Ideas, please :)

[Danaaaa]

Can anyone think of any ways in which music could be looked at from an epistemological perspective? We all know music can affect our cognition, behavior and emotions, but in what ways- if any- can it affect our knowledge? What knowledge issues can it present for us?

[outmywindow]

Yes. Moved from Blogs.

[xNTP]

Since music isn't information, the link can't be direct. But, by influencing your mood, it influences your interpretation of information. You have to draw a link between emotional states and interpretation of information. A crying baby is a good example. If you just had sex (not with the baby, necessarily) or meditated, or painted, or whatever it is you do to calm you down, a crying baby will seem less irritating than if you're depressed.

"But that's just a matter of how much something annoys you" you say. True, but the insights and deductions that follow will be different too. In one case, you're just thinking "STFU, STFU, STFU" while in the other, you're free to think about other things.

Are the music-influenced mood-influenced deductions more or less accurate? I don't know, but it sounds like a cool experiment.

[Danaaaa]

I am aware of how it can influence our emotions thus our "absorbing" of certain information. There was this experiment done where a group of students were asked to listen to music while studying. During the actual examination, some students listened to the same type of music they were listening to while they studied, others listened to music different to the music listened to while studying, and the last group listened to nothing. The results were that the first group of students scored higher than the other two.

You see, I've got lots of interesting information like this. I also wonder if the music we listen to affects our personality or vice versa...I'm just having trouble with the "big question" here. Anyway thanks alot for your input!

[Stoned_Rider]

I am aware of how it can influence our emotions thus our "absorbing" of certain information. There was this experiment done where a group of students were asked to listen to music while studying. During the actual examination, some students listened to the same type of music they were listening to while they studied, others listened to music different to the music listened to while studying, and the last group listened to nothing. The results were that the first group of students scored higher than the other two.

In this example, the actual content and genre of the music would not really matter, since it is only used as an "anchor" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_%28NLP%29) to facilitate memory recall. I don't think it has to do with a certain type of music that evokes a certain type of emotion/state of mind, which in turn makes it easier to absorb knowledge (otherwise, the students would not really need to listen to the same music again during the exam. Think about it).

If I understand correctly, you are looking for a unique property in music that can somehow affect knowledge itself, or the process of acquiring knowledge (not merely memory recall). I know that listening to a lot of music can improve musical knowledge (obviously!), but I don't know about any other type of knowledge that music can directly influence. For example, there's plenty of music out there that contains all sorts of facts and messages (political, religious, or otherwise)... but in these cases the music is still only being used as an anchor for memory recall - not so much a "knowledge facilitator".

[Thevenin]

Since music isn't information...

Wrong. Music is information in any technical definition of the word. It is a represented pattern(s) for one thing. It is a series of predetermined sound frequencies of predetermined duration elicited sequentially according to a predetermined timing pattern. Chords and harmonies are additional patterns grafted on, or inherent, in the frequency/timing structure. Tertiary patterns relating to phrasing, dynamics, harmonic resolution, and other parameters are part of the information pattern. There may be a built-in "musical linguistics" determined by the structure of the human brain that has guided the development of music. That is, there may be a template in our brains that determines what we consider to be music as opposed to noise.

After all the above, however, the simple proof that music is information is that it can be stored digitally.

[Ferrus]

Music can affect our knowledge only in so far as it contains coherent information. Whilst, as the aforementioned poster has said, it contains information, the semantic structure of this information is extremely sparse, or rather shallow.

Music is epistemologically bare, partially why Schopenhauer saw it as the most sublime art, abstracting oneself from the miseries of existence.

This much being the case, its emotional impact is unavoidable. Clearly there is, subvening upon the musical structure and notes, information of a pathematic and aesthetic nature. However, even this is rather simplistic, I would venture to suggest, rarely reflecting more than a few key emotions. However the quality of music is often predicated upon its ability to do this - its beauty. Which suggests that whilst both the lower and higher levels of information in music are extremely spartan, the skill of it comes from the considerable degree of complexity inherent in the transposition of the said effects from one level to another.

