[PiccoloNamek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rempert /img/forum/go_quote.gif An unprovable assertion...

Perhaps, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest otherwise, and certainly no reason to believe so.

Quote:

and in my opinion a pretty bleak one.

Why is it bleak? Personally, I find it incredibly beautiful that billions of years of evolution eventually resulted in a type of cell that is capable of forming such a complex network with other like cells that it can give rise to consciousness, sapience, emotion and personality, and all of the wonderful (and sometimes not so wonderful) things that they bring forth. In my mind, there's nothing bleak about it.

Quote:

That's exactly the kind of approach to reality the video represents.

What? The only rational approach we know of right now? Because I am, in fact, open-minded, I would be willing to consider that there perhaps is some ethereal thing beyond neuronal functioning that gives rise to consciousness, but only if there was a large amount of supporting facts and evidence.

Anyway, this is getting way outside the realm of sound science, so you can PM me if you disagree; I don't want to muck up the thread anymore.

 

[cegras]

I think what some people here are perhaps not seeing is that the results of science are also defined in objective quantities, which usually boil down to numbers. There is nothing subjective about absolutes.

 

[b0dhi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have the same feeling. This video is kind of «science for dummies». Nothing to really disagree with. But it replaces some crude neurotic preconceptions with some crude neurotic preconceptions: It represents a suggestive pseudo-religious message that the brain (more precisely: the left half, metaphorically speaking) is all you should rely on in the end. .

Well said. Pseudo-religious is exactly how I'd describe it too. My favourite quote on this topic is this:

Quote:

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

-A. Einstein

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...I am, in fact, open-minded, I would be willing to consider that there perhaps is some ethereal thing beyond neuronal functioning that gives rise to consciousness, but only if there was a large amount of supporting facts and evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cegras /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think what some people here are perhaps not seeing is that the results of science are also defined in objective quantities, which usually boil down to numbers. There is nothing subjective about absolutes.

Can you capture music by measuring neuronal activity? You can't. Consciousness is a separate level of reality. It may depend on the physical, material level (...or it may not...), nevertheless it's a reality level on its own. Every thought and dream of ours alters reality or even creates a new reality.

If the entire history of a 4-dimensional universe (not limited to material events) would be displayed as a 3-dimensional cube (capturing temporal events as spatial traces), then thoughts, dreams, experiences and feelings would leave their traces as well. There are even more, different levels of reality imaginable which we don't know yet which would leave their traces, too. But you have to be really open-minded to capture and accept this paradigm.
.

 

[cegras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you capture music by measuring neuronal activity? You can't. Consciousness is a separate level of reality. It may depend on the physical, material level (...or it may not...), nevertheless it's a reality level on its own. Every thought and dream of ours alters reality or even creates a new reality. If the entire history of a 4-dimensional universe (not limited to material events) would be displayed as a 3-dimensional cube (capturing temporal events as spatial traces), then thoughts, dreams, experiences and feelings would leave their traces as well. There are even more, different levels of reality imaginable which we don't know yet which would leave their traces, too. But you have to be really open-minded to capture and accept this paradigm. .

I hesitate to say this, but you confuse me. Could you please try to explain your concept in a more understandable manner?

I cannot begin to understand what you mean by the ethereal (thoughts, dreams, etc) leaving their 'traces' if they were moved into a '3-dimensional cube.' I also don't understand how our own thoughts alters reality, nor do I understand what d you mean by different levels of reality. A human cannot possibly visualize beyond 3 dimensions, although it is possible for us to comprehend up to the 10th in an abstract way. To prove the point to yourself, try drawing a cartesian plane in four dimensions or more.

As far as your concept extends to music (I'm not sure what your concept of the mind is), I would agree that it produces a unique feeling inside all of us when we hear the right melodies being played out. But to coldly put it, I would say that is because the way our auditory center accepts these signals from our ear ends up evoking emotions that we find pleasurable or find novel, such as intense happiness or the feeling of oneness with the music.

 

[Currawong]

I agree with b0dhi. I tend to look at science as its own religion. The video also seems to me to focus on stereotypes and forgets that not all scientists are like the author of that video and are as just as capable of being flawed in the manner of the closed-minded people he is describing.

It's a good video though and great find.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. -A. Einstein

The ideal is to have the servant supporting that gift.

Intuition creates ideas. The rational mind attempts to explain them. Both are good and needed.

 

[obobskivich]

that guy's voice is so relaxing, I'm not sure if its actually his voice, or the new headphones, or some combination of the two, but its lulled me into a near nap state (and sadly, I have to go for like a ~2 hour car trip today, so I shouldn't be half napping right now

)

wrt any comments about it, honestly taking it at face value, I find no issues with it, it isn't asserting that science OR the supernatural is correct, or incorrect, its simply asserting that logical thought should be applied to both sides of an arguement, and that the use of the buzz-word "open minded" should be restricted, purely because of the "it means agreeing with me" point being so valid (how many cable, DBT, etc threads have we all seen where one side breaks down to "screw you, you're a closed minded bigot for not believing this!"

), it isn't neccisarily arguing in the affirmative of either side, but simply stating that for one to be open-minded, they shouldn't be pre-determined to the affirmative of either side, without acceptable proof (and it leaves this bruden of proof quite up to the end user, instead of trying to dictate what an acceptable burden of proof is)

...at least, thats what I took from it

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cegras /img/forum/go_quote.gif A human cannot possibly visualize beyond 3 dimensions...

The four dimensions of the universe consist of three spatial and one temporal dimension. Reducing them to a 3-dimensional model means two dimensions representing space and one dimension representing time. Maybe I should have made this clearer (I thought the term «history» would be enough).


