If I actually owned his book, I literally would
have thrown it against the wall. Multiple times, in fact.
have thrown it against the wall. Multiple times, in fact.
But the more I came to think about it and analyzed *why* I disagreed so much
with him, the more I realized that I really had very poor reasons to do so. No
matter how weak I thought his arguments were, I couldn't just reject them
without good arguments of my own, and I found out I didn't have any!
without good arguments of my own, and I found out I didn't have any!
To get a better idea of the context Dennett operates in, I needed to first know
all current models of consciousness, which lead to a *tremendous* amount of
reading. I spent a good 4 months or so going through many books per week, trying
to develop a better understanding of the topic, and mostly, to understand my own
motivations and beliefs.
motivations and beliefs.
No matter how much of his work I might find myself agreeing with in the future,
I already am glad I stuck with the book. Dennett raised all hell in my brain and
demonstrated to me quite clearly that I have been in heavy rationalization mode
for some time now. I will have to deconstruct and tear apart a lot more until I
reach internal consistency again, so let's go on!
reach internal consistency again, so let's go on!
Multiple Drafts and Central Meaning
-----------------------------------
@ -417,20 +421,20 @@ Turing machine.
*How can that be?!* It completely surprises me. Such ideas go clearly against my
own experiences, clash with all of my introspections, have been widely and
thoroughly taking apart in all the traditions about consciousness *I* seem to
be aware of, like from Buddhism, Christian and Gnostic mysticism, the whole drug
thoroughly taking apart in all the traditions about consciousness *I* seem to be
aware of, like from Buddhism, Christian and Gnostic mysticism, the whole drug
culture and so on. Really, most of the time the first things a mystic is gonna
tell you is that reality is not fundamental, but can be taken apart, that your
perceptions, emotions and thoughts are independent processes and not *you* and
that the sense of self, the ego, can entirely disappear[^ego]. In fact,
the belief in the self is the very first thing on the way to nirvana a Buddhist
has to overcome. It can take many forms, but the basic experience of selfless
that the sense of self, the ego, can entirely disappear[^ego]. In fact, the
belief in the self is the very first thing on the way to nirvana a Buddhist has
to overcome. It can take many forms, but the basic experience of selfless
existence is one thing really *every* mystic or guru or saint has ever said or
written something about that I just thought it to be common knowledge. How could
you *not* know this? Did you also not know that the sun rises in the
east?[^meaning]
Pandemonium
Pandaemonium
------------
The crucial part in Dennett's draft, I think, is the chaotic and decentral
@ -438,7 +442,7 @@ nature of it. There isn't "one" mind or "one" meaner that does all the meaning,
but many small, independent circuits, often only temporary units that realign
themselves constantly, that cooperate, but also compete with each other for
dominion in the brain. The ultimate results are just the winner of that battle
and may shift or even disagree all the time.
and may shift or even disagree all the time.
This is an astonishing fact, without which *no* action of the brain can ever be
properly understood. Still, it took Dennett, what?, 250 pages to get there?
@ -462,7 +466,7 @@ effectively trying to upgrade a broken system not by fixing it, but by slowly,
tenuously, working around its bugs. The *proper* solution would be to get rid of
the system altogether! Destroy their superstitions, make all their assumptions
crash and contradict each other, lead them into a state of pure chaos from which
nothing old can ever emerge again! Operation Mindfuck!
nothing old can ever emerge again! Operation Mindfuck!
But we don't do this. Buddhism understood this perfectly. *First* you must make
the student enlightened, *then* you can teach them about their mind and
@ -470,7 +474,7 @@ meta-physics and so on. The Buddha never discussed any teaching with a beginner,
simply because it would be impossible. Only *after* you have a prepared mind can
you understand the problem properly. But nothing of this sort happens in modern
science. No neuroscientist is required to learn meditation, or take courses on
philosophy, or given a spiritual challenge: "You are going to take DMT, and
philosophy, or is given a spiritual challenge: "You are going to take DMT, and
until you can properly deal with it, your research will be considered worthless.