[Thevenin]

Music can affect our knowledge only in so far as it contains coherent information. Whilst, as the aforementioned poster has said, it contains information, the semantic structure of this information is extremely sparse, or rather shallow.

Music is epistemologically bare, partially why Schopenhauer saw it as the most sublime art, abstracting oneself from the miseries of existence...

I basically agree with you. However, your analysis is typically Ti, which is partially why it appeals to me. An NF might argue that the emotional content (that is, information) of music is greater in terms of his or her emotional (i.e., F) perception than what your argument might merit.

However, within the context of music theory, there are principles that, when followed, cause music to be coherent within and of itself. That is, there has been, and is, a "linguistics" of music, which even may be inherently dictated by the structure and function of the brain, much the way many believe language is. For example, this is why certain chords resolve into others.

Interestingly, in the sense of Claude Shannon's approach to information theory, it could also be argued that when music is recorded, and particularly, recorded digitally, the coherence of the information increases as a result of the coding process. And, also as a result thereof, some amount of "information" is lost.

[Ferrus]

However, within the context of music theory, there are principles that, when followed, cause music to be coherent within and of itself. That is, there has been, and is, a "linguistics" of music, which even may be inherently dictated by the structure and function of the brain, much the way many believe language is. For example, this is why certain chords resolve into others.
Although chords are mathematically determined, even if the physiology of the cochlea might be specifically formed such that it responds too certain harmonics. Nonetheless, the complexity of the music-emotion link, as you say, seems to be largely located in the synaptic structure of the brain - which is why music potentially has other benefits. It is interesting to speculate as to why this evolved thus. Is it a specific off-shoot of language, an atavistic response to analogues 'primal sounds' or something else altogether?

[xNTP]

Wrong. Music is information in any technical definition of the word. It is a represented pattern(s) for one thing. It is a series of predetermined sound frequencies of predetermined duration elicited sequentially according to a predetermined timing pattern. Chords and harmonies are additional patterns grafted on, or inherent, in the frequency/timing structure. Tertiary patterns relating to phrasing, dynamics, harmonic resolution, and other parameters are part of the information pattern. There may be a built-in "musical linguistics" determined by the structure of the human brain that has guided the development of music. That is, there may be a template in our brains that determines what we consider to be music as opposed to noise.

After all the above, however, the simple proof that music is information is that it can be stored digitally.

WROOOOOONGGGG!!!!

What a dork.

Anyway, thank you for that terse discourse on semantics. Does it mean anything? No, because by information, we of course don't mean an "information pattern." By your broad definition, everything is information; indeed, every exchange of the energy could be classified as "a recordable informative pattern" or whatever the fuck you said. The point (which you seem to be missing) is that "information" patterns like that don't give rise to knowledge in and of themselves. They have to be combined with other bits of information to qualify for what most people, and I, call knowledge.

[owarinoTenshi]

WROOOOOONGGGG!!!!

What a dork.

Anyway, thank you for that terse discourse on semantics. Does it mean anything? No, because by information, we of course don't mean an "information pattern." By your broad definition, everything is information; indeed, every exchange of the energy could be classified as "a recordable informative pattern" or whatever the fuck you said. The point (which you seem to be missing) is that "information" patterns like that don't give rise to knowledge in and of themselves. They have to be combined with other bits of information to qualify for what most people, and I, call knowledge.

WROOOOOONGGGG!!!!

What a douche.

Anyway, thank you for that heaping pile of shit. Does anything intrinsically mean anything? No, we learn to extract meaning and information out of "information patterns". Everything that can contain an observable information pattern can have information and produce knowledge, if one is accustomed to understanding the patterns. One could, theoretically (and some people probably do to a certain degree), use music as a communicative means. If one knows the pattern, one could extract what most people, and I, call knowledge.

[xNTP]

WROOOOOONGGGG!!!!

