complex simplicity

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Art: Yes. Doesn't mean you can hear it. Can you hear a sunset? Yes, if you could properly decode and integrate the data of it. Different sunsets would sound quite differently, just as they look differently. Some people with sensory crossovers in their brain (synesthesias or some term like it) see colors when the listen to music. A person could conceivably hear a sunset or any visual stimulus. At the sub-quantum basis of everything, there exists vibrations or pulsations of strings or loops or gravity foam. This is a grand symphony - if we could decode it. But if we did decode it, we probably would be totally unable to integrate it - a mixed up jungle of sound in an incredibly complicated flowing and incessant pattern. However, to the universal computer that streams the data that runs the universe, it is perfectly orderly and mathematically coherent - a magnificent symphony.

Good post

Synesthesia can happen with anything, BTW. You can smell Jimi Hendrix, or taste Bach.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Suffering, sickness, etc need not exist at all except for brief passing moments.

That's a lot easier to say when you're healthy and young.

See ya
Steve

 

[drarthurwells]

Sduibek:... what i'm actually arguing is that reality needs us to exist, it needs interaction and observation and consciousness (all being subjective experiences) to exist, so there is no objective "Reality" that is seperate from "Fantasy". We all create our own "Reality", so why not create one of sunshine and flowers? And, as I said earlier, since reality is constructed by us and with us, the more people we have who think in terms of "sunshine and flowers", the better reality will become for everyone else. The world can only be a terrible place as long as people let it be. Suffering, sickness, etc need not exist at all except for brief passing moments.

Art: Reality doesn't "need" us to exist or need anything.

There is existence apart from our perception of it.

We do construct our experience, which includes what we evaluate as real, true, moral, etc., but we do so in different ways because our needs/motivations differ. When our constructions deviate from the reality that exists indpendent of our perceptions we run real risks of pain, injury, death. You run that risk when you adopt a polyanna attitude. You expose yourself to exploitation, ruin, disaster. Ask Natalie Holloway about looking on the bright side and trusting others.

Suffering and sickness can be lifelong - where did you get the idea they are always only brief?

 

[drarthurwells]

Sduibek:....the more people we have who think in terms of "sunshine and flowers", the better reality will become for everyone else.

Art: That's like saying if more people live acording to the golden rule the better the world will be.

Pronblem is that the number who do this are limited, have always been limited in number and to the extent they live by the golden rule, and always be thusly limited. There are many reasons for this - good and evil remain roughly in parity, vacilating around a median, like any polarized dynamic forces in the universe such as: positive and negative, love and hate, beauty and ugliness, hot and cold, relative percent of carbon dioxide and oxygen, politeness and rudeness, morality and immorality, construction and destruction, etc.

The more people who live by the golden rule, the more suckers to exploit or victims to hurt, the more criminals will develop, the less trusting and more anti-criminal will people be, the less criminals will there be in time, the more trusting and loving will people then become, the more criminals will develop to taake advantage of this, and round and round.

That is reality.

Deal with it or suffer.

 

[K271 Guy]

Awesome vid

 

[asmox]

 

[10068]

Quote:

When our constructions deviate from the reality that exists indpendent of our perceptions we run real risks of pain, injury, death.

Yes, but no one said that's the end. Sometimes pain is the best character builder, the best teacher, the best motivator. And of course death isn't the end, even though we're programmed to be scared of it. So that's a moot point.

Quote:

Suffering and sickness can be lifelong - where did you get the idea they are always only brief?

It's most often a choice. People choose to be miserable with their situation. See the comic above

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells That's like saying if more people live acording to the golden rule the better the world will be.

yes. Even if it doesn't work that way, we gotta try. Otherwise we slip into apathy or evil.

 

[drarthurwells]

Art: When our constructions deviate from the reality that exists indpendent of our perceptions we run real risks of pain, injury, death.

S.: Yes, but no one said that's the end. Sometimes pain is the best character builder, the best teacher, the best motivator.

Art: Yes, pain teaches us to not fantasize, but instead to accurately assess reality. Deluisions increase and compound problems while valid descriptions/predictions solve them and minimize pain while maximizing pleasure. You say realism is negative and that we should take a pollyanna view, and I say realism is positive and we should avoid wish-fulfilling ideas that turn out to have negative consequences, thus your positive is a negative in reality and my negative is a positive in reality.

S.: And of course death isn't the end, even though we're programmed to be scared of it. So that's a moot point.

Art: Death is the end point to physical pain and pleasure only, but a stepping stone (like birth) in development. We exist to develop (understand events and their relationships) and develop to exist - a never ending circle, a wheel within a wheel, in the windmills of your mind (linked to the mainframe of universal computation). Father Divine told me so.

S.: It's most often a choice. People choose to be miserable with their situation.

Art: No event in the physical universe, including the events in your brain, comes into existence except as a result of a prior event communication from two or more events. Nothing emerges from nothing - everything has a cause - there is no free will, only unconscious decisions that sometimes come into awareness.

Art: That's like saying if more people live acording to the golden rule the better the world will be.

S.: Yes. Even if it doesn't work that way, we gotta try. Otherwise we slip into apathy or evil.

Art: What we have to learn, what God (universal computation) "wants" (in terms of the way causality operates) is for us to love and give to those who would help us in return and hate and kill those would hurt us in return. That is the reality rule and is good for it ultimately promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. For instance, the use of atomic bombs to end WW II was good because it saved the lives of over a million people (on both sides) - hate and killing can be moral while love and helping can be immoral in the final analysis.

 

[10068]

Quote:

S.: It's most often a choice. People choose to be miserable with their situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by art there is no free will, only unconscious decisions that sometimes come into awareness.