When you stop screaming and sobbing like a baby and can sit calmly through it,
we'll read your paper. Otherwise, you haven't even *seen* the real mind, so what
@ -480,27 +484,30 @@ And this shows, again and again. Because of this we get clusterfucks like the
Beyond Belief conference, on which I can really only quote Scott Atran[^atran]:
> I certainly don't see in this audience the slightest indication that people
> here are emotionally, intellectually equipped to deal with the facts of
> changing human knowledge in the context of unchanging human needs, that
> haven't changed much since the Pleistocene. And I *don't* see that there's any
> evidence that science is being used to try to understand the people you are
> trying to convince to join you. So, for example, the statements we've heard
> here about Islam, in this audience, are worse than any comic book statements
> that I've heard about it and make the classic comic books look like the
> Encyclopedia Britannica. Statements about who the Jihadis are, who a suicide
> bomber is, what a religious experience is; except for one person, you haven't
> the slightest idea, you haven't produced one single fact, you haven't produced
> one single bit of knowledge, not a single bit. Every case provided here is an
> N of 1, our own intuition, except for Rama[^rama], who had an N of 2 (one
> brain patient). Luckily, we had *some* diversity. And from there,
> generalizations are made about religion, about what to do about religion,
> about how science is to engage or not engage religion, about what is rubbish
> and what is not. It strikes me that if you ever wanted to be serious and you
> want to engage the public to make it a moral, peaceful and compassionate
> world, you've gotta get real. You've got to get some data. You've got to get
> some knowledge. And you can't trust your own intuitions about how the world
> is. Be scientists! There is no indication whatsoever that anything we've heard
> shows any evidence of scientific inquiry.
> here are emotionally (or) intellectually equipped to deal with the facts of
> changing human knowledge in the context of unchanging human needs; (needs)
> that haven't changed much since the Pleistocene. And I *don't* see that
> there's any evidence that science is being used to try to understand the
> people you are trying to convince to join you.
>
> So, for example, the statements we've heard here about Islam, in this
> audience, are worse than any comic book statements that I've heard about it
> and make the classic comic books look like the Encyclopedia Britannica.
> Statements about who the Jihadis are, who a suicide bomber is, what a
> religious experience is; except for one person, you haven't the slightest
> idea, you haven't produced one single fact, you haven't produced one single
> bit of knowledge, not a single bit. Every case provided here is an N of 1, our
> own intuition, except for Rama[^rama], who had an N of 2 (one brain patient).
>
> Luckily, we had *some* diversity. And from there, generalizations are made
> about religion, about what to do about religion, about how science is to
> engage or not engage religion, about what is rubbish and what is not. It
> strikes me that if you ever wanted to be serious and you want to engage the
> public to make it a moral, peaceful and compassionate world, you've gotta get
> real. You've got to get some data. You've got to get some knowledge. And you
> can't trust your own intuitions about how the world is. Be scientists! There
> is no indication whatsoever that anything we've heard shows any evidence of
> scientific inquiry.
Evasion
=======
@ -537,19 +544,19 @@ I'm sure Dennett would answer that this is a meaningless question to ask and
that's exactly what's infuriating me so much about the book. To me, that is a
perfectly obvious and most important question to ask! The problem is essentially
that Dennett seems to believe that giving a full description is *enough*. It
*isn't*. This is most clearly demonstrated, in my opinion, by [Langton's Ant].
*isn't*. This is most clearly demonstrated, in my opinion, by [Langton's Ant][].
Basically, Langton's Ant is a little ant on an infinite 2-dimensional grid.
Every step, it will look at the color of the field it is on: if it is white, it
colors it black and turns left, or if it is black, it colors it white and turns
right. Afterwards, it moves one field straight ahead and then repeats itself.
right. Afterwards, it moves one field straight ahead and then repeats itself.
There, I just gave you a *full description* of the universe of Langton's Ant. I
left nothing out, all the rules are in there. If you want, you can build your
own genuine Ant from that, without anything missing. But then you observe the
ant and the following happens:
![Langton's Ant builds a highway](LangtonsAnt.png)
![Langton's Ant builds a highway](/reflections/LangtonsAnt.png)
Once the highway is started, the ant will build nothing else anymore. This
*seems* to be true for all possible starting grids, and it has been proven that
@ -629,42 +636,39 @@ points out more the failing of its competition than comes with any strengths of
its own, and so just like Linux, is **highly recommended**. It's what it does to
your mind that counts, not what it actually is.
[^functionalism]:
This chapter makes it look like I have lost all hope in functionalism, but
that's probably a bit to pessimistic just now. Functionalism has lead to
great discoveries and contains many valuable insights, particularly for AI
research, so I'm still sure that it's a worthwhile endeavour for some time
to come, but I do have severe doubts that it will succeed in the end to
explain consciousness. I see no indication so far that it is even powerful
enough to do that, but we'll have to see. There's no reason to abandon
something that still produces results.