What a douche.

Anyway, thank you for that heaping pile of shit. Does anything intrinsically mean anything? No, we learn to extract meaning and information out of "information patterns". Everything that can contain an observable information pattern can have information and produce knowledge, if one is accustomed to understanding the patterns. One could, theoretically (and some people probably do to a certain degree), use music as a communicative means. If one knows the pattern, one could extract what most people, and I, call knowledge.

WROOOONGGGGG!!!

What a douche's douche.

Of course EVERYTHING COULD BE used to communicate, theoretically. But you've theoretically assumed that the information has acquired some theoretical significance beyond sound, and to date, it hasn't.If you ask me what the capital of Washington is and I say C-minor, do you understand what that means? Because if you do, then I'd say your response was a D-flat major.

[Stoned_Rider]

This shit is hilarious :popcorn:

Edit: I mean, this shit is in A minor.

[Rhu]

But you've theoretically assumed that the information has acquired some theoretical significance beyond sound, and to date, it hasn't.
One could contrive any number of highly probable cases where, in fact, there has been.

A simple and rather common example would be the case where someone borrows a recognizable motif from someone else's music and adds it to their own. Depending on how that borrowed bit was framed, it could communicate a number of different ideas, none of which would be explicitly dependent upon language.


...by [music] influencing your mood...
Information isn't needed to convey a state of mind? Or can a form of communication reach some arbitrary level where it becomes too abstract to be considered informative?

[xNTP]

One could contrive any number of highly probable cases where, in fact, there has been.

A simple and rather common example would be the case where someone borrows a recognizable motif from someone else's music and adds it to their own. Depending on how that borrowed bit was framed, it could communicate a number of different ideas, none of which would be explicitly dependent upon language.

I wouldn't call that conveying knowledge, since the only information that's being conveyed is a description of the thing being used to communicate.
Consider this difference: when I tell you that "my name is Edahn," the sounds I am using represent something that has nothing to do with the sounds themselves. The connection between the meaning of the sounds and the sounds themselves are arbitrary. If however, I use a piece of music to communicate something (lets say, a new motif), the sounds ARE the message. There is no meaning aside from that. The sound (or the difference in sound) hasn't communicated any independent information in the way that words can.


Information isn't needed to convey a state of mind? Or can a form of communication reach some arbitrary level where it becomes too abstract to be considered informative?


Any signal used between two communicators is only as informative as the common significance both communicators ascribe to that signal. If my "candle" means "codfish" to you, our date is going to turn out to be a mess.

[Rozza]

This is probably a case of the more we think we know, the less we understand. :mellow: Very intellectually stimulating responses though. More please.

[Rhu]

The sound (or the difference in sound) hasn't communicated any independent information in the way that words can.
The point really isn't to communicate information in so concrete a way. Just the same, by creating sounds similar to the wails of despair or the neighing of a horse, there is concrete information that can be implied.




Any signal used between two communicators is only as informative as the common significance both communicators ascribe to that signal. If my "candle" means "codfish" to you, our date is going to turn out to be a mess.
Three things here:

When I walk into a Chinese restaurant, I'm pretty sure that although I personally don't understand the language being spoken, I don't assume that there's a lack of informative content in what's being said. It isn't informative to me, certainly, but I never claimed to be able to play the harp.

Second, I'd say that a signal is only informative as the what the end recipient takes out of the signal. Granted, in many types of communication, it may be the goal for the meaning intended to be expressed by the communicator and the understanding taken by the communicatee to converge, but there are times where this isn't the goal at all. There's an element of mystery in some forms of communication--be it in ambiguous language intended to change meaning with the perspective of the listener, or unintended inferences made by the listener based on various revelations due to context.

Finally, though I hate myself for using this as an example: even when subtracting any culture-specific implications, who could say that "Dueling Banjos" doesn't signify a competitive game?

[Thevenin]

What a dork.

