I was listening to a program on CBC Radio on the weekend and they were talking about advances in AR (augmented reality) and how the technology is really still just in its infancy. The whole concept of AR to me is a bit of an oxymoron because how can we augment something that we truly do not understand? According to physicists there may be whole levels of reality/alternate realities, et cetera, that exist that we cannot grasp or comprehend. It would be really interesting if we could truly augment reality so that we could perceive those other “realer” realities than those that we choose to create as playthings. We have no concept of what is real and what is not; we “ourselves” may just be projections in a holographic universe. —Mr. Science Dork
This article appears in Sep 20-26, 2012.
This is actually an interesting comment, and while I don’t pretend to fully understand it, it is definitely something to ponder while quaffing a Light Beer and nibbling on a plate of Jumbo Shrimp.
Keep on thinking, OP. The process never ends >: )
*cheers* with a plastic glass
Ah yes but is that REALLY a light beer you’re quaffing and are those REALLY jumbo shrimp you’re nibbling Ivan? Am I REALLY typing this or am I ACTUALLY enjoying fresh sangria and paella from the terrace my holiday home in the south of Spain, overlooking my private beach on the Med?
Hmmm…ya know, once you get past the whole ‘Star-Trek-Next-Generationy-ness’ of it all, I could quite easily get used to this concept.
Truthfully, I’m too fucking stupid to understand any of it.
Clearly OP doesn’t know the meaning of oxymoron. Or they do, and are just trolling. Either way it’s a pretty stupid bitch, despite what OP wants us to believe about them.
MM: Your post makes about as much sense as your comments do on other postings. Learn to speak English and maybe someone will be able to ‘get’ it. Everyone knows who wrote this post. You did mm. Verbal diaherrea still happening.
AlsoMM A scientist you will NEVER be!
I hated intro level Philosophy courses…*sigh*
Well, physics state that everything exists through vibrations, the frequency of those vibrations, and the energy to drive those vibrations. All we need to do is increase our vibrations to a higher frequency, and viola! You have now entered a higher reality, capable of perceiving this dimension as well as the next one up. This bitch has now been augmented!
Its like ‘virtually spotless’.
i looked on the oxymoron list, ‘melted icecubes” we all know they have more calories than water
really? they were my electives…
great because I never had to take notes, just listen, interact, and think.
Now I know for some, that last one is a bit hard…
but there may just be an alternate reality where wogdog understands!
let me explain to you o.p., a.r. is just a fancy word for what the fuck. how are we sposed to be real, if we are watching an unreal program on an unreal device.
a.r. will never be accepted as the real, in an unreal world. what with all the phoney baloney polititions and actors and such.you might as well get a t.v. that has nothing but captions instead of spoken words on it. it amounts to damn near the same thing. the only a.r. that would interest me, is in some online games, the more real, the more enjoyment i get from them. but some of the old dos games are fucking cool too. i have a shitload of them, and an old windows 98 machine to play them on.
I miss the good old days where we didn’t strain our brains too much as we ragged off about buses, cyclists, politicians, welfare scum, SGR bums etc.
Tommy – An example of AR, that I see in the not too distant future.
You’re a tourist, walking down the street in some city, wearing your I-Glasses & Ear Budz. You look at a Monument, and the music that you were listening to fades as the history of the monument is voiced over, interactive of course, you can ask questions verbaly or via touchpad. You move away from the monument, the naration stops and the music comes back up.
Not only will it be a tour-guide, it’ll be a HUD you can read maps, watch a movie, talk on the phone, go on-line, etc
After AR devices that you wear, there’ll be induction devices that directly input to your brain, like in the movie Brainstorm 😉 after that…implants at birth.
iGlasses?
it’s google pioneering those Hugo.
http://www.slashgear.com/google-glasses-ex…
i don’t wanna be a borg
Resistance is futile, PG. 😛
http://i2.cpcache.com/product_zoom/2269806…
That’s it!!! I always thought Blow Me was lying about his sexual conquests. Now I see I was wrong, all this happened in an online game. Good for you ol’ Tootless, how many elves do you have under your belt?
WHAT IS REALITY?