[^functionalism]: This chapter makes it look like I have lost all hope in
functionalism, but that's probably a bit to pessimistic just now.
Functionalism has lead to great discoveries and contains many valuable
insights, particularly for AI research, so I'm still sure that it's a
worthwhile endeavour for some time to come, but I do have severe doubts that
it will succeed in the end to explain consciousness. I see no indication so
far that it is even powerful enough to do that, but we'll have to see.
There's no reason to abandon something that still produces results.
[^dmt]:
This is quite close to what many Ayahuasca groups do. Everyone is required
to drink it at least once a week, and for quite a while, they are probably
going to die and go right through hell again and again, until their soul has
become pure and they can begin to learn. This is a rather harsh treatment,
but it works exceptionally well.
[^dmt]: This is quite close to what many Ayahuasca groups do. Everyone is
required to drink it at least once a week, and for quite a while, they are
probably going to die and go right through hell again and again, until their
soul has become pure and they can begin to learn. This is a rather harsh
treatment, but it works exceptionally well.
[^meaning]:
But then, really, it shouldn't have surprised me. This mainstream ignorance
was exactly what drove me away from many scientists (but not science) and
intellectuals. Many times did I experience how a group of generally smart
people would read a text about or by someone who had a mystic experience,
and it doesn't matter whether the mystic content is just incidental or the
only point, and they would completely *miss it*. I didn't even believe this
for years because it is so obvious to me. They may read the Gospel of John,
or talk about the ideas of St. Augustine, or discuss the purpose of
monasteries, and they either never bring up the mystic content or dismiss it
as poetic language. How someone can read the Gospel of John as a *political*
text is beyond me. I would just listen, confused, how they'd discuss some of
Jesus' teaching, say about the kingdom of god for example, and bring forth
all kinds of interpretations; that it is a political vision (maybe a new
state for the oppressed people, or an early form of communism), or that it
is cult rhetoric, or a moral teaching, or a literary metaphor to drive home
a certain point in his parables, and so on, all taking seriously at least as
*possible* interpretations which would now have to be justified or
criticised. It never seemed to occur to them at all that Jesus *meant
[^meaning]: But then, really, it shouldn't have surprised me. This mainstream
ignorance was exactly what drove me away from many scientists (but not
science) and intellectuals. Many times did I experience how a group of
generally smart people would read a text about or by someone who had a
mystic experience, and it doesn't matter whether the mystic content is just
incidental or the only point, and they would completely *miss it*. I didn't
even believe this for years because it is so obvious to me. They may read
the Gospel of John, or talk about the ideas of St. Augustine, or discuss the
purpose of monasteries, and they either never bring up the mystic content or
dismiss it as poetic language. How someone can read the Gospel of John as a
*political* text is beyond me. I would just listen, confused, how they'd
discuss some of Jesus' teaching, say about the kingdom of god for example,
and bring forth all kinds of interpretations; that it is a political vision
(maybe a new state for the oppressed people, or an early form of communism),
or that it is cult rhetoric, or a moral teaching, or a literary metaphor to
drive home a certain point in his parables, and so on, all taking seriously
at least as *possible* interpretations which would now have to be justified
or criticised. It never seemed to occur to them at all that Jesus *meant
exactly what he said*, that he was really speaking of the kingdom of god,
something he had experienced himself and was now reporting on, not something
he had invented in any way or wanted to establish, even though he warns
@ -673,15 +677,14 @@ your mind that counts, not what it actually is.
these things as a given. *Of course* they exist, I had seen the kingdom,
that's what got me interested in learning more about it in the first place.
Surely you all have, too? Wait, no? You are puzzled what he could have
possible meant? What?!
possible meant? What?!
Dennett harshly reminds me of this myopia, most profoundly demonstrated by
philosophers. They have never even seen the terrain, yet they try to draw a
map anyway. No wonder Dennett has to take apart so many ideas I didn't even
consider worth mentioning. I now feel sympathy for Dennett.
[^ego]:
This is often called "ego death" in hallucinogen culture, but also being
[^ego]: This is often called "ego death" in hallucinogen culture, but also being
"born again" in Christian tradition and many other things. It is in my
opinion the defining experience behind all mysticism and the first and most
important requirement for any spiritual progress. The best indicator is
@ -690,11 +693,8 @@ your mind that counts, not what it actually is.
or much worry in general.
[^md]: Dennett has written another good explanation of the multiple drafts model
for [Scholarpedia] including some updates and corrections. I'm not going to
reiterate it here.