Sorry to have offended you. I apologize profusely. However, I might point out that, calling a true INTP a "dork," (and/or a nerd and/or a geek) is redundant, something even you, an xxxx, should know by now. After all, with all your posts, you obviously like being around INTPs, or perhaps you're on a mission to save us.

In my case, being a dork with 15 patents has been extremely lucrative. So, perhaps I'm wrong about this issue, but I've been demonstrably right about other things, that's certain. As to whether you can learn to argue neutrally and intellectually without calling people names remains to be seen. It's safe online--you can say anything you want and get away with it. In person, don't bet on it.

[xNTP]

The point really isn't to communicate information in so concrete a way. Just the same, by creating sounds similar to the wails of despair or the neighing of a horse, there is concrete information that can be implied.

When I walk into a Chinese restaurant, I'm pretty sure that although I personally don't understand the language being spoken, I don't assume that there's a lack of informative content in what's being said. It isn't informative to me, certainly, but I never claimed to be able to play the harp.

I'm going to try and synthesize both strands.

1. Communication is only effective when both the communicator and communicatee have the same understanding of the signal being used to communicate. There has to be some underlying and common "map" whereby the signals correspond to some other meaning since the signals themselves are just symbols devoid of inherent meaning.
2. The sound of baby crying in innately understood as a distress signal, which can be generalized to other organisms. These maps are innate, but they're still maps. (This is not music by conventional standards.)
3. Music is not currently a language in and of itself. Like I said before, you can't criticize someone's post by playing a key on a piano. Hypothetically (and perhaps in some very rare cases) musical sounds could take any some discrete symbolic meaning. I could construct a system where certain piano keys mean danger and other keys mean reward, but currently, most people don't communicate that way. In other words, there is no common map where sounds correspond to deeper meanings.
4. Absent a common map, communication fails.
5. Without communication, the transmission of knowledge is impossible.



Second, I'd say that a signal is only informative as the what the end recipient takes out of the signal. Granted, in many types of communication, it may be the goal for the meaning intended to be expressed by the communicator and the understanding taken by the communicatee to converge, but there are times where this isn't the goal at all. There's an element of mystery in some forms of communication--be it in ambiguous language intended to change meaning with the perspective of the listener, or unintended inferences made by the listener based on various revelations due to context.

Yes, but then the point to communicate is mystery, and that mystery depends on an understanding of misunderstandings. Meaning, you have to know how to avoid coherence but still whet someone's appetite to effectively communicate mystery, in the same way a mystery writer knows how to tease his audience with clues but avoid giving everything away.


Finally, though I hate myself for using this as an example: even when subtracting any culture-specific implications, who could say that "Dueling Banjos" doesn't signify a competitive game?

It does, but I think you're confusing the interaction of the participants with the sounds themselves. We identify the interaction as a game because of the clues that tell us it's a competition; the sounds are only ancillary.

[xNTP]

Sorry to have offended you. I apologize profusely. However, I might point out that, calling a true INTP a "dork," (and/or a nerd and/or a geek) is redundant, something even you, an xxxx, should know by now. After all, with all your posts, you obviously like being around INTPs, or perhaps you're on a mission to save us.

In my case, being a dork with 15 patents has been extremely lucrative. So, perhaps I'm wrong about this issue, but I've been demonstrably right about other things, that's certain. As to whether you can learn to argue neutrally and intellectually without calling people names remains to be seen. It's safe online--you can say anything you want and get away with it. In person, don't bet on it.

Don't apologize; it only makes you look dorkier. I was having fun with you. I get a kick out of people saying WROOONNNNG!!!! and do it myself for fun. The rhetoric is just for kicks.

[Stoned_Rider]

The rhetoric is just for kicks.
Yeah that's what I thought as well. Thevenin's probably a tad too uptight... OR it could well turn out to be just his way of ironically fucking with you (coz INTPs r clever!!!11) :ph34r:

[LastRailway]

During the actual examination, some students listened to the same type of music they were listening to while they studied, others listened to music different to the music listened to while studying, and the last group listened to nothing. The results were that the first group of students scored higher than the other two.

