<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "The Music Tunes You" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/887]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from PeterJ57]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1989119]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Put together two thoughts.

Sounds calm us, inspire us, motivate us.

We have evolved as a pattern recognition engine, able to recognise stimuli which signal danger, opportunity or society actions.

When you are a teenager, your brain seems to set up many of these patterns. The music you listen to as a teenager sticks with you the rest of your life.

I suggest that your brain has linked certain sounds with certain experiences. When you hear that sound, you visualise that experience.

This is different for everyone and is also society and age related (I relax to the blues, younger people like punk). The question is how much of this is simply society and how much is related to individual experiences. I suspect that most people in a country react to the same stuff.

The other question is what sets up these patterns. I suspect broadcast media has a lot to do with it - if we suddenly changed danger in movies from harsh cello to soft violin we would find it odd, but a new generation who grew up with it would simply associate the two.

It seems to me there is massive scope for manipulation simply by understanding this stuff. It can go a lot further than making us react appropriately in movies.

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1989119]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Ardent_Eccentric]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1988981]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Heres a interesting article on bark beetles, and how a particular sound from the beetle itself drives the beetles crazy... The idea is to use the sound to eradicate the beetle from the pine trees the beetle feeds off of... Im curious if this can work on other species.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/bark-beetles-own-bug-songs-drive-them-crazy]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1988981]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from WindowlessOffice]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1988760]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I propose that a moist robot that succeeds in manipulating its internal control algorithms has exercised its free will. So where did the &quot;you-should-manipulate-your-own-algorithm&quot; algorithm come from in the first place? You've already been pre-programmed to tinker with your own programming? And this happened by chance? Let me get this straight. Even though you *can* contemplate and even implement ways to re-program yourself, this is *still* not allowed to be called &quot;free will&quot; because you had already been pre-programmed to re-program? If you created a robot and gave it the necessary coding to re-program itself, haven't you given it free will? No, you say? Because the robot is only as smart of a re-progammer as the ability you've given it? But what if you were infinitely smart? I propose that an infinitely smart programmer could make robots that have free will, even though I'm not currently smart enough to understand how he would do it.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1988760]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from hungrylobster]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987885]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Don't listen to Scott -- his views on free will are just the result of his external conditioning.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[TueAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987885]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from lfstevens]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987702]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Music is the most impactful &quot;sound&quot;. Scott has found music that does what he wants for the gym. There is certainly other music that could be programmed to induce other useful states. Spas often use New Age to create a relaxed state. Dentist offices go with Easy Listening. Retailers seem to use it to show that they are in tune with their customers, rather than to create a specific mood.

I love music but rarely listen to it when I'm trying to concentrate.

There's some interesting stuff on free will in the fascinating book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987702]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from tweyel]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987653]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Check out RockMyRun.com. They've got DJ-mixed selections that are tailored for running. Different BPMs and genres. Seriously changed how I run. Just makes me run faster, and faster, and faster....]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987653]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from DilgalLives]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987566]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&gt; I wonder if hearing sounds of the ocean would relax us. 

There are a number of sleep machines that have pre-programmed sounds, like the ocean, rain, a heartbeat, etc. that claim to help people go to sleep, although I'm not sure if they've been truly studied. It's certainly worth trying. I did find this article on a study where an individual's brain waves were translated into sounds, then played back to them. It seemed to reduce insomnia.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97913&amp;page=1 

Regardless of whether or not people believe in free will, I think pretty much everyone agrees that sounds and music can influence our mood. That's why musical scores for movies are so critical. The theme from jaws was brilliant. There are certain tones and rythms that affect almost everyone in a similar way. The deep tones of a cello work best in music that is relaxing, sombre or forboding - rarely do you hear cello used for happy, lively music. And then of course some sounds are highly subjective. For example, polka music, while up-beat, can act like nails on a chalk board to a lot of people. That's why making individual mix tapes is so popular - you can customize the music to what works for you. 

]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987566]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from whtllnew]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987481]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@flipit

[Scott,
Tell me how you sustain your composure when readers respond with such stupidity to your obvious conclusions regarding free will....]

...Sigh...I didn't want to do this.  I really don't like repeating myself so I decided not to do so in this go-round on the subject of free will.  But in the face of your comment that folks who believe in free will are stupid I must restate my reasons for rejecting Scotts 'moist robot' theory.