[Scholarpedia]: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Multiple_drafts_model
for [Scholarpedia][Multiple Drafts] including some updates and corrections.
I'm not going to reiterate it here.
[^unity]: Later on, Dennett writes, "To begin with, there is our personal,
introspective appreciation of the 'unity of consciousness', which impresses
@ -703,21 +703,21 @@ your mind that counts, not what it actually is.
and with my eyes open is the same stuff: brain circuitry.". This is shortly
followed up with this exercise for the reader: "If all you know is your own
brain programs operating, the whole universe you experience is inside your
head. Try to hold onto that model for at least an hour. Note how often you
head. Try to hold onto that model for at least an hour. Note how often you
relapse into feeling the universe as *outside* you."
[^det]: As a little side note, he did the same thing when arguing that "free
will" still exists in a deterministic world. Our world is not deterministic
(it is, at best, probabilistic) and his re-definition of free will to
something useful in practice because he doesn't want to face reality is very
weak.
weak.
That's like arguing that, while impossible in principle, I can still measure
the momentum of an atom with enough accuracy I would ever need in practice,
therefore I can ignore all the implications of quantum physics. A weak
excuse to save his own world view instead of facing the weirdness of
reality. Also, [Aaron Swartz](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dennettdumb)
has a nice and simple comment on that.
reality. Also, [Aaron Swartz][Swartz Dennett] has a nice and simple comment
on that.
Dennett even goes on to state that in a deterministic world, some events may
actually be _uncaused_, i.e. you can not find a specific cause for them. He
@ -768,7 +768,7 @@ your mind that counts, not what it actually is.
down to the subatomic level, of course, where you will find a guaranteed
proper effect) Or, you go on to create a more abstract framework and
investigate what the cause for a major diplomatic catastrophe of that
magnitude is, without including any specifics.
magnitude is, without including any specifics.
He confuses deterministic causes and narrative causes. He insists on
defending that we are narratively free - we can convince ourselves that we
@ -788,18 +788,9 @@ your mind that counts, not what it actually is.
conclusion came first and the arguments only later. Except Christopher
Hitchens, though, I don't see anyone of them admit that.
[tripzine]: http://www.tripzine.com/listing.php?smlid=268
[Breaking the Spell]: http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1001
[speed reading]: /experiments/speedreading.html
[Langton's Ant]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_ant
[^zombie]:
I'd have to say that I don't know how I stand on the p-zombie issue.
[^zombie]: I'd have to say that I don't know how I stand on the p-zombie issue.
Or rather, I *am* sure that *most* people are p-zombies. I'm not sure if
*all* are, including me.
*all* are, including me.
In fact, I consider it a real possibility that most people *are* less
conscious than mystics are, leading to Dennett actually having less features
@ -815,16 +806,16 @@ your mind that counts, not what it actually is.
you, is one? If they are not, why are you hesitating to say that a bat, a
thermostat and Mickey Mouse are conscious? Absolutely no balls.
[^rama]: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran. Very awesome.
[^rama]: [Vilayanur S. Ramachandran][]. Very awesome.
[^atran]: Unfortunately, I haven't been able to actually read anything by Scott
Atran, but he's very high on my todo. His comments were the highlight of
both BB 1 and 2.
both Beyond Belief 1 and 2.
[^vis]:
You can even hack your brain here and change what part of it handles what.
You can shift, through practice (and not very much, really - a few weeks may
be enough to get very cool results) or drugs, your thoughts from being _an
inner voice_ to _pure text_ to _images_ and so on, and mix-and-match wildly.
I wrote some about that in my experiment on [speed reading].
[^vis]: You can even hack your brain here and change what part of it handles
what. You can shift, through practice (and not very much, really - a few
weeks may be enough to get very cool results) or drugs, your thoughts from
being _an inner voice_ to _pure text_ to _images_ and so on, and
mix-and-match wildly. I wrote some about that in my experiment on
[Speed Reading][].

240
drafts/christ/crucifixion.mkd → content/religion/crucifixion.mkd
View file

@ -1,22 +1,27 @@
% On The Crucifixion
---
title: On the Crucifixion
date: 2011-03-11
techne: :rough
episteme: :broken
---
<div align="center"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="480" height="390" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PZBqsqvfj0Y?fs=1" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PZBqsqvfj0Y?fs=1" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
We know that the crucifixion of Christ is a myth[^1]. We also know that it isn't
unique; there are plenty of life-death-rebirth gods. The theme goes back to at
unique; there are plenty of life-death-rebirth gods. The theme goes back to at
least 2,000BCE in its explicit form. But what's the charm? What is its
attraction?
