Hypothesis: Cell Phone Usage Increases As Enlightenment

[xerosaburu]

Decreases in any given individual.

I just can't imagine an enlightened sage with a bluetooth in his ear.

There's a woman on this trail where I run who has a cell phone glued to her head every day and the whole time her mouth is moving.

I can only imagine the poor soul who has to listen to the incessant dribble oozing from her mind like some kind of disgusting vaginal discharge.

[Tharan]

She may be unenlightened but she is probably cardiovascularly fit. It is a question of priorities.

[Katy]

There's a woman on this trail where I run who has a cell phone glued to her head every day and the whole time her mouth is moving.

Yeah, there's some kids on the bus who never put the damned things down. Who the hell do you need to talk to so badly that you have to call them at 7am from the bus and can't wait 'till you get where you're going, or better yet, till a human time of day. And I love the ones that are like "OK I'm pulling up, so I see you now..."

Don't get me wrong - I like talking to people. But really, people.

Oh and I absolutely detest when people's phones go off in class, especially the middle of an exam. Last year I had a professor say "if your phone goes off, you fail." I loved him.

[со&am]

I just can't imagine an enlightened sage with a bluetooth in his ear.

i have seen, enlightened person using cell phone

eating mcdonalds

catching bus

farting

stubbing toe

[Nick]

со&am,

Is English your second language?

[со&am]

со&am,

Is English your second language?

no

[Carl G]

со&am,

Is English your second language?

no

Third?

Kidding aside, I would restate the hypothesis ("Cell phone usage increases as enlightenment decreases in any given individual") thusly:

The possibility for Enlightenment decreases as cell phone use increases.

The original is nonsensical, the latter is arguable from at least one standpoint:

Because of their convenience and habit-forming proclivity, cell phones are often used while doing other things, which splits the already weak consciousness and attention of most individuals. Phoning someone is different from talking with a companion while driving, walking along, shopping, and so forth. It puts a person in two different places in effect, and reduces chances of Be Here Now.

When I see someone walking while talking into a phone, I always see a person who has effectively left the now, who is not present in the moment, and who has left their body. It is worse than if they were daydreaming. This splitting of self leads to the opposite of Enlightenment, complete sleep with increasing disunity.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I feel the same way about iPods. I'll never be convinced that anyone thinks more clearly with music blaring in their ears.

[Tharan]

With iPods, thinking is not the point. But music can be a platform to thinking, in the same way that books and virtual worlds can be.

[Nordicvs]

I'll never be convinced that anyone thinks more clearly with music blaring in their ears.

...thinking is not the point

You're both ignorant---I've just finished researching (what I've bloody known for 17 years) how rhythmic music settles the brain (deep into the right hemisphere) into frequencies which encourge deep thought. It in fact has a harmonizing influence on both hemispheres.

That's not why I've had headphones on for 17 years: it was to drown out all the goddamned distractions, the annoying and incessant cluttering drivel of human noise (violence to the mind), so I could write and think, and it works perfectly---solving Schopenhauer’s "trouble with noise relating to thought."

Obviously most people listen to music for other reasons---I, however, do not listen yet only hear.

[Katy]

I think there was a study done recently showing that students who study while doing other things (IMs, study groups that discuss other topics, eating pizza, reading Genius... or maybe that last one is just me...) retain significantly less information than a control group. However, students who listen to music retain more information.

Of course, I got this off of a 3 minute segment off of something my mother recorded on her Tivo, which means it was probably Oprah or The View, so who knows how seriously to take it.

[Nordicvs]

Sounds about right to me, Katy.

Animals have a natural ability to tune out auditory clutter and key in on specific noises in their environment---pet cats, for example, still have the ability to block out overwhelming white noise and focus on a single sound (such as a mouse gnawing somewhere in the basement); humans have evidentally lost this ability, but, then again, our hearing really does suck. So our minds our constantly raped by others' inane blather and general sloppiness of civilization (noise pollution).

Anyway, I've noticed I've become far better at doing many things at once---hearing music, reading, thinking, smoking, while remaining visually perceptive of my surroundings---than I had been 15 or so years back.

In a way, music forces one to concentrate and not get consciously lost within it, improving concentration over time---anything that challenges the mind to struggle to work properly will result in higher mental functioning.

[Katy]

I live about 4 hours from my mother and it is not physically possible for me to get between them without music. I tried once; thought I could just talk to a friend in the car. We nearly crashed several times before I put the music on just lightly. Then we were safe for the rest of the trip even though we were still talking.

I sing, my attention goes to the road. I get bored, my attention goes to the airplane in the sky and the QR's sign I pass along with any other shiney.

[Carl G]

My coworker has a problem staying awake, and music helps him, but having music blaring there is not appropriate. So they let him wear an ipod or something similar, with the earpiece. Now he happily pushes his pencil all day long but is basically not available to others.