“The whole concept of AR to me is a bit of an oxymoron because how can we augment something that we don’t understand?” (Mr. Science Dork)
In spite of wogdog’s (09/25, 12:33& 12:34PM) claims to certainty as to the authorship of this bitch, I did not write it even though it does show some glimpses of philosophical promise if only in the rudimentary stages of raising what is perhaps THE philosophical question, that is, the ontological question of what, exactly, does reality consist? What, in other words, underlies the world of appearance assuming, of course, that one does not reduce reality to those appearances. That is called “reductionism” and amounts, in effect, to a rejection of mind. As soon as Montrealman saw the name of the author – Mr. Science Dork – he knew what was coming. Montrealman knew that the entire question was misconceived. He knew that it was aborted, dead at the root. Why is this so? Let me explain.
In a nutshell “Mr. Science Dork,” as with reductionistic physicalists generally, confounds “reality” with tangibility, that which can be touched or at least engaged by the senses. In other words, the physicalists like Mr. Science Dork claim that that which cannot be apprehended by the senses has no existence, has no reality. But this does not show that the ontological question is meaningless. Far from it. All it shows is that a physicalist, reductionist, “scientific” approach to the question fails – and must fail – to engage the nature of reality properly conceived. This can be seen by an examination of Science Dork’s confused assertion, quoted above.
His confusion is total. He speaks of a “concept” which, of course, is itself a non-physicalist entity referring to the possession of, or indeed constitutive of, a mind. But a mind is a non-physical entity yet Mr. Science Dork has previously defined reality in terms of its tangibility, as that which is “touchable.” But the mind doesn’t “touch” anything. In other words, the mind and reality in Mr. Science Dork’s conceptual scheme are separate categories which have no connection with each other. His task is therefore condemned to defeat from the outset. Unknowingly to himself, Mr. Science Dork’s non-physical mind must dumbly confront a physicalist reality which has been previously rejected. Mr. Science Dork’s mind – the essential characteristic of which is its immateriality – can only fail to penetrate what must be, by definition, an inpenetratable category, that of tangible reality. It is like two wheels rotating idly, each separate from the other.
Mr. Science Dork mistakenly claims that the result of his failure is an “oxymoron” – a conscious juxtaposition of seeming contradictories – whereas he should really have said his failure is more a “conundrum.” It is a conundrum because, unknowingly to himself, Mr. Science Dork has rejected his own mind – the only entity which is capable of engaging non-material reality, the only form of reality which possesses meaning. This, of course, is the old philosophical dilemma (for some) usually framed in the form of the “knower-known” relation. How can the two – one immaterial and the other material – come together and produce understanding? If one has equated reality with tangibility as Mr. Science Dork has done, then the conundrum is insoluble. What, then, is the solution?
The solution – it is obvious isn’t it? – is to reject the physicalist, materialist, reductionist and pseudo-scientific definition of reality as tangibility, even when viewed through a microscope. (Even for the scientist his view of reality is shaped by the reigning scientific paradigm – the present one in physics is “Einsteinian” – in which he functions. No one, not even the scientist, can claim, “I am a camera,” i.e., I have no conceptual paradigm which identifies the object of my scrutiny as, indeed, reality itself.) It doesn’t matter how far down the materialist ladder one cares to go – right down to the molecular level or even lower – the result is the same.
Meaningful reality is found in the world of ideas, of concepts, of paradigms and those, collectively called “mind” and not tangibility, is what constitutes the “really real.” (Of course, one must not go to the other extreme and completely reject all extra-mental physical reality. That way lies total solipsism, relativism, and intellectual paralysis. But to repeat, such physical reality is only the departure point, the “terminus a quo,” and not the destination, the “terminus ad quem.”)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Doesn’t mm know this is a forum for people with short atte
zZz- http://www.mindflux.com.au/images/ma2125a.…
Stiil rather bulky, and you can’t see to walk…but that’s just a few years away.
Snubiz – Actually I was thinking that Smeagol should have credited his post to the original writer, and frig he took 7 paragraphs to say nothing new, about something he knows nothing about.
Of course Muntremoleman, you could alway refute my statement by proving you know all about AR, it’s beginnings, and the relatioship with modern society.
