I adore Max Richter's haunting album Blue Notebooks, especially this track. One reviewer says: Most striking of all is "Shadow Journal." … The piece sounds so much like thinking, like turning inward, that the cawing birds at the end of the track bring a jarring end to its reverie.
First of all: I have been listening to this album repeatedly for the last week, ever since this post showed up in my RSS reader and I listened to the sample.
For me, music like this is a drug: it creates a heightened emotional state that I want to hang on to; I listen to it deliberately to induce this emotional state. (Not all music is suited to this purpose, and so that's not the only reason I listen to music -- but it is the reason I listen to music like this.)
I hate to finish a book that affects me in the same way. But reading the same story again diminishes the effect; I've left the world of the story and going back is not the same -- whereas I can put a piece of music on repeat and not leave that mental state until I want to. And fiction feels more artificial -- the story isn't real, and no going back to read it makes it any more real. Music doesn't explicitly create a fictional world to escape to.
I can't listen to emotional music when I'm trying to do something requiring heavy thought, as it's too distracting. Other music is fine as long as it has no understandable words; usually when I am writing it is Bach keyboard works. I don't think listening to contemplative music actually puts me in a state to do better thinking. It does, though, make me want to do something myself that has an effect on the world outside me; it reminds me that people are capable of doing lovely things, and great things, and so I should be capable of it too.
I note that I am a musician myself (only a hoobyist, now), but I am fortunate enough not to always have to listen with a critical ear. (Though it did take some time after doing codec listening tests not to be constantly drawn to the imperfections in lossy encoding anymore.) But I don't read this blog to enter a contemplative state, unless changing my assumptions about things and giving me too many ideas to chew on counts...
Finally, if you like this and want some more beautiful contemplative music, consider listening to Musica Celestis, by Aaron Jay Kernis -- also Fratres, and Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten, both by Arvo Pärt.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are musicians that read your blog to enter a contemplative state.
guilty as charged.
SAI_2100: Indeed. But this is relatively trivial. I now have 91 proofs of the Riemann hypothesis, and you are wasting time better spent studying my 89th. In fact, to help, I have composed a symphony in which the notes represent all the conscious experiences that can arise when grasping the proof and its lemmas. But I digress.
i like the words of "SAI_2100" but where the illusion becomes unbelievable is in the final response, and SAI's implication that each "note" is representative of experiences. i think the harmony/dischord (or lack thereof) is more fundamentally important to the way in which the listener interprets those "agent motivations". this is because the mind has little to do with a single note without context. much as a single word is relatively useless without context.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are musicians that read your blog to enter a contemplative state.
guilty as charged.
SAI_2100: Indeed. But this is relatively trivial. I now have 91 proofs of the Riemann hypothesis, and you are wasting time better spent studying my 89th. In fact, to help, I have composed a symphony in which the notes represent all the conscious experiences that can arise when grasping the proof and its lemmas. But I digress.
i like the words of "SAI_2100" but where the illusion becomes unbelievable is in the final response, and SAI's implication that each "note" is representative of experiences. i think the harmony/dischord (or lack thereof) is more fundamentally important to the way in which the listener interprets those "agent motivations". this is because the mind has little to do with a single note without context. much as a single word is relatively useless without context.
SAI_2100: Art is the output of reflection on the volitional domain. It is an expression of an emotional pattern, thus, art communicates agent motivations to others. Clearly then, its role is social.
Me: Can art help you think?
SAI_2100: Not directly. At least, not in the ‘intellectual’ sense of the word ‘think’. As I stated, art is a medium of communication for agent motivations, which is achieved via the manipulations of emotions in others.
Me: And music?
SAI_2100: Is a linear modality of emotional communication.
Me: So music, doesn’t help you think deep thoughts, just makes you relaxed and motivated, as Hanson says?
SAI_2100: ‘Just’? Hanson should not underestimate the importance of motivations! Indeed art is only operating on your emotions directly, but indirectly this can still be important in directing your thoughts towards coherent goals.
Me: Please elaborate on what art actually is.
SAI_2100: An analogy may help readers grasp the point. Just as, for instance, a software design is a human artifact which communicates an idealized model of the logical content of a system, so, for instance, is a piece of music a human artifact which communicates an idealized model of agent motivations
Me: Good anlogy
SAI_2100: Indeed. But this is relatively trivial. I now have 91 proofs of the Riemann hypothesis, and you are wasting time better spent studying my 89th. In fact, to help, I have composed a symphony in which the notes represent all the conscious experiences that can arise when grasping the proof and its lemmas. But I digress.
Perhaps it would be best, in this context, to regard my calling music a terminal value as a form of figurative language (similar to the way mathematicians use "set of measure zero" in ordinary conversation). I suppose it would be hasty for me or anyone else to claim it is a Terminal Value(TM), since those are rather hard to identify. I merely want to say that the value of music is more terminal and less instrumental than is implied by discussions like the above.
komponisto, I acknowledge that music is important, useful. (Exception: some people do not find music rewarding or evocative; for those people to listen to music is probably not useful. Exception: like Eliezer says, listening to music while proving a theorem or writing a program probably degrades performance at those tasks.)