Quote:

I cannot begin to understand what you mean by the ethereal (thoughts, dreams, etc) leaving their 'traces' if they were moved into a '3-dimensional cube.' I also don't understand how our own thoughts alter reality...

...in that they manifest itself in the reality, whereas before you thought them reality was without them.


Quote:

...nor do I understand what you mean by different levels of reality.

The material level is the best known and most accepted of them. Other things and events not measurable with material instruments are nevertheless real, such as the human consciousness and the creations emanating from it: ideas, thoughts, dreams... Many of them are even mathematically quantifyable if need be. And most of them influence the material level -- consciously or inconsciously.


Quote:

As far as your concept extends to music (I'm not sure what your concept of the mind is), I would agree that it produces a unique feeling inside all of us when we hear the right melodies being played out. But to coldly put it, I would say that is because the way our auditory center accepts these signals from our ear ends up evoking emotions that we find pleasurable or find novel, such as intense happiness or the feeling of oneness with the music.

That's what music does to our brain, measurably, but it's not what music is to our mind. Music is only what it is if it's experienced by a mind, it's not music when measured as neuronal activity.
.

 

[mape00]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can you capture music by measuring neuronal activity? You can't. Consciousness is a separate level of reality. It may depend on the physical, material level (...or it may not...), nevertheless it's a reality level on its own. Every thought and dream of ours alters reality or even creates a new reality.

That's your assertion, and it's probably wrong: I think you could do just that, capture music by measuring neuronal activity. For exemple, they've already got a pretty good idea about how to read visual information in the brain. I can't see why sound shouldn't work in theory.

It's good to be open minded, but not when you assert an ad hoc and/or supernatural explanation just because you fail to understand the phenomenon. Especially when you're more or less contradicted by evidence.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mape00 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's your assertion, and it's probably wrong: I think you could do just that, capture music by measuring neuronal activity. For exemple, they've already got a pretty good idea about how to read visual information in the brain. I can't see why sound shouldn't work in theory. It's good to be open minded, but not when you assert an ad hoc and/or supernatural explanation just because you fail to understand the phenomenon. Especially when you're more or less contradicted by evidence.

Music isn't supernatural, neither is anything not entirely definable by physics automatically supernatural. You can certainly pick up some electrical signals from the brain and (someday) tell which audio frequency was being processed, but that's not the same as capturing music by means of measuring instruments.
.

 

[mbd2884]

I like the video also, but seems to me JaZZ missed the point of the video. Just because you can't currently measure the experience of music in the mind doesn't mean that there is something unexplainable or supernatural occurring. The first half of the video was about this.

For me, yeah I'm a skeptic, but once someone has REAL proof or evidence, I will look at it and reconsider the issue. But until then, in the Audio discussions, just because someone says they heard something, when I know how easily our perception of hearing can be affected, the anecdote means nothing and cannot be used as evidence for an argument. Problem in this instance is that we are talking about audio equipment which are not unexplained and all of it can be proven through physics and mathematics. So until someone proves the laws of physics to be wrong, then yes, I will remain a skeptic of cables and various audio discussions that occur on this forums.

In fact I believe everyone who has posted as a skeptic about cables is not closed minded. They are open minded and curious, it's why they are always looking for new articles and studies to see if something new has been discovered. Just because we won't blindly believe someone's anecdote with no real explanations doesn't mean we are closed minded.

And for the arguement some of us cannot afford to hear the difference is just a weak argument. Because we are more frugal and conscience of how we spend our limited budget, we will be more discerning if we are purchasing something that will make a difference or beneficial, and not just believe someone's stories. This mind set I believe is actually more inquisitive as it is looking for options and looking for evidence for various claims on this website.

Who said beliefs are static and unchanging?

 

[hybris]

Why are we talking about religion and dimensions? Isn't the video about considering facts and background when someone tells you something, and that demanding such information before believing someones story or observation is not the same as being closed minded?

Great and basic video, I think it's amazing that it's so hard to accept that the concept behind it is a good idea wether you're a "believer" or a "sceptic". As the video states, you may still believe in tarot reading (or magic cables) if you feel like it, that's all well and fine.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like the video also, but seems to me JaZZ missed the point of the video. Just because you can't currently measure the experience of music in the mind doesn't mean that there is something unexplainable or supernatural occurring.

I'm not talking of supernatural or unexplainable. It's just that you can't measure experience generally, and consciousness. At best you can measure the neuronal activity it causes -- although barely in its entirety. That's why measuring instruments are incapable of capturing music.
.

 

[mape00]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Music isn't supernatural, neither is anything not entirely definable by physics automatically supernatural.

Absolutely. But what do you mean by "not definable by physics"? If it's not understood properly by science today, then history suggests that it might be explained tomorrow, not that it can't be explained ever. Asserting supernatural things like you did about consciousness, that it's a "separate level of reality" is not open minded, unless you mean the kind of open minded where your mind is so open it consists mostly of air. I'm not even sure what another "level of reality" is supposed to be.

By the same argument, you could argue that the vikings were open minded when they thought thunder was the work of Thor or that some Christians are open minded because they literally believe that women have periods because God cursed humanity because Eve was tricked by a talking snake into eating an apple from a magical tree. Just making **** up without anything to support it is ignorant and the exact opposite of being open minded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can certainly pick up some electrical signals from the brain and (someday) tell which audio frequency was being processed, but that's not the same as capturing music by means of measuring instruments.

Yes, that is your assertion, that the mind is somehow not "material" and therefore not equivalent to a measuring device. Good luck in proving that. I could assert that farting takes place in another reality too. Sure, you can smell it and hear it, but the essence of the true fart lies in the 8th dimension and can only be appreciated with the third eye, blah blah blah.