I won’t hold my breath.
MM: Methinks thou dost protest too much! Yup it’s your post alright. Can’t cover the bullshit with fluff. Yup your bullshit alright! No mistaking that.
The reality is that one cannot change reality. As soon as a change is attempted, the “new” reality just becomes the reality that was meant to be.
Reality is what you make it, and what you believe it to be. It’s all about personal interpretation of the universe.
Right now, you’re a mind swimming in galactic soup. You’re just a potatoe, and the Earth is gravy that’s so thick you can’t sink. Your eyes tell your brain what to see, your ears tell your brain what to hear, your tongue what tastes, and so on. Your brain tells all this to your consciousness, through a process that is still not fully understood. Your mind is not a physical part of your body.
Imagine you’re a leaf on a tree. You can look around, see the tree with all the other leaves. You can even see and feel the wind, rain, and possibly even other trees. But, you can never see how you’re attached, what’s holding you there. Sure, there’s a stem, but what’s inside that, and why is it there? You can’t fully understand your connection with the whole universe (the whole tree). Your mind is the tree, your body is the leaf. Once the leaf dies, you’ll retract back into the branch (as part of the universe again)
Excellent analogy Captain.
I have to disagree Woggie, I can’t picture Monsieur referring to himself as Mr. Science Dork.
A man with a brain is such a turn on.
Boru – You must find Steve Martin sexy as hell then 😉
http://s3.amazonaws.com/auteurs_production…
wogdog – You thought MM wrote this, oh no no no, not at all…physics (theoretical or otherwise), not his strong suit. By the wording of the bitch, I’m sure the OB understands the basics of the subject, so it can’t be Smeagol.
And OB, until proven different, I’m going to treat my reality as the real thing.
http://www.getmilked.com/comics/comics/AnE…
(repost)
Hugo Why yes he was rather attractive in that movie but,a man with two brain’s(both in his skull) and a big nose would be more fun.He would know how to use it.
steve_martin_roxanne.jpg
Sorry I’ll try again
http://www.google.ca/imgres?hl=en&client=f… ://www.movieactors.com/superstars/stevemartin.htm&docid=R-tm9spuzIom-M&imgurl=http://www.movieactors.com/photos-small/martin-Roxanne3.jpeg&w=96&h=86&ei=2FNiUKniBunkyQG24IHIAQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=505&sig=104463336832854579783&page=1&tbnh=74&tbnw=82&start=0&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:77&tx=45&ty=29
…Lol I’m gonna quit.
I lack just one brain
no boru, you have quite a sexy brain. harper my friend, you need to let go your insecurities sometime dude/ette. it might as well be now, stead of later, when you grow up to be 20. ah but poor harper, you can only dream of some of the fairer sex that i have bedded down over the last 50 years. i have no set values for a female except just one tiny one. they have to be human/semi-human. woggie, i guess that leaves you out then, sorry. but hezzie, i am here for you, and boru, you too.
hey woggie, tell you what, take me out to a nice dinner, get me pissed eyed drunk, let me watch porn for 6 hours, then you might have a chance to get fucked by me. but that is after i check your credit rating and history. and i’ll even bring my phoney money checker with me, okay. til then.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/…
yes AR is more of the same old bs…
yes AR is more of the same old bs…
Plastic soldiers in a miniture dirt war – J. Morrison
C’est ca
Talk about an augmented reality…
they’ve obviously never heard of this forum and all the hatred people actually hold around these parts.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-poli…
WHAT IS REALITY? (II): PHENOMENONALISM
“What, in other words, underlies the world of appearances assuming, of course, that one does not reduce reality to those appearances.” (Montrealman, “What is Reality?”)
Several of the comments on my “What is Reality,” while not just mindless or mistakenly and derogatively attributing my writing to others, showed serious signs of “phenomenalism” (i.e., troondon formosus, 09/25, 8:8:53PM; Captain Curiosity, 9:20PM). However, in the same way that reductionist materialism which reduces reality to tangilbility, phenomenalism reduces reality to its appearances but both are philosophically pathological and collapse as a consequence of their internal contradictions. Let me explain.