Scott is basically following scientific consensus when he says free will is an illusion, but this ignores two things.  

The first is that science is geared towards finding explanations for things and, therefore, explaining behavior.  It is therefore geared towards proving free will doesn't exist.  It should therefore come as no surprise that, after a few centuries, it has managed to come up with a lot of reasonable seeming 'proofs' of the non-existence of free will whether or not free will actually exists.  

The second is that free will is not the only thing that exists outside of science and yet can be said to exist.  Love, hate, fairness and art are examples of other things that do so.  Anything that motivates human thought and action can be said to exist whether or not they exist in a scientific sense.

Lastly, as to the composure you mention, am I the only one that senses in this blog that Scotts composure is starting to fray?  That he's getting tired of folks disagreeing with him on this issue?]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987481]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from uhmdown]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987456]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I think my belief regarding free will is more in the direction of Scotts.
I do believe that free will is an illusion, but I also think that there's a reason for having that illusion. Maybe its like a level of abstraction that our brain naturally contrsucts on all these signals and forces pulling our mind in 17 diffrent directions and our internal filters trying to resist the bad ones, in an attempt to prevent us from going insane.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1987456]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from humilityrocks]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1986037]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[sorry, meant to include link on the senses thing - probably more than five:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1986037]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from humilityrocks]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1986036]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott,

On this topic, I can't tell if you're serious or if you're just inviting the monkeys to prom.  

On a tangent, there are more than 5 senses.  Which was interesting to me as I started thinking about it... if you were in a sensory deprivation chamber, you would still be aware, as an example, of your own thoughts, as well as a few other things.  

I can't buy into the thinking that we're just &quot;brain&quot; and volition is just a compelling illusion.  If you're right, that isn't my fault - as my belief in consciousness is a more complicated form of the wind blowing.

But I would agree with you that stimulous having an impact on mood / performance is a bigger deal that we normally think about.

My wife is a professional musician... and she prepares for a concert in a very specific way - that is reminiscent of a pro athlete, eating the specific food, doing things in a particular order... putting the &quot;game face&quot; on and isn't she just proactively doing what you're describing?  She knows that she needs to do these 11 things, in this order, to perform at the crazy level she performs at.

You talk about your process for working, which seems similar... 

But yeah, if we could figure out ways to participate in our own sharpening, I'm game :)]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1986036]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from jdg]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985930]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Taking charge of one's own control panel is something everyone must do before he can seriously be considered a rational adult.  But turning off the music (except when it helps you) and walking the dog aren't even much of a start.  Try turning off the TV -- especially the news!  Then turn off whatever mobile devices you have, except when you're actively using them.

Life is much more relaxed when you're not constantly being whipsawed by the phony emergencies both political &quot;wings&quot; constantly make up in order to manipulate us into giving them money and power.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985930]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from flipit]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985929]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott,
    Tell me how you sustain your composure when readers respond with such stupidity to your obvious conclusions regarding free will. I fear to venture into the comments section when you write something concerning free will. I had a little dinner party the other evening where the subject came up; I almost tore my hair out. It was all I could do to remain quite on the subject, well sort of quiet. I was amazed that one person recognized that free will was akin to believing in god, but sadly he is a deist and didn't see a problem with that. Gambate.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985929]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Phantom II]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985928]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[It seems most of your posts lately have been some variation of the meat robot theme.  At the root of your non-belief system is a rejection of a creator.  However, if you think of it logically, accepting a creator would make your theory more reasonable.

If some intelligent entity created us, then it could have programmed us like the meat robots you say we are. The only thing standing between the purity of your philosophy vis-a-vis the concept of a creator is that most religions teach the concept of free will.  

I'd suggest you join the late L. Ron Hubbard (no, I don't mean you should become 'late' in the way Slartibartfast meant it when he said it to Arthur Dent) in establishing your own religion: The Church Of The Meat Robot.  Your religion would have much in common with other religions with the exception of the soul and free will.  You could teach people to accept their inner un-ness and their total inability to have any creative thought or the free will to act upon any creative thought, of which they have neither. 

Perhaps you could have an annual 'Lemmings March to the Sea&quot; event, where your followers could symbolically follow you off the cliff into the ocean, thereby proving that they did not have the free will to resist your remarkably uncreative set of stimuli. You could follow this up with a demonstration of your hypnotic abilities, and get your followers to sign over all their earthly belongings to you. Ka-CHING!!