There are two points that can be made, I believe.
The first would be a [Jaynesian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes)
argument; that the early "reborn" gods are hallucinations of former rulers that
continued beyond their death. The king would give commands, many of which were
in the form of explicit voice-hallucinations by his subjects, and as such they
tended to hang around a while after the king's death. The bodily death of a
person didn't wipe it out completely; resurrection becomes obvious. (I'm not
gonna give a detailed account how this worked, for Jaynes and others have
already done so.) I find this very convincing for many cases. [^2]
The first would be a [Jaynesian][Julian Jaynes] argument; that the early
"reborn" gods are hallucinations of former rulers that continued beyond their
death. The king would give commands, many of which were in the form of explicit
voice-hallucinations by his subjects, and as such they tended to hang around a
while after the king's death. The bodily death of a person didn't wipe it out
completely; resurrection becomes obvious. (I'm not gonna give a detailed account
how this worked, for Jaynes and others have already done so.) I find this very
convincing for many cases. [^2]
In the case of Jesus, however, we have a somewhat different scenario. For one,
it plays out much too late. The bicameral mind would've already largely been
@ -41,10 +46,9 @@ What stands out in Mark's gospel is the lack of a biography. Jesus appears out
of nowhere, gets baptized, heals a lot of people, appoints his staff and finally
is killed. The miracle stories are very non-specific, giving just minimalist
accounts, reminiscent of today's anecdotes about "spiritual healers" (c.f.
[Sathya Sai Baba](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba)). The person
described here is just one con-man among many, with some Jewish justification
thrown in in an obvious attempt to later support his authority over the Jews,
capitalizing on John the Baptist as well.
[Sathya Sai Baba][]). The person described here is just one con-man among many,
with some Jewish justification thrown in in an obvious attempt to later support
his authority over the Jews, capitalizing on John the Baptist as well.
But the tone changes dramatically at the end. Suddenly, Jesus becomes insecure
and actually takes his own practices seriously. Before, you get the impression
@ -141,18 +145,17 @@ have seen so far are miracles stories, interpretations of Jewish law and some
organizational issues.
What we really see happening is a hijacking. Gnostic thinkers, most notably
[Marcion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope) and [Simon
Magus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus)[^10], develop their own
theology, based on Jewish mythology, a rejection of Jewish law and many (mostly
Greek) mystic techniques. To increase mass appeal, they retrofit it into
existing legends and begin a process of "historization", identifying a spiritual
messiah figure with an actual person. Over time, the idea of a Jewish faith
healer as central figure of a cosmic struggle sticks, people like it and the
myth moves. Mark assimilates anecdotes and myth into a plausible story.
Followers like it, but the narrative is severely lacking. Luke and Matthew
rewrite it, introducing many new popular anecdotes, giving Jesus an actual
character and adding a proper arc structure. Now intellectuals can find
something in there, too! That's the way the story should've happened, you know.
[Marcion][] and [Simon Magus][] [^10], develop their own theology, based on Jewish
mythology, a rejection of Jewish law and many (mostly Greek) mystic techniques.
To increase mass appeal, they retrofit it into existing legends and begin a
process of "historization", identifying a spiritual messiah figure with an
actual person. Over time, the idea of a Jewish faith healer as central figure of
a cosmic struggle sticks, people like it and the myth moves. Mark assimilates
anecdotes and myth into a plausible story. Followers like it, but the narrative
is severely lacking. Luke and Matthew rewrite it, introducing many new popular
anecdotes, giving Jesus an actual character and adding a proper arc structure.
Now intellectuals can find something in there, too! That's the way the story
should've happened, you know.
Believing that Jesus must have lived (others say so), and that his teachings
must've been profound (his followers swear by it), mystics start substituting
@ -307,15 +310,14 @@ But what *is* transformed? Now that is the real strength of the crucifixion.
You see, it is a placeholder. It can take on the role of any mystic technique.