Philosophical phenomenalism maintains that there is no reality “behind” appearances. It takes seriously the hackneyned cliche, “What you see is what you get.” Phenomenalism can take many forms – it is the philosophical basis, for example, of science fiction – but is widespread throughout popular discourse. In denying the existence of that reality “behind” appearancec – I put “behind” in quotation marks to indicate that the relation of reality to appearance is not spatial at all – phenomenalism is grounded in the view that reality is transient, ephemeral and contingent. Its emphasis is on change, on passing fashion, and dependent upon the prevailing “climate of opinion.” It takes seriously the cliche, “Now you see me, now you don’t.” But, and this is the crucial point, phenomenalism is a knowledge claim and so subject to the scrutiny all other knowledge claims must undergo. How is that so? Let me explain.
In a nutshell, pheomenalism is a claim to see things as they really are. It is a claim to know the truth about the human condition. But if all is transient, everything is ephemeral and contingent relative to prevailing opinion, there can be no such pheomenalist knowledge or truth. For phenomenalism itself – this is the hooker! – must itself be transient, ephemeral and contingent. In other words, to speak of phenomenalist knowledge or truth is incoherent since it is a contradiction in terms. Phenomenalism, in other words, brings itself under its own critique, its own negative judgement.
The consistent phenomenalist – note the word “consistent” i.e., one who strictly adheres to phenomenalist principles – must remain silent. He cannot without self-contradiction, make any claim about the world. But he does and he is. Of course, the consistent phenomenalist might simply reject the force of self-contradiction but this still leaves him in a frozen phenomenalist posture, one trapped in transience, ephmerality, and contingency in respect to which, in principle, he can have nothing to say.
In brief, the phenomenalist who reduces reality to appearances is like the materialist who reduces reality to tangibility: He condemns himself to silence. He shoots himself in the philosophical foot. However, this does not stop many from, unkowingly, adopting the phenomenalist position, if you can call it that.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Makes sense Zed. Teenage Nova Scotians are Oxy’d up to their eyeballs and Quebecers are rubbing their poutiney hands with glee at the prospect of 4 more years of threatening to separate everytime someone suggests that their growing population singers/dancers/actors/mimes concentrate on getting jobs in the service industry rather than sucking off that oh, so distasteful, federal tit.
here ya go boru http://www.virtual-history.com/movie/photo…
Blow Me: That sounds like a plan, you know, the dinner and all, but upon further reflection how would you manage that? Unless you eat pureed food that tooth of yours would take an awful beatin. No, the Wogster does not like pablum that s your speed, Nor do I pay for dinners. I leave that to suckers like you! Porn for 6 hours???? Now your really letting the world know how usless that dick of yours is. Hey, be a big spender and spring for the 5 bucks for some Viagra. Who the hell got the time to wait 6 hours while you try to get the old one eyed fart upright??? Nah, thanks buddy but I think the Wogster will have to so No to this offer!!!
Well, my comment wasn’t a reply to your post at all, MMan. I also didn’t reduce reality to its appearances, I stated that what you can perceive is only one small part of the composition of the universe.
And a persons reality IS transient. You die right? End of your reality, start of something different. Things can be ever changing, but still ascribe to an underlying set or universal principals or rules. Things like sacred geometry.
It’s a good thing I don’t subscribe to your pheomenalism. What are you views anyway, MM? What IS your reality?
Relax. What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind! – Homer S.
Painy Thank you.
BLOW Thanks(I think).
MM
Frequency seems to be a term rooted in sensory tangibility until one realizes that it is merely a line on a graph written by mathematically quantifiable observation.
“Everything is just frequency” says nothing more outside of geometry and inductive observation.
“Everything is a collection of small hard balls” would be an example of reality based on a tangibility relying on the senses.
It’s good to be critical as to qualify what would constitute the requirements for knowing the exact nature of reality but eventually we will have to allow ourselves to fall into answers that are tangible by our condition.
In other words; at least physics can gain ground with interpretation and observation.
The place of philosophy is to clearly understand what it requires to answer a question. Philosophy by itself is quite limited. The unfortunate thing is that most people don’t even understand what philosophy is.
