I originally wrote this like, a month ago and didn't post it 'cause I wasn't sure if it was worth posting. I just reread it and here it is.
So maybe Spotify is better, but Pandora is leaving me somewhat non-plussed. I'm listening to Cool Jazz Radio, but they seem to be filtering out any song longer than 4 minutes. Seriously, I have a longer attention span than that.
It's not bad, it's just not as good as it purports to be. No substitute for a good DJ, or a record store.
I mean, think of how specific a database query can be. Would if I could do that with an online music collection? "Computer, find 25 songs from the genre "Jazz," that has >50 but <100 five star reviews, that was from either Blue Note or Colombia, recorded between June 1965 and April 1972."
Statistics and Data Analysis lead to many insightful findings in science. Couldn't these same tools be used to benefit the arts?
IF emotional state is the main factor causing action, and IF art is the best way to affect someone's emotions, AND art could be scientifically controlled to produce a chosen result...
To cause change in someone's life through a piece of art, you need to have the right combination of things: the internal state, that is the state of the person's mind and emotions, and the external inputs, that is, the information that the person's senses pick up. That's all that's really happening right? Would if we knew as much about that interaction as we did about interactions of chemicals? Obviously right now it's impossible, because there is no way to be accurate enough about measuring the internal state. But we can do much to measure the external state.
I mean, why do we keep science out of the arts? Forget writing art about people doing science, I'm talking about scientifically analyzing great works of art! Forty people go into a dark room and experience a bunch of stuff on the stage for about two hours. TWO HOURS and the course of their entire lives could be drastically changed, they may even change dramatically as people, that is, they may become something else. I'm taking these assumptions based on the self-evaluations that I've heard from people who have seen plays, and from my own observations of myself and others. I mean, they're not scientific observations, so they may be worthless, but doesn't the phenomena at least require more specific study?
Some scientists are already doing this, using active MRI scans on people listening to music, seeing movies, etc. I think more could be done, however.
Now here's the science fiction part: Would if we were able to reliably understand and control the outcomes of artistic experiences (between an individual and a stimulus) with the same accuracy as we can understand and control chemical reactions?
Not only could you make someone think or feel anything you wanted at any given time, you could change them into entirely different people (internally). Would if you could cure depression by showing someone a painting? Having them listen to a song?
-Miracle gun: can create the feeling of divine presence in anyone within 15 yards. 99% effective.
-how about this: a lump of intelligent material that can change its form into something that will infuriate whomever is looking at it. It can only do this for one person at a time, and it doesn't work on blind people.
Of course, if you want to be able to provoke any response possible, you'd need something like the Ultimate Holodeck. It would have to be like a programmable universe, that can create any type of sensory stimulus possible for any required amount of time.
You'd also need the Ultimate Tricorder, which would be a device capable of determining the state of all the relevant internal mechanisms of the subject in the Holodeck, hyper-accurately, as they happen, especially their neural connections and brain chemistry.
Of course, both those devices would have to be limited by the laws of physics, especially the current limits on how accurately you can manipulate or observe matter. I'm also assuming that a person is a closed system, that all aspects of the self are able to be determined from a body. I am also assuming that everything that is important to governing a person is measurable and able to be affected.
We already know that it is very difficult for people to change. Most people go their entire lives without changing very much on a deep level. Would if it was a lot easier to change people, all other factors remaining?
With great power comes great responsibility. And I'd say that as a species, our power has increased significantly over the past few hundred years, and we have already done things that have had drastic unintended consequences.
Will our power keep increasing? Will our understanding increase with it?
A narrative that I have been taught is the narrative of power increasing faster than understanding. That is, we usually have the ability to alter something before we have the understanding of how it works. And I suppose that's how it must be.
If we can never know everything,
and all things are connected,
then whenever we understand something enough to alter it,
we are ALSO altering things we don't understand.
So maybe Spotify is better, but Pandora is leaving me somewhat non-plussed. I'm listening to Cool Jazz Radio, but they seem to be filtering out any song longer than 4 minutes. Seriously, I have a longer attention span than that.
It's not bad, it's just not as good as it purports to be. No substitute for a good DJ, or a record store.
I mean, think of how specific a database query can be. Would if I could do that with an online music collection? "Computer, find 25 songs from the genre "Jazz," that has >50 but <100 five star reviews, that was from either Blue Note or Colombia, recorded between June 1965 and April 1972."
Statistics and Data Analysis lead to many insightful findings in science. Couldn't these same tools be used to benefit the arts?
IF emotional state is the main factor causing action, and IF art is the best way to affect someone's emotions, AND art could be scientifically controlled to produce a chosen result...
To cause change in someone's life through a piece of art, you need to have the right combination of things: the internal state, that is the state of the person's mind and emotions, and the external inputs, that is, the information that the person's senses pick up. That's all that's really happening right? Would if we knew as much about that interaction as we did about interactions of chemicals? Obviously right now it's impossible, because there is no way to be accurate enough about measuring the internal state. But we can do much to measure the external state.
I mean, why do we keep science out of the arts? Forget writing art about people doing science, I'm talking about scientifically analyzing great works of art! Forty people go into a dark room and experience a bunch of stuff on the stage for about two hours. TWO HOURS and the course of their entire lives could be drastically changed, they may even change dramatically as people, that is, they may become something else. I'm taking these assumptions based on the self-evaluations that I've heard from people who have seen plays, and from my own observations of myself and others. I mean, they're not scientific observations, so they may be worthless, but doesn't the phenomena at least require more specific study?
Some scientists are already doing this, using active MRI scans on people listening to music, seeing movies, etc. I think more could be done, however.
Now here's the science fiction part: Would if we were able to reliably understand and control the outcomes of artistic experiences (between an individual and a stimulus) with the same accuracy as we can understand and control chemical reactions?
Not only could you make someone think or feel anything you wanted at any given time, you could change them into entirely different people (internally). Would if you could cure depression by showing someone a painting? Having them listen to a song?
-Miracle gun: can create the feeling of divine presence in anyone within 15 yards. 99% effective.
-how about this: a lump of intelligent material that can change its form into something that will infuriate whomever is looking at it. It can only do this for one person at a time, and it doesn't work on blind people.
Of course, if you want to be able to provoke any response possible, you'd need something like the Ultimate Holodeck. It would have to be like a programmable universe, that can create any type of sensory stimulus possible for any required amount of time.
You'd also need the Ultimate Tricorder, which would be a device capable of determining the state of all the relevant internal mechanisms of the subject in the Holodeck, hyper-accurately, as they happen, especially their neural connections and brain chemistry.
Of course, both those devices would have to be limited by the laws of physics, especially the current limits on how accurately you can manipulate or observe matter. I'm also assuming that a person is a closed system, that all aspects of the self are able to be determined from a body. I am also assuming that everything that is important to governing a person is measurable and able to be affected.
We already know that it is very difficult for people to change. Most people go their entire lives without changing very much on a deep level. Would if it was a lot easier to change people, all other factors remaining?
With great power comes great responsibility. And I'd say that as a species, our power has increased significantly over the past few hundred years, and we have already done things that have had drastic unintended consequences.
Will our power keep increasing? Will our understanding increase with it?
A narrative that I have been taught is the narrative of power increasing faster than understanding. That is, we usually have the ability to alter something before we have the understanding of how it works. And I suppose that's how it must be.
If we can never know everything,
and all things are connected,
then whenever we understand something enough to alter it,
we are ALSO altering things we don't understand.