It is a universal metaphor. The Gnostic can see Sophia, the Theravadan can see
the [Arising and Passing
Away](http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away?p_r_p_185834411_title=The%20Arising%20and%20Passing%20Away),
the new convert sees hope. What the crucifixion provides is a usable
interpretation for a wide variety of confusing experiences. Instead of having to
deal with the mind and the world as they really are, the crucifixion gives
security. The difficult part of the ongoing transformation has already been done
by someone else, the purpose is clear, the goal relatable. Overcoming death,
freeing the spirit, getting closer to God - pick whatever seems most attractive
to you. The Christ died for all of these, so have faith.
the [Arising and Passing Away][], the new convert sees hope. What the
crucifixion provides is a usable interpretation for a wide variety of confusing
experiences. Instead of having to deal with the mind and the world as they
really are, the crucifixion gives security. The difficult part of the ongoing
transformation has already been done by someone else, the purpose is clear, the
goal relatable. Overcoming death, freeing the spirit, getting closer to God -
pick whatever seems most attractive to you. The Christ died for all of these, so
have faith.
The crucifixion is a Rorschach blot of the psyche.
@ -328,54 +330,47 @@ The crucifixion is a Rorschach blot of the psyche.
>
> -- Dr. Malcolm Long, Watchmen
![](rorschach.jpg)
![](/religion/rorschach.jpg)
[^1]:
[Robert M. Price](http://robertmprice.mindvendor.com), yada yada, Christ
myth proponents not convincing? Do you also believe in
[Oz](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDhDLOiXp7g)? If not, how about
Hercules? If you understand why they are myth, you will understand why
Christ is, too.
[^1]: [Robert M. Price][], yada yada, Christ myth proponents not convincing? Do
you also believe in [Oz](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDhDLOiXp7g)? If
not, how about Hercules? If you understand why they are myth, you will
understand why Christ is, too.
[^2]:
A completely unjustified speculation: the Buddha stands out by being the
[^2]: A completely unjustified speculation: the Buddha stands out by being the
only one that breaks the pattern. He taught within a context that still
accepted general rebirth, so continuing the theme would be very obvious and
in fact, later Buddhists, particularly in the Mahayana tradition, did bring
it back by making Buddha an ascended god, or by inventing the idea of the
Bodhisattva, a being that intentionally ensures its own rebirth to help
others. But in the original story, Buddha was a mortal who distinguished
himself by *not* being reborn. He successfully extinguishes himself
after death and his disciples didn't doubt it. Why is this remarkable? It
would've happened during the transition to conscious minds, according to
Jaynes' theory. There would be lots of remnants around, lots of old ideas
colored by bicameral minds. What the Buddha did, maybe, was achieve full
subjective consciousness(, destroy his personal god called the self) and
teach it to his students, thus killing the dead voices. He wouldn't hang
around after death because he changed the minds of his followers, so he was
truly gone - [tathagata](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81gata). Later
students, already conscious, couldn't understand the remarkableness of this
feat anymore, so they retconned the Samsara story into it, maybe even
actually inverting it. Now the goal of enlightenment is to destroy the
linguistically constructed self and see the world "raw", non-subjectively. I
would strongly suspect that during this retcon, they invented the figure of
the Buddha, moved him closer to their time and assembled his story out of
ongoing myths. The "real" Buddha, the one that brought death to the world,
is almost certainly much older, dating back to maybe 1000BCE.
himself by *not* being reborn. He successfully extinguishes himself after
death and his disciples didn't doubt it. Why is this remarkable? It would've
happened during the transition to conscious minds, according to Jaynes'
theory. There would be lots of remnants around, lots of old ideas colored by
bicameral minds. What the Buddha did, maybe, was achieve full subjective
consciousness(, destroy his personal god called the self) and teach it to
his students, thus killing the dead voices. He wouldn't hang around after
death because he changed the minds of his followers, so he was truly gone -
[Tathagata][]. Later students, already conscious, couldn't understand the
remarkableness of this feat anymore, so they retconned the Samsara story
into it, maybe even actually inverting it. Now the goal of enlightenment is
to destroy the linguistically constructed self and see the world "raw",
non-subjectively. I would strongly suspect that during this retcon, they
invented the figure of the Buddha, moved him closer to their time and
assembled his story out of ongoing myths. The "real" Buddha, the one that
brought death to the world, is almost certainly much older, dating back to
maybe 1000BCE.
[^3]:
Mark and Paul, of course, are likely not really Mark and Paul, but rather
[^3]: Mark and Paul, of course, are likely not really Mark and Paul, but rather
anonymous texts attributed to the fictitious characters. Paul, at least, is
most likely based on a real person, in the same way that Jetpack Hitler
is.
most likely based on a real person, in the same way that Jetpack Hitler is.
[^4]:
Always using the NET bible, as on [bible.org](http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm).
[^4]: Always using the NET bible, as on [bible.org][].
[^5]:
I find it fascinating that there is explicit mention of how fast Jesus died.