RSVPs
: Captain Curious (09/26, 11:28AM)
Your post is public property when online. Get used to it. Of course you are a phenomenalist – look at your assertion, “reality is what you make it.” (09/25, 9:20PM). I saw a bumper sticker this morning saying, “Make your life what you want it to be.” Same thing. If what you perceive is only a small part of reality, what do you call the other part? The part you don’t perceive? Tha’s helpful. Your second paragraph is incoherent. I’m glad you don’t subscribe to “my phenomenalism” because I’m not a phenomenalist. My views? Read my two-part post “What is Reality?” over again. Read it to yourself. (Try not to move your lips.)
: Senor Campana (12:27PM)
The correct rendering is, “No matter, never mind.” It was a wag writing in reference to the Berkley-Hume dispute.
: Daniel Abraham (2:41PM)
What in the world are you talking about? The only sense of your post I could make out were the last two sentences, and they contradicted each other.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM
1.You know very well what I’m talking about. I’m going into philosophy of science. the subject is ontology and the nature of the existence of matter. YOU touched on it on an earlier post. If Matter is merely frequency than a complete Idealism of reality is possible (given that principle could be all that exists) which eliminates the problem of matter substance tangibility, that is, the problem of Matter being a perceptive illusion projected by our senses.
2.The last two sentences don’t contradict each other. Please try me by explaining how they do; or would I “not understand it” mr cheap Charlatan.
Oh so let me get this straight, how i qualify philosophy can contradict how I qualify philosophy in regards to how it relates to a different discipline than the first qualification.
HOW does philosophy being somewhat limited by itself have enough to do with most people not even understanding what philosophy is for those two aspects of philosophy to contradict each other.
YOU ARE TALKING OUT of your ASS again and now I’m losing patience.
Uh OH – Daniel’s losing patience:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ptAqeqIdoX0/TDQO…
Plus
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…
= an ontological point which Montrealman will have a difficult time disputing.
Is Le Chateau D’ennis on any major flight paths, perchance?
Sorry Dan, but the poor MM doesn’t know what you’re talking about. He, unfortunately, can only interpret things in a very literal sense.
Also, Ivan. You are a terribly funny man
Spassibo ,Tovaritsch Keptin.
I can also be funny, terrible man ven the wodka flow and the balalaika play.
RSVPs
: Daniel Abraham (09/27, 6:18AM)
“I’m going into philosophy of science. The subject is ontology and the nature and existence of matter.”
You see, Daniel, that’s where you’ve gone wrong. The philosophy of science has nothing to do with the nature and existence of matter. That’s called “science.” The “philosophy of science,” in contrast, deals with the grounds of the scientist’s claim to scientific knowledge. In other words, Daniel, the philosophy of science deals with the thought process of the scientist when he engages in the activity of science. They are not the same thing and to collapse them is to fall into confusion, one which bears a remarkable resemblance to your own.
6:25AM)
Well Daniel, it’s quite simple. If, as you claim, “most people” (by which I take it you include yourself) don’t understand philosophy, then how can you know that philosophy is “somewhat limited?”You do see the contradiction, don’t you Daniel?
: Col. Ivan Sonofabitch (7:07AM)
Yes, I think I get it. If I’ll be flying somewhere soon Daniel will come on board and go for the box-cutters. In spite of the fact that Captain Curious found it to be”very funny” my standards are higher and so can only award it a 3/10.
: Captain Curious (9:07AM)
It is true that I don’t know what Daniel is talking about for the very good reason that he doesn’t either. Silently read my post to Daniel over again to yourself for confirmation. (Try not to move your lips. You don’t want to disturb the activities of the lady in the next room.)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Dear Mrs. Cato:
While Dennis is unquestionably a very bright child, popular with his classmates, and an active participant in class discussions, we here at Valery Fabrikant Polytechnic are of the opinion that his reading and comprehension abilities are not at all commensurate with his current grade level. In addition, while re-exmining his Halifax Grammar School transcript, we find several instances where grades have been clumsily scratched out and rewritten in coloured pencil (Burnt Sienna, I believe) Also, the Teacher Assessment comments all appear to have been taken verbatim from “The Wit of Winston Churchill”, 7th ed. Because of this, and Dennis’ innapropriate habit of illustrating his homework with pornographic caricatures of faculty members, we request a parental meeting at your earliest convenience.