Is he available to himself?

We're talking about distractions in relation to Enlightenment, right?

Not whether or not one can do ordinary things like drive, study, or work better.

Also, there's a big diff between talking on the phone and having some background music on.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

The fact that every single person seems one mind about the greatness of listening to music convinces me it's a common delusion. (Deep thought, Nord? Well, since most people who listen to music are not engaging in deep, philosophic thought... I doubt that it's universally promoting the sort of deep thought that I think essential.)

I don't find the noise bothersome when I ride the bus. People are mostly silent, and when they are not, I learn about human behaviour. It's cynical -- insulting, even -- putting on headphones while riding a bus, or walking down the street. If I wanted to listen to music, I'd do it in private.

And when I'm home alone, I don't listen to music. If I have any noise at all, it's the rhythmic humming of a fan (there's your rhythmic noise, Nord -- the fan helps me think better than any music ever could).


Nord: when you do research and prove what you already believed for the last two decades, it's not all that convincing.

[со&am]

since most people who listen to music are not engaging in deep, philosophic thought... I doubt that it's universally promoting the sort of deep thought that I think essential.)

most people who say they practice philosophy are not engaging in deep philosophical thought, they wouldnt even know where to start. do you find that philosophy universally promotes the sort of deep thought you think essential?

I don't listen to music. If I have any noise at all, it's the rhythmic humming of a fan

the fan then, is your music.

i have found that music, beat etc, gives the lower mind something to do.. it is comfortable there, the music babysits it. and with the lower mind out of the hair, higher thought is more easily accessible.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

co&am,

most people who say they practice philosophy are not engaging in deep philosophical thought, they wouldnt even know where to start.

True.

do you find that philosophy universally promotes the sort of deep thought you think essential?

Depends. If they are actually doing philosophy, then they are automatically doing essential deep thought. But, if they are just using the word "philosophy" as a catch-all name for whatever they want, it's more likely they are memorizing facts, names, and dates.

It's easier for an historian or energetic, caffeinated writer to get a doctorate than a genuine philosopher. That said, at one point in their life they all had to sustain a single thought long enough to write a several hundred page thesis. (...but THAT said, the Diamond Sutra, by way of contrast, is only 30-something pages...)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

My boss from when I worked in a mental helath facility had a good theory about why schizophrenics ususally had headphones on. She thought that since the schizophrenic mind usually puts extra output to the nerves which get misinterpreted, that the constant music puts enough input on the nerves to keep them from firing out extra impulses, and probably kept the hallucinations down that way.


Carl - your narcoleptic coworker may not be as available as if he didn't have narcolepsy, but at least he found a compromise to make reality work acceptably.

Animals have a natural ability to tune out auditory clutter and key in on specific noises in their environment

That's called latent inhibition, and humans (on the whole) have not lost this. Those who have lost their latent inhibition - well, if the person is of high IQ it is considered to be the spark of creativity, but of average or lower IQ, it is a bane to their existence. I'm sure it's all on a gradient scale, though.

[Jamesh]

My boss from when I worked in a mental helath facility had a good theory about why schizophrenics ususally had headphones on. She thought that since the schizophrenic mind usually puts extra output to the nerves which get misinterpreted, that the constant music puts enough input on the nerves to keep them from firing out extra impulses, and probably kept the hallucinations down that way.

I find this comment interesting. The other day I wrote the following response to a post but never posted it, as it lacked sufficient coherence.

But as you said that all things are phenomena, then what you call nature is in fact what most of us call "I".

All things are phenomena because all things are interconnected. The concept of qualia demonstrates this. And yes, what is nature is what is each of our “I”’s experience in any current moment. Our individual I is our Eye to the rest of the universe. Our consciousness is like the eye of the needle from which we can see the camel. Part of that which is external is physically received into our bodies and causes memory to form. These memories shine a torch through the eye of the needle and in the process creates an opposing counter force to that which is external that blocks or prevents the amount of incoming externalities that are potentially able to be received. It is recursive in that memories already known also block the incoming data - physically the brain has determined the memory is logically complete and sends signals out to indicate that incoming data of X type is "noise" and does not need recursive consideration by the frontal lobes.

This is why babies learn 100’s of times more readily than adults.

Abstractly, this is why drugs alter our perceptions to such a degree – it is not that the brain is being substantially rewired to give different thoughts, but that the flow of memories through to the “I” is altered substantially. Depressants like alcohol enhance memories outward flows and limit inward flows, whereas stimulants lessen the flows from memory to the “I” and block less of the external data, so we feel more “alive”. Experience-memory-thoughts are circular, so mental confusion can result from aberrant memory-external data flows of either form. Stimulants may mean less rational thinking (less data sorting loops of the brain, as the frontal lobes communications load is being used up by data flowing in from the senses). Depressants may also result in less rational thinking because the frontal lobes are engaged in dealing with all the complications of an over-inflated ego.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I find this comment interesting. The other day I wrote the following response to a post but never posted it, as it lacked sufficient coherence.