I just wish you would search longer for instrumental reasons to listen to music before adding it as a terminal value. I know of good instrumental reasons, which sadly I do not have time to describe today. If I remember to describe them later, I will do so on my blog.
Hollerith, the point I was making was that the value of music does not reside in whether it has some salutary effect on other forms of cognition. Maybe you don't think music is important, in which case I beg to differ.
Hopefully, I don't dispute that your statement is a cliche. Sometimes cliches are the result of (widespread) bias. And how would revealing whether or not you've studied fugue compromise your anonymity?
@rw: "Do mathematicians or theoretical physicists listen to music while thinking?"
I'm a mathematician, and I prefer not to listen to music when doing math. Especially when I have to be creative working on a difficult problem, music will distract me. Other times, for instance when typing something up, listening to music can be very recreative.
When I do listen to music (to take a break from thinking), I listen mostly to old guys like Bach or Chopin, or maybe psychedelic rock or new indie stuff. I will try to sample the recommendations given here.
"Do mathematicians or theoretical physicists listen to music while thinking?"
My impression from talking to real mathematicians is no; but in my experience, all the physicists I knew did and do - mostly classical. Many computer programmers I have known do - but only certain kinds. Many genres are indeed distracting.
@Robin
"does music really have "reason that other languages lack"
Western music does have a certain kind of perceptible mathematical order that spoken languages lack. If this can be called reason, then yes.
komponisto, as a general principle I prefer not to compromise what I hope is my anonymity. But I think google search will reveal, like I said, that my position is a bit of cliche (although I think still valid).
"OK, the consensus here seems to be that music mostly relaxes and motivates you and gives you a feeling of depth, as opposed to otherwise helping you think deep thoughts."
While music is playing, I can't do any serious intellectual work (unrelated to the music). It demands too much of my attention, and it doesn't help that I find the notion of "background music" distasteful. (My background: programmer and classical pianist.)
"... does music really have "reason that other languages lack", or does it just make us feel that way?"
It may not have reason that other languages lack, but to me music can induce mental states and emotions that I know no words for. Learning that such nameless mental states even exist is an educational experience all by itself -- no drugs required.
music is a form of Fun, and hence a terminal value in itself.
Readers: every time you declare a new terminal value, God kills a puppy. So think of the puppies and introduce a new terminal value only when it is really important.
Yeah that's a good one particularly once one has the visuals provided by the movie.
I'd like to note that Shutter island from Scorcese used On the Nature of Daylight: http://www.youtube.com/watc...
I saw the movie and recognized it after having pursued the music from this post.
First of all: I have been listening to this album repeatedly for the last week, ever since this post showed up in my RSS reader and I listened to the sample.
For me, music like this is a drug: it creates a heightened emotional state that I want to hang on to; I listen to it deliberately to induce this emotional state. (Not all music is suited to this purpose, and so that's not the only reason I listen to music -- but it is the reason I listen to music like this.)
I hate to finish a book that affects me in the same way. But reading the same story again diminishes the effect; I've left the world of the story and going back is not the same -- whereas I can put a piece of music on repeat and not leave that mental state until I want to. And fiction feels more artificial -- the story isn't real, and no going back to read it makes it any more real. Music doesn't explicitly create a fictional world to escape to.
I can't listen to emotional music when I'm trying to do something requiring heavy thought, as it's too distracting. Other music is fine as long as it has no understandable words; usually when I am writing it is Bach keyboard works. I don't think listening to contemplative music actually puts me in a state to do better thinking. It does, though, make me want to do something myself that has an effect on the world outside me; it reminds me that people are capable of doing lovely things, and great things, and so I should be capable of it too.
I note that I am a musician myself (only a hoobyist, now), but I am fortunate enough not to always have to listen with a critical ear. (Though it did take some time after doing codec listening tests not to be constantly drawn to the imperfections in lossy encoding anymore.) But I don't read this blog to enter a contemplative state, unless changing my assumptions about things and giving me too many ideas to chew on counts...
Finally, if you like this and want some more beautiful contemplative music, consider listening to Musica Celestis, by Aaron Jay Kernis -- also Fratres, and Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten, both by Arvo Pärt.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are musicians that read your blog to enter a contemplative state.
guilty as charged.
SAI_2100: Indeed. But this is relatively trivial. I now have 91 proofs of the Riemann hypothesis, and you are wasting time better spent studying my 89th. In fact, to help, I have composed a symphony in which the notes represent all the conscious experiences that can arise when grasping the proof and its lemmas. But I digress.
i like the words of "SAI_2100" but where the illusion becomes unbelievable is in the final response, and SAI's implication that each "note" is representative of experiences. i think the harmony/dischord (or lack thereof) is more fundamentally important to the way in which the listener interprets those "agent motivations". this is because the mind has little to do with a single note without context. much as a single word is relatively useless without context.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are musicians that read your blog to enter a contemplative state.
guilty as charged.