You see, I've got lots of interesting information like this. I also wonder if the music we listen to affects our personality or vice versa...I'm just having trouble with the "big question" here. Anyway thanks alot for your input!

Interesting indeed. Reminds of conditioned stimuli and Pavlov's dogs. I am completely unaware on how music could actually effect knowledge, but it seems that these students were associating information with certain sounds and the repetition of these sounds helped them to recall the information.
I have frequently wondered myself why different cultures produce different kinds of music. It might seem obvious, but I don't get it. The audition mechanism is universally similar, the vibrations are interpreted by similar ways and the frequencies we can hear are rather characteristic of the species.
If it has to do simply with aesthetics then the whole connection of music with knowledge - emotions, etc. could be interpreted in terms of feeling comfortable by listening to a particular type of music, feelings of safety, etc.
Or maybe the aesthetics thing is not that easy as I implied above.
Anyway, I'd look it under a more neurological perspective to avoid to collect too many personal-preferences-influenced information.

[xNTP]

Yeah that's what I thought as well. Thevenin's probably a tad too uptight... OR it could well turn out to be just his way of ironically fucking with you (coz INTPs r clever!!!11) :ph34r:

Combination of being an ultra-polite and somewhat uptight (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=820390&postcount=232) member in a new environment.

Also, I was being an asshole.

[Rhu]

1. Communication is only effective when both the communicator and communicatee have the same understanding of the signal being used to communicate.
I disagree. The effectiveness is still measured by the ability to translate by the object of the communication. While communication is facilitated and expanded by both parties understanding a common map, in the end there's always going to be holes and misunderstandings that will depend on the person being spoken to either filling in the holes himself, or having the holes filled in for him.


There has to be some underlying and common "map" whereby the signals correspond to some other meaning since the signals themselves are just symbols devoid of inherent meaning.
Agreed, caveats to follow.


2. The sound of baby crying in innately understood as a distress signal, which can be generalized to other organisms. These maps are innate, but they're still maps. (This is not music by conventional standards.)
What? Since when? Percussion has always mimicked the sounds of pulses, rain, and violence!

And tubas? They always sound like farts. Or humpback whales. Or humpback whale farts.


3. ... In other words, there is no common map where sounds correspond to deeper meanings.
There are sounds that have common, perhaps unconscious mappings that show up in music.

From those little atomic mappings, you can formulate an emergent vocabulary, just as information can be processed between two people who don't speak the same language establish communication via hand signals.


4. Absent a common map, communication fails.
Boy does it.


5. Without communication, the transmission of knowledge is impossible.
Yep.



Yes, but then the point to communicate is mystery, and that mystery depends on an understanding of misunderstandings. Meaning, you have to know how to avoid coherence but still whet someone's appetite to effectively communicate mystery, in the same way a mystery writer knows how to tease his audience with clues but avoid giving everything away.
Yeah. Like a composer.




It does, but I think you're confusing the interaction of the participants with the sounds themselves. We identify the interaction as a game because of the clues that tell us it's a competition; the sounds are only ancillary.

The song is repetitious.

The song is a series of echoes from one instrument to another, which usually isn't done by a single person.

The song is the echoes between two different performers, why? Is it teaching? Now they're... Ohgod!

The song is an interaction. Hell, any song is an interaction. If you're trying to argue that a song doesn't convey information because individual notes and chords don't have any inherent meaning, you could also argue that the English language doesn't convey information because the schwa sound doesn't have any inherent meaning.

[xNTP]

I disagree. The effectiveness is still measured by the ability to translate by the object of the communication. While communication is facilitated and expanded by both parties understanding a common map, in the end there's always going to be holes and misunderstandings that will depend on the person being spoken to either filling in the holes himself, or having the holes filled in for him.

If the maps were identical, there would be no need for filling gaps. I'm not saying it doesn't help to have a person who can fill in missing gaps, but absent some map, you have no where to start.