Your devoted servant, Ivan Sonofabitch, Principal
RSVP
: Ivan Sonofabitch (09/17, 10:12AM)
Dear Mr. Sonofabitch,
Thank you very much for your concern over Dennis’ activities in class, particularly his habit of illustrating his homework with pornographic caricatures of the faculty members. I must say that I find this quite shocking.
I will be delighted to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss Dennis’ deportment. He has asked that he be allowed to bring his easel, sketching pads and brushes with him to the meeting. Would you have any strong objections?
Hoping to see you soon.
http://discussions.texasbowhunter.com/foru…
lol
MM
So ask yourself, how does the scientist know everything is frequency and then realize the direct implications the frequency claim has to the nature of reality.
For….fuck….sakes man!
MM
DUALISM “science Dork”?
Two wheels turning?
What if all reality is just principles. Neural firings giving rise to the mind have no mystery anymore. There is no substance acting subserviently in some particular configuration resulting in the mind because there is no substance to begin with. This is one way to break the dualism and allows the mind to exist.
On another issue involving the Mind Brain mystery
I never completely agreed that Materialism (all things are material substance) requires that the mind doesn’t exist because it’s an argument from ignorance, that is, an argument that rests on the assertion that neural firings being a conscious mind is unintelligible. We can’t make sense of how a physical system can give rise to our conscious experiences because it is impossible so if everything is physical then the mind simply doesn’t exist and the concept of it is illusory.
THERE IS A WAY TO EXPLAIN the mind in physical terms (at least in my opinion)
It lies in the nature of our brains and how at every moment there is an infinite number of factors making up consciousness. Our mistake when trying to explain the mind through physical processes and then hitting a wall is that we try to quantify each part looking at how they interact expecting to get an understanding like other physical happenings and we don’t realize that infinite isn’t a number, it is a condition or state of existence. The mind shares this characteristic; it is a state of existence just like infinite because it has the essential characteristic of being made up of an infinite number of happenings and is therefore unquantifiable and unintelligible. No wonder we can’t understand how materials give rise to consciousness(mind) it is the same reason why it is impossible for someone to understand happenings that are at the level of infinite. In fact, we can’t even model an analogy to even attempt at an understanding at interactions with an infinite number of factors. The best thing we can do is throw it as a symbol in an equation when it relates to numbers; or throw an equation with an infinite answer onto a graph and get fractals.
Unfortunately MM you haven’t studied this idea because it is one I came up with years ago so you won’t allow yourself to try to examine it rigorously. Subservience theory is the closest thing to it and I am aware of my arguments shortcoming but DON”T tell me that I’m just throwing big words up here because I got A’s in both Mind and Brain as well as Theory of knowledge and Philosophy of science. The argument at least displays quite a bit of understanding in the mind brain problem
My instincts told me that you are here for your own self reflective ego and you would never acknowledge anything positively in your philosophy self existence.
I now nickname you “phan”, half philosophy half man.
PHAN
Daniel, all that before your first coffee? I’m quite impressed.
I think sometimes we try to merge what the mind is with how the brain works. The mind is primitive hard-wired instinct with a generous layer of memories of personal experience both concious and unconcious.
The brain is similar, underneath the massive cerebellum and cerebrum is the R (for reptilian) Complex which houses the primal side.
The big difference is that we can dissect and point to the parts of the brain and begin to understand how these parts work and how they affect the mind but that’s only the sum of the parts. The whole is the mind and it is hard to put a quantitive value on that. Too many nuances, personal slants etc.
Reality to the individual is perception which is the in the care of the mind. Ironically,the essence of reality to any living thing including people is survival which is in the care of the R Complex.
That is my post-caffeine summation. Sorry I’m no Daniel Abraham.
Good effort, Troodon! Try this one on for size…
Every 7 years… every single cell in your body is replaced… every one. That’s a new heart, new liver, new bones, and yes… a new brain. But our consciousness is prevalent throughout our life course. Now explain how the mind is in any way a physical construct. Go!