Okay, so you wrote a response to a post - quite probably on another message board (correct me if I'm wrong) - and thought it was too incoherent to post it as a response to that post, so you post it over here today instead? as a response to a post it wasn't even written for?

[Katy]

My boss from when I worked in a mental helath facility had a good theory about why schizophrenics ususally had headphones on. She thought that since the schizophrenic mind usually puts extra output to the nerves which get misinterpreted, that the constant music puts enough input on the nerves to keep them from firing out extra impulses, and probably kept the hallucinations down that way.

This is kind of interesting to me, actually. I have fond that whether or not I listen to music is dependant upon how much the voices are acting up. For a while the last half of last year things were getting bad, but not near as bad as they have been, and I found that I didn't even bother to close out iTunes when I got offline for the night.

I've always associated it with "if I'm doing better, I'm more social, have more input from real people; if I'm doing worse, it's the only thing that is 'real" - though that leaves me wondering why the radio is real, and the telephone may or may not be.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

though that leaves me wondering why the radio is real, and the telephone may or may not be.

I can see the sense in that. The radio just emits sounds that you are not supposed to respond to. It doesn't really make any difference if the music is coming from a box or your imagination, the music still sounds the same. No one is expected to respond to the radio, so it might as well be real.

On the other hand, a telephone is a little more important to determine if it is real. If it is real and you think it is not, you are either bieing rude to the person on the other end, or you don't answer the phone when it is possibly important communication. If you think it's real when it is not, people will think you are strange for talking into your calculator, and you could end up confused by conversations that never happened except in your head.

Some things are more important to know that they are real than others, and if it's not important, then you just naturally default to assuming it is real.

[Nordicvs]

The fact that every single person seems one mind about the greatness of listening to music convinces me it's a common delusion. (Deep thought, Nord?

Yes, deep thought (as in 'not shallow'). Seventeen years and counting, and no one's put forth any evidence that I'm a 'light-thinker.' (Other than sardonically or based in childish insults, that is.) One of the reasons I began was to combat distraction, which worked, especially coupled with being nocturnal; deep thought is only possible when one is within his mind, directing his thought, for a long stretches of time.

Well, since most people who listen to music are not engaging in deep, philosophic thought... I doubt that it's universally promoting the sort of deep thought that I think essential.)

I've never known anyone to claim this (relating to your above "fact"---?---" that every single person seems one mind about the greatness of listening to music" bit). For me, the moment "most people" say something's really good, I do my best to avoid it, by default, instinctively, so think what you will.

I will agree it might not be universal---people think differently, which is related to right- or left-brain-dominance.

I don't find the noise bothersome when I ride the bus. People are mostly silent, and when they are not, I learn about human behaviour. It's cynical -- insulting, even -- putting on headphones while riding a bus, or walking down the street. If I wanted to listen to music, I'd do it in private.

I can accept that you see it that way.

Words are violent, as is noise pollution---music (loud enough for me to hear, not blasting full volume) and ear-plugs I use in self-defense.

And when I'm home alone, I don't listen to music. If I have any noise at all, it's the rhythmic humming of a fan (there's your rhythmic noise, Nord -- the fan helps me think better than any music ever could).

So, that's supposed to prove me wrong or something? Fans create noise which is also rhythmic...

Nord: when you do research and prove what you already believed for the last two decades, it's not all that convincing.

I'm really not concerned with how convinced you may or may not be, nor do I feel obligated to prove anything to you or anyone else. The facts are out there, and some experimentation will prove them. You can go on clinging stubbornly to your beliefs, find someone to hold your hand (research it for you), or find this shit out for yourself. Your interest and depth of thinking will determine which of these you'll choose.

That's called latent inhibition, and humans (on the whole) have not lost this. Those who have lost their latent inhibition - well, if the person is of high IQ it is considered to be the spark of creativity, but of average or lower IQ, it is a bane to their existence. I'm sure it's all on a gradient scale, though.

Well, latent inhibition is regarding stimulus---not sound specifically (or at all), which is what I'm talking about---and it relates to learning, not sifting through noise. Human hearing is awful---when's the last time we needed it to focus in on, say, a predator stealthfully approaching 100 meters away? Exactly; same with our olfactory sense and vision---pathetically inferior.

Plus, that's hardly pure science there either---and my IQ is not too far above average (math, pretty bad: 40th percentile; perception, a rather spiffy 95th percentile), so what exactly is the "bane of my existence?"