Your philosophy has always seemed contradictory to me. It takes creativity to come up with the concept that there is no creativity, and free will to decide to push it out into the world rather than give it a decent burial, as one would a dead goldfish, by flushing it down the twa-lay, as the French would say.

But as long as your belief in no creativity continues to allow you to create new Dilbert cartoons daily, then I have no problem with your rather charmingly incoherent philosophy.  Keep up the good non-creativity, Scott.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985928]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from mormnguy]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985861]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[At the university I went to, they had a special facility for taking tests. Most professors would send their tests to this &quot;testing center&quot; so they could reserve all of their class time for lecture. This testing center was basically one big room (a former library) with desks from wall to wall and proctors wandering around. 

There was also a smaller room upstairs, open when they had enough workers, called the Music Room. It was  the same concept but with soft jazz or classical music piped in. I should say that I went to a conservative, religious university that believes emphatically in free will. 

I can see the logic in your position - you would say that they piped in music to program our moist robot minds to do well on tests (the university doesn't want their students to fail). I say that by playing music, they were removing an obstacle to free will. That is to say, that free will is an attribute of our spirit and our physical body sometimes gets in the way. By consciously exposing ourselves to certain stimuli, we are trying to bring our body(and its emotions) in line with our spirit's free will. 

You will probably think that I am proof texting my religious beliefs  into this, but I could say the same for you and your determinism. I am saying that both of our beliefs amount to the same things - we listen to music to help us do the things we want to.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985861]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from elimilech]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985857]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[There is a third obstacle to your idea: not all people are identical.  We may well be wet robots, as you believe, but if so, we are quite complex ones, with numerous differences between every two models, some of which are quite subtle.  Thus, stimuli which one person finds soothing, another will find irritating and a third will find energizing.

What I find more likely is a future where each person has their own individual stimuli worked out, much like they are talking about having each person carry their own 'genome chip', which that individual can then manipulate as they will.  Then the robots will be that much closer to true freedom.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985857]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from harrykrak]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985821]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Japanese !$%* zen monks (&quot;emptiness monks&quot;) created Suizen, the art of playing the shakuhachi flute to attain self realisation. It is music without emotional content. While listening to it I create my own moods and my own music. As a European it was a bit weird sounding at first, but as a musician I quickly understood what it was trying to do. If you are worried that music is controlling you, as Scott clearly is, then type Shakuhachi into youtube and listen to some of the results. You might find that you are in fact master of your own emotions. 

Or not.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985821]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from HCG]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985608]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Classical music helps me concentrate, but I find all other types of music distracting.  Brookstone has a device that does part of what you are after.  I bought it for the white-noise generator to help me sleep.  It has 16 different sounds in four categories. The categories are relax, sleep, renew and therapy.  From memory, 1/2 are based on cognitive science research, and have been shown in the lab to encourage specific types of brain waves.  It is called &quot;Tranquil Moments&quot;.  I just did a google search with keywords brookstone, tranquil, and moments, and it popped right up if you are interested.  I can only vouch for the white-noise function.
Cheers,
HCG]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatAMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985608]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RavenBlack]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985519]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[&quot;We think we can use our &quot;willpower&quot; to overcome sadness, or focus on what is important, whatever. My view is the opposite. I believe our internal sensation of &quot;mind&quot; is nothing but the end result of external stimulation interacting with our DNA.&quot;

My view is neither of those. We can put willpower in the middle of the process, rather than a cause or an end result - sure, what I'll decide to do is influenced by my environment, but imagining stuff isn't an environmental change and can impact one's mood. Yes, what I imagine can be influenced by my environment, but equally whether I go outside or not (thus my environment) can be influenced by what I imagine.

If you want an expensive toy, you can become more content either by getting the expensive toy, or by deciding you don't want it after all. Problem can be solved externally or internally. The idea that only changing the environment can help is a toxic one for people who have less control over their environment.
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985519]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Dingbat]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985516]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm sitting here in a quiet room at home trying to refocus on work. I have two projects to finish in the next three hours. That is easily doable if I can just...get them done. I would love to know exactly what I need to do focus when I need to do so. Maybe I should go to a coffee shop...]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCSTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1985516]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