I’ve had two coffees this morning 🙂
Ow. Headache.
Screw the coffee. After reading all that, I need a good stiff drink. Help facilitate the replacement of those brain cells a little quicker. lol
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (09/28, 5:44AM & 6:45AM)
Daniel, you must seek out professional psychiatric help at the earliest opportunity.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Yes Captain, we are getting down to the nitty gritty now. Cellular mitosis starts with that spark between egg and sperm and doesn’t stop until we die. Death being the culmination of more cells dying than can be replaced. Cells are coded at the time of conception to perform certain tasks. In the case of brain cells and the replacement thereof, the replacements are coded to be identical and perform identical tasks.
All that said, how neurons firing in sequence becomes part of one’s mind, I don’t know. We know the brain controls the mind so it is based in the biological but the how still eludes us, well me anyway.
It’s the greatest of mysteries Troodon it tops everything.
But… how DO they get the caramel inside the Caramilk bar??
It remains elusive to me as well, Troodon.
Another aspect, leaning more towards mass consciousness… There are certain bacteria in your body (in your digestive tract, and something similar in your blood stream (can’t remember the name)) that operate outside of the brains sphere of influence. They are rogue elements within a persons body. SO, they’re not controlled by the brain like everything else, yet work with the body’s systems to seamlessly keep things running.
I’ve read of this being equated to the behavior of schools of fish (moving synchronously without communication), how habitats function (self regulating themselves), and even some far-out thinkers who believe in a Global mass consciousness (we are to the Earth, as the bacteria is to our body).
So maybe its not that the brain controls the mind, but the culmination of the parts and systems of a body that precipitate a mind (a pseudo mass consciousness).
They freeze the caramilk cubes before covering in chocolate and then blast chilling it.
I thought everyone knew that by now.
Do you think we’ll ever get to a half-life in the universe…
where instead of expanding, it starts collapsing on itself until it all gets into one fantastically small and unimaginably dense and compressed point until… BANG.
Universe 2.0 … or 3.0… or whatever iteration we find ourselves on…
Or is jebus just going to erase it like a wipe-board and start the equations over?
Super Smash Bothers was right! ALL FEAR THE MASTER HAND!
Daniel – What did I say, eh? Smeagol can’t understand and can’t refute what you said, so he’s stooped to insulting you again.
Like this zZz?
http://blog.stringoftheories.com/wp-conten…
I thought that our consciousness and memories were contained within the neural pathways of our brain, not in the cells themselves. In some cases lost function/memory, due to brain damage, have been restored because the brain “grew” new pathways.
Maybe we can carry on with this convrsation at the Summit….I do much better verbly than written.
If I’m “allowed”. A month ago I was practically deemed psychotic and delusional. I would go to the summit though, providing everything was clean slate.
That is, deemed by some of you;)
I’ve been analyzed before after a bunch of shit happened the doctor told me I was beyond sane actually.
Well to be honest, you WERE a bit caustic when you first showed up. But, everyone is different when they’re not behind their monikers. Believe it or not, I’m actually not an arrogant / know it all / mad at the world / chip on the shoulder / judgmental / environmental nut / …arsehole. That’s just the Captain coming out in me.
As it’s been stated before, by others, all are welcome at the Summits.
they let me attend danny and i’m a witch
Daniel I was welcomed with open arms and lord know’s I had my ‘crazy’ moments. A fabtastic group of people. :)…
Did you hear about the Frenchman who drowned himself? The Coroner found him in Seine.
http://www.adventuresintwilighting.com/wp-…
Col Your a hoot
http://catholiclane.com/wp-content/uploads…
Your such a ham.
http://ksj.mit.edu/sites/default/files/ima…
Lol
by george, i think she’s got it http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/Gi…
Painy Thank you mame.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main…
LMFAO – I luvs me ma Bitchin’ Lay-Deez.
Like. A. Boss. >: )
When is it anyways?
It’s like a 50s horror movie MM. Remember Mant, half man half ant.
You’re Phan. Half man half philosophy.
Everyone runs screaming. You’re coming for them to dissect their concepts and eat these concepts in front of them to their horror.