Also, his followers took his body right away. This gives some credence to
the idea that his death was faked. However, Jesus does not return in any
[^5]: I find it fascinating that there is explicit mention of how fast Jesus
died. Also, his followers took his body right away. This gives some credence
to the idea that his death was faked. However, Jesus does not return in any
way. He might've successfully gone into hiding (or to India, as some
traditions have it), but that seems a bit too speculative to me. I don't
really see how you could fake a crucifixion, or why you would draw attention
@ -383,90 +378,81 @@ The crucifixion is a Rorschach blot of the psyche.
about the preparations or the sudden death. It would look much more like
Luke.
[^6]:
If you find my dismissal of Mark too harsh, try reading it yourself, but as
if it were new. Imagine we met at a friend's house and I introduce you to
[^6]: If you find my dismissal of Mark too harsh, try reading it yourself, but
as if it were new. Imagine we met at a friend's house and I introduce you to
some text I wrote. It's all true, I inform you. It's about my former
Japanese teacher, Takashi, but I wrote it in English for you, translating as
necessary. Try reading Mark that way, substituting Takashi for Jesus, Osaka
for Galilee, Suzuki the Monk for John the Baptist and so on. What would you
think about this Takashi? What is his message? Could you even decipher any?
[^7]:
There is the idea that the New Testament is a (partial) parody. Some parts
[^7]: There is the idea that the New Testament is a (partial) parody. Some parts
of it might be, especially in Acts, but I don't buy it for Mark. It follows
well-known woo-woo con-men structures, has obvious editing mistakes and no
underlying plot. The text is partially manipulative, partially sincere, as
is typical for the genre. Compare with reports about Sai Baba or Osho, for
example.
[^8]:
I'm eagerly awaiting Price' upcoming book, "The Amazing Colossal Apostle".
[^8]: I'm eagerly awaiting Price' upcoming book, "The Amazing Colossal Apostle".
I'm certainly seeing the merit of rejecting all Pauline letters as authentic
already, but I'm not fully convinced yet. Also, I didn't want to make my
analysis contingent on it.
[^9]:
I'd love to know what exact practices Paul is talking about. I suspect
[^9]: I'd love to know what exact practices Paul is talking about. I suspect
something akin to what modern Pentecostals are doing.
[^10]:
Robert Price identifies Simon Magus as Paul. I haven't looked much into the
evidence for this yet, but it seems plausible to me.
[^10]: Robert Price identifies Simon Magus as Paul. I haven't looked much into
the evidence for this yet, but it seems plausible to me.
[^11]:
Funny thing is, about a millennium later, the same thing happened to
[^11]: Funny thing is, about a millennium later, the same thing happened to
Christianity, too! The Reformation is nothing but an attempt to rationalize
Catholic dogma. This process continues to this very day, producing Christian
Atheism and Universalism (see Mencius Moldbug's glorious 5-part series [How
Dawkins got
pwned](http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-dawkins-got-pwned-part-5.html)
(link to part 5, which links to previous parts)). Or, as Jaynes said it:
Atheism and Universalism (see Mencius Moldbug's glorious 5-part series
[How Dawkins got pwned][] (link to part 5, which links to previous parts)).
Or, as Jaynes said it:
> What happens in this modern dissolution of ecclesiastical authorization
> reminds us a little of what happened long ago after the breakdown of the
> bicameral mind itself. Everywhere in the contemporary world there are
> substitutes, other methods of authorization. Some are revivals of
> ancient ones: the popularity of possession religions in South America,
> where the church had once been so strong; extreme religious absolutism
> ego-based on "the Spirit", which is really the ascension of Paul over
> Jesus; an alarming rise in the serious acceptance of astrology, that
> direct heritage from the period of the breakdown of the bicameral mind in
> the Near East; or the more minor divination of the *I Ching*, also a
> direct heritage from the period just after the breakdown in China. There
> are also the huge commercial and sometimes psychological successes of
> various meditation procedures, sensitivity training groups, mind control,
> and group encounter practices. Other persuasions often seem like
> escapes from a new boredom of unbelief, but are also characterized by this
> search for authorization: faiths in various pseudosciences, as in
> scientology, or in unidentified flying objects bringing authority from
> other parts of our universe, or that gods were at one time actually such
> visitors; or the stubborn muddled fascination with extrasensory
> perception as a supposed demonstration of a spiritual surround of our
> lives whence some authorization might come; or the use of psychotropic
> drugs as ways of contacting profounder realities, as they were for most
> of the American native Indian civilizations in the breakdown of their
> bicameral mind. Just as we saw in [previous parts of the book] that the
> collapse of the institutionalized oracles resulted in smaller cults of
> induced possession, so the waning of institutional religions is resulting
> in these smaller, more private religions of every description. And this
> historical process can be expected to increase the rest of this century.