SAI_2100: Indeed. But this is relatively trivial. I now have 91 proofs of the Riemann hypothesis, and you are wasting time better spent studying my 89th. In fact, to help, I have composed a symphony in which the notes represent all the conscious experiences that can arise when grasping the proof and its lemmas. But I digress.
i like the words of "SAI_2100" but where the illusion becomes unbelievable is in the final response, and SAI's implication that each "note" is representative of experiences. i think the harmony/dischord (or lack thereof) is more fundamentally important to the way in which the listener interprets those "agent motivations". this is because the mind has little to do with a single note without context. much as a single word is relatively useless without context.
Me: What is the function of art?
SAI_2100: Art is the output of reflection on the volitional domain. It is an expression of an emotional pattern, thus, art communicates agent motivations to others. Clearly then, its role is social.
Me: Can art help you think?
SAI_2100: Not directly. At least, not in the ‘intellectual’ sense of the word ‘think’. As I stated, art is a medium of communication for agent motivations, which is achieved via the manipulations of emotions in others.
Me: And music?
SAI_2100: Is a linear modality of emotional communication.
Me: So music, doesn’t help you think deep thoughts, just makes you relaxed and motivated, as Hanson says?
SAI_2100: ‘Just’? Hanson should not underestimate the importance of motivations! Indeed art is only operating on your emotions directly, but indirectly this can still be important in directing your thoughts towards coherent goals.
Me: Please elaborate on what art actually is.
SAI_2100: An analogy may help readers grasp the point. Just as, for instance, a software design is a human artifact which communicates an idealized model of the logical content of a system, so, for instance, is a piece of music a human artifact which communicates an idealized model of agent motivations
Me: Good anlogy
SAI_2100: Indeed. But this is relatively trivial. I now have 91 proofs of the Riemann hypothesis, and you are wasting time better spent studying my 89th. In fact, to help, I have composed a symphony in which the notes represent all the conscious experiences that can arise when grasping the proof and its lemmas. But I digress.
Perhaps it would be best, in this context, to regard my calling music a terminal value as a form of figurative language (similar to the way mathematicians use "set of measure zero" in ordinary conversation). I suppose it would be hasty for me or anyone else to claim it is a Terminal Value(TM), since those are rather hard to identify. I merely want to say that the value of music is more terminal and less instrumental than is implied by discussions like the above.
komponisto, I acknowledge that music is important, useful. (Exception: some people do not find music rewarding or evocative; for those people to listen to music is probably not useful. Exception: like Eliezer says, listening to music while proving a theorem or writing a program probably degrades performance at those tasks.)
I just wish you would search longer for instrumental reasons to listen to music before adding it as a terminal value. I know of good instrumental reasons, which sadly I do not have time to describe today. If I remember to describe them later, I will do so on my blog.
Hollerith, the point I was making was that the value of music does not reside in whether it has some salutary effect on other forms of cognition. Maybe you don't think music is important, in which case I beg to differ.
Hopefully, I don't dispute that your statement is a cliche. Sometimes cliches are the result of (widespread) bias. And how would revealing whether or not you've studied fugue compromise your anonymity?
@rw: "Do mathematicians or theoretical physicists listen to music while thinking?"
I'm a mathematician, and I prefer not to listen to music when doing math. Especially when I have to be creative working on a difficult problem, music will distract me. Other times, for instance when typing something up, listening to music can be very recreative.
When I do listen to music (to take a break from thinking), I listen mostly to old guys like Bach or Chopin, or maybe psychedelic rock or new indie stuff. I will try to sample the recommendations given here.
@rw
"Do mathematicians or theoretical physicists listen to music while thinking?"
My impression from talking to real mathematicians is no; but in my experience, all the physicists I knew did and do - mostly classical. Many computer programmers I have known do - but only certain kinds. Many genres are indeed distracting.
@Robin
"does music really have "reason that other languages lack"
Western music does have a certain kind of perceptible mathematical order that spoken languages lack. If this can be called reason, then yes.
komponisto, as a general principle I prefer not to compromise what I hope is my anonymity. But I think google search will reveal, like I said, that my position is a bit of cliche (although I think still valid).
Do mathematicians or theoretical physicists listen to music while thinking?
@Robin:
"OK, the consensus here seems to be that music mostly relaxes and motivates you and gives you a feeling of depth, as opposed to otherwise helping you think deep thoughts."
While music is playing, I can't do any serious intellectual work (unrelated to the music). It demands too much of my attention, and it doesn't help that I find the notion of "background music" distasteful. (My background: programmer and classical pianist.)
"... does music really have "reason that other languages lack", or does it just make us feel that way?"
It may not have reason that other languages lack, but to me music can induce mental states and emotions that I know no words for. Learning that such nameless mental states even exist is an educational experience all by itself -- no drugs required.
music is a form of Fun, and hence a terminal value in itself.
Readers: every time you declare a new terminal value, God kills a puppy. So think of the puppies and introduce a new terminal value only when it is really important.
@dredrick
I think it's On the Nature of Daylight. There are many home videos for it on youtube. Try: http://www.youtube.com/watc...