Whatever. People like you choose to think the way they do. Those in pain choose to be in pain. I hold to what I said earlier. Just because a person is dying, or lost their house, or whatever, doesnt mean they have any reason to be unhappy. They choose how to react. Life happens. We have 100% control over how we react to it. Your "Rag Doll" idea is stupid.

Quote:

Art: What we have to learn, what God (universal computation) "wants" (in terms of the way causality operates) is for us to love and give to those who would help us in return and hate and kill those would hurt us in return.

I agree that it's good to be around those that will help us in return, but it's preposterous to say that the universe "wants" us to kill those that would cause us harm. Just move aside and let them be. If they aren't helping you out, fine whatever, but they don't deserve to be punished for it, that's incredibly juvenile.

Quote:

For instance, the use of atomic bombs to end WW II was good because it saved the lives of over a million people (on both sides)

Prove this.

Quote:

hate and killing can be moral

never.

Quote:

love and helping can be immoral

You're exemplifying exactly what I said earlier: Quote:

Art: That's like saying if more people live acording to the golden rule the better the world will be. S.: Yes. Even if it doesn't work that way, we gotta try. Otherwise we slip into apathy or evil.

You have entered into the realm of both... apathy, and evil. Intellectual disattachment from reality is not a superior way to look at things, and embracing hate and killing is wrong no matter how you look at it. Hate can be justified or understandable, but never is it moral.

 

[periurban]

I would love for Dr Art and/or Sduibek to relate their recent posts to the question at hand. Whilst this meeting of minds is eternally fascinating, I'm not sure the topics have anything to do with complexity in music.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by periurban I would love for Dr Art and/or Sduibek to relate their recent posts to the question at hand. Whilst this meeting of minds is eternally fascinating, I'm not sure the topics have anything to do with complexity in music.

Sorry

Where were we?

 

[toor]

Quote:

Also regarding some previous statements: Music is just math? Please give me an example of something that ISN'T math.

This is where I was going. If there isnt anything then the statement is somewhat meaningless. How can we derive evidence from a statement that is a truism.

But let me try to summarize my feelings on the topic at hand. For music to be "better" it has to be more enjoyable.

Thus the question is thus: Can we say that complex music is unversally more enjoyable for all?

I don't think anyone would agree with this. Thus complexity alone is not enough to denote something as better. The one retort as I see it is that some people don't recognize the complexity in the music. If they were then we would all love it. However Dr. Art seems to be saying that we can all perceive complexity some just don't appreciate the stimulus.

Quote:

Art: Remember the three main sources of neuronal pleasure release: operant as when we make needed stimulus/cue changes, emotional as when activated emotion is temporarily reduced in expression, and exercise (motor or cognitive) as when we use our motor or cognitive functions such as solving a crossword puzzle. So, stimulus complexity = more cognitive exercise = more fulfillment pleasure release (unconscious usually, but sometimes felt as various pleasure feelings). This is added to the pleasure release from emotional need fulfillment from the music’s emotional communication. Bach has more of the former (exercise) while Tchaikovsky has both (exercise + emotional) but more of the latter than does Bach. Also complexity is capable of communicating more variety of emotion than simplicity, but over-complication (violating simple complexity) is overloading cognitively and unpleasant.

Source please. About the brain stuff and about tchaikovsky being more emotional (though I assume the latter is subjective opinion).

Finally Off Topic:
Sduibek about killing, I think what Dr. Art was saying is that there exists cases where the moral action results in killing.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toor Finally Off Topic: Sduibek about killing, I think what Dr. Art was saying is that there exists cases where the moral action results in killing.

But as you said earlier (and I said much much earlier), using global examples/truths as "evidence" is really lame and doesn't work anyway

Sure, maybe sometime somewhere, a moral person acting in a moral way would somewhere down the line cause someone to die, but those rare instances would be complex and require investigation anyway, so you can't turn that into the blanket statement "killing can be moral."

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toor Thus the question is thus: Can we say that complex music is unversally more enjoyable for all? I don't think anyone would agree with this. Thus complexity alone is not enough to denote something as better. The one retort as I see it is that some people don't recognize the complexity in the music. If they were then we would all love it. However Dr. Art seems to be saying that we can all perceive complexity some just don't appreciate the stimulus.

Complexity alone can provide for more sensory stimulation pleasure and more cognitive exercise pleasure. I would rather look at a mountain scene than at a blank gray sky. I would rather do a more complex puzzle (within my capabilities, however) than one used as play for 3 and 4 year olds.

Now it is true that we generally seek more from music than just stimulation and exercise pleasures described above, as you point out.

 

[drarthurwells]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Sure, maybe sometime somewhere, a moral person acting in a moral way would somewhere down the line cause someone to die, but those rare instances would be complex and require investigation anyway, so you can't turn that into the blanket statement "killing can be moral."

Art: Not true. All purposeful killing is moral. You are in a crowded store in Florida, and carry a concealed gun (as allowed by law). The place is full of women and children.

Suddenly, a young Arab looking man, strats shouting in Arabic "Die infidels in the name of Allah". You understand this because your served in the Desert Storm war. You then see this Arab grapple with something under his shirt and suspect he is trying to detonate a bomb. You shoot him five times, killing him quickly.

Was your killing moral? Yes, from your point of view and that of the people around you whose lives were saved, and from most of your fellow countrypeople. No, from the point of view of the Arab, his comrades, and many Islamists (and others who hate the USA and the Jews) around the world.

Now, if the Arab had succeeded then the moral evaluation would be reversed.

What has this to do with music enjoyment? See my next post.