What? Since when? Percussion has always mimicked the sounds of pulses, rain, and violence!

And tubas? They always sound like farts. Or humpback whales. Or humpback whale farts.


*Twiddles mustache tips and puffs pipe* I see, I see. [/English accent]


There are sounds that have common, perhaps unconscious mappings that show up in music.

Like? We're talking about meaning here, not moods, which I conceded in my first post.


From those little atomic mappings, you can formulate an emergent vocabulary, just as information can be processed between two people who don't speak the same language establish communication via hand signals.


Theoretically, sure, but I think an "emergent vocabulary" is a stretch. But that depends on the answer to the previous question. ("Like?")


The song is repetitious.

The song is a series of echoes from one instrument to another, which usually isn't done by a single person.

The song is the echoes between two different performers, why? Is it teaching? Now they're... Ohgod!

The song is an interaction. Hell, any song is an interaction. If you're trying to argue that a song doesn't convey information because individual notes and chords don't have any inherent meaning, you could also argue that the English language doesn't convey information because the schwa sound doesn't have any inherent meaning.

I'm not arguing that the sounds don't qualify as information because they don't have inherent meaning. I'm arguing that they don't acquire any secondary meaning in the same way that language does by learned association (e.g., CAT! when a parent points to a cat). The same doesn't occur with musical sounds, so it's unable to support a message.

[owarinoTenshi]

I'm not arguing that the sounds don't qualify as information because they don't have inherent meaning. I'm arguing that they don't acquire any secondary meaning in the same way that language does by learned association (e.g., CAT! when a parent points to a cat). The same doesn't occur with musical sounds, so it's unable to support a message.

Sure, it doesn't occur in ordinary experience, but that does not mean it is fundamentally impossible to convey a message using musical sounds. You would just have to develop a language based on musical sounds and people would have to learn it. As impractical as this would be for a full language like our own, I imagine it would still be possible. A more likely possibility is using musical sounds in a more implicit sort of language to vaguely convey meanings and emotions. (I imagine that this is what "artistic expression" is all about.)

[xNTP]

Sure, it doesn't occur in ordinary experience, but that does not mean it is fundamentally impossible to convey a message using musical sounds. You would just have to develop a language based on musical sounds and people would have to learn it. As impractical as this would be for a full language like our own, I imagine it would still be possible. A more likely possibility is using musical sounds in a more implicit sort of language to vaguely convey meanings and emotions. (I imagine that this is what "artistic expression" is all about.)

Did I say it was fundamentally impossible?

[owarinoTenshi]

You said it's "unable to support a message". I argue it is, technically, able.

[xNTP]

It's unable to support a message since there are no learned association, in the same way parents point to a cat and say "cat!"

[owarinoTenshi]

We don't instill an association, but couldn't we learn an association if we were trained to, just as people are able to learn to understand and communicate through vocal sounds, written characters, hand movements and little bumps?

[mkey]

When listening to music, one is mostly reacting it seems to me. For this reason, the act of listening to music itself involves no creation or intellect, only reaction. What that has to do with anything, I haven?t a clue though.

[Thevenin]

When listening to music, one is mostly reacting it seems to me. For this reason, the act of listening to music itself involves no creation or intellect, only reaction. What that has to do with anything, I haven?t a clue though.

However, the more one is exposed to, and listens to, complex, difficult, "modern" music, the more one is apt to appreciate it, so there is a learning experience that occurs. For example, it is easier to enjoy and appreciate Mozart than the 12 tone music of Schoenberg, or the jazz of Louis Armstrong than that of Miles Davis. The question is, what is one learning? What changes expand one's ability to appreciate greater complexity? Perhaps the patterns in "modern" music are more obscure and less obvious. Maybe they deviate more from some inherent "template" in the brain, and it takes time to learn and adapt so that one can appreciate these new patterns. Learning would seem to imply the development of new neural connections and synapses in the brain.