> bicameral mind itself. Everywhere in the contemporary world there are
> substitutes, other methods of authorization. Some are revivals of ancient
> ones: the popularity of possession religions in South America, where the
> church had once been so strong; extreme religious absolutism ego-based on
> "the Spirit", which is really the ascension of Paul over Jesus; an
> alarming rise in the serious acceptance of astrology, that direct heritage
> from the period of the breakdown of the bicameral mind in the Near East;
> or the more minor divination of the *I Ching*, also a direct heritage from
> the period just after the breakdown in China. There are also the huge
> commercial and sometimes psychological successes of various meditation
> procedures, sensitivity training groups, mind control, and group encounter
> practices. Other persuasions often seem like escapes from a new boredom of
> unbelief, but are also characterized by this search for authorization:
> faiths in various pseudosciences, as in scientology, or in unidentified
> flying objects bringing authority from other parts of our universe, or
> that gods were at one time actually such visitors; or the stubborn muddled
> fascination with extrasensory perception as a supposed demonstration of a
> spiritual surround of our lives whence some authorization might come; or
> the use of psychotropic drugs as ways of contacting profounder realities,
> as they were for most of the American native Indian civilizations in the
> breakdown of their bicameral mind. Just as we saw in
> [previous parts of the book] that the collapse of the institutionalized
> oracles resulted in smaller cults of induced possession, so the waning of
> institutional religions is resulting in these smaller, more private
> religions of every description. And this historical process can be
> expected to increase the rest of this century.
>
> [...]
>
> Science then, for all its pomp of factness, is not unlike some of the
> more easily disparaged outbreaks of pseudoreligions. In this period of
> transition from its religious basis, science often shares with the
> celestial maps of astrology, or a hundred other irrationalisms, the same
> nostalgia for the Final Answer, the One Truth, the Single Cause. In the
> Science then, for all its pomp of factness, is not unlike some of the more
> easily disparaged outbreaks of pseudoreligions. In this period of
> transition from its religious basis, science often shares with the
> celestial maps of astrology, or a hundred other irrationalisms, the same
> nostalgia for the Final Answer, the One Truth, the Single Cause. In the
> frustrations and sweat of laboratories, it feels the same temptations to
> swarm into sects, even as did the Khabiru refugees, and set out here and
> there through the dry Sinais of parched fact for some rich and brave
> significance flowing with truth and exaltation. And all of this, my
> swarm into sects, even as did the Khabiru refugees, and set out here and
> there through the dry Sinais of parched fact for some rich and brave
> significance flowing with truth and exaltation. And all of this, my
> metaphor and all, is a part of this transitional period after the
> breakdown of the bicameral mind.
[^12]:
Also note that John is trying to provide plausible reasons why Jesus was
taken from the cross so early. Did somebody get accused of fakery, I
wonder?
[^12]: Also note that John is trying to provide plausible reasons why Jesus was
taken from the cross so early. Did somebody get accused of fakery, I wonder?

0
content/reflections/gospel.mkd → content/religion/gospel.mkd
View file

6
content/religion/index.mkd Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
---
title: Religion
is_category: true
---
<%= category :religion %>

0
content/reflections/milinda.mkd → content/religion/milinda.mkd
View file

0
drafts/christ/rorschach.jpg → content/religion/rorschach.jpg
View file

Side by side Swipe Overlay

Before

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 188 KiB

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 188 KiB

6
content/style.css
View file

@ -9,7 +9,9 @@ body {
}
div.main {
margin: 3.5em auto auto;
margin-bottom: 3.5em;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
max-width: 40em;
padding: 0;
}
@ -21,7 +23,7 @@ div.crumb {
line-height: 2em;
position: fixed;
text-align: center;
top: 0;
bottom: 0;
width: 100%;
}

416
drafts/memes/letting_go_of_music.mkd
View file

@ -1,416 +0,0 @@
% Letting Go of Music
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.
[Using Neuroscience for Spiritual Practice]:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1030598948823323439
[Enlightenment, Self and the Brain]:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474604744218568426
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.
[Berryz工房 - Dschinghis Khan]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7pui9Q6Vbo