Hide your concepts in the attic before PHAN comes for them.
Hugo no one denies that there is a correlation between brain states and consciousness the problem is in understanding how neural firings bring about the self reflective I. What is it specifically about our brains that gives rise to self reflection. You should look into it if you already haven’t it’s a huge mystery.
Captain
The response to the cell regeneration is that it’s not the physical substance itself that makes up the mind but rather a completely dependent relationship between the physical substance and the CONFIGURATION of that substance. as long as the configuration remains intact with no breaks (allowing for regeneration) all is good to preserve the self reflective “I”.
Aristotle compared our dependence (with no reference to the brain, but he did think that we are our physical bodies) to our physical selves to that of the configuration of bricks to a house. A pile of bricks is a pile of bricks but if you configure the bricks into a house you get a house.
Matter is matter but if you configure matter into a brain with a creature you get consciousness.
If the bricks regenerate themselves like cells it makes no difference to the house being a house and the same for cells and conscious beings.
RSVP
Daniel Abraham (09é28, 7:55PM; 8:04PM; 8:36PM)
On reading your last three posts I have re-considered my previous view that you are simply delusional and require psychiatric assistance. However, while I now understand your comments, I do not agree with them
7:55PM
I don`t remember Mantso your reference to Phan- half man and half philosopher – was initially unintelligible. Now that I do see what you are saying I still disagree. Man is an indivisible union of mind and matter and to divide him in that manner is incoherent.
8:04PM
You are correct in stating that the problem is understanding how neural firings explain the self-reflective I. However it is more fundamental than that. For example, when I want to raise my arm I (a) form the intention to do so and (2) raise it. Neural firings cannot explain the connection between the two. Moreover, neural firings cannot explain my initial intention, that of intending to raise my arm in the first place. The self-reflective I, of course, is at yet a further remove in abstraction from raising my arm and, of course, cannot be explained in physicalist terms such as neural firings.
8:36PM
However, after the promising start in 8:04PM you then return to a physicalist or materialist account of the mind-brain relationship. You claim that it is a relationship between a physical substance (the brain) and the CONFIGURATION of that substance (the mind). However, a configuration of a substance is still a substance and so, in attempting to explain their relationship, you enter into an incomprehensible downward reduction of mind to matter, an aspect of equating reality with tangibility to which I made reference in my posts on the nature of reality.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Bacterial cells actually greatly outnumber the cells of the actual body in all humams. We are more bacteria than anything else.
MM
I’m actually trying to make you laugh with the Mant/Phan thing. It’s already getting old so I’ll have to come up with something else. Feel free to make up a nickname about me.
Sorry for multiple posting but MM
I was weening captain into understanding that I was talking about a different type of problem than the impression I had of how he interpreted the mind brain problem. Showing that I understood what he was saying about the 7 year cell regeneration and further clarifying my understanding by using a very good Aristotle example. I don’t actually think that our consciousness is our brains. The brain definitely has something fundamental to do with it but it’s still inconclusive as to how.
RSVPs
: Daniel Abraham (09/29, 11:35AM & 11:43AM)
Well, up to your recent comments, I could indeed have thought of a nickname for you – you would not have been pleased – but now things are not so black-and-white.
Yes, your attempt to “ween”(?) the Captain into any sort of understanding are foredoomed to failure. It’s a damp squib.
As far as the brain-consciousness relation (or, as I would prefer, the mind-brain relation) is concerned, the brain constitutes what is called a “necessary condition” (but not a “sufficient condition”) for the mind’s successful functioning. While it can account for the mind’s failure – disease, neurological damage, and so on – it cannot account for the brain’s successes. (If it could, then it would constitute a “sufficient condition” but it can’t.) In other words, one cannot explain Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” in terms of the functioning of his brain. Similarly, there are presently mistaken attempts to explain Einstein’s genius by examining slices of his brain. There have not been, nor will there ever be, any results whatsoever since – you guessed it – his mind is (or was) not his brain.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM
I’m a musician and this is a song that has always floored me. It’s by two amazing sisters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsnBT3NofiQ
No sarcasm i want you especially and anyone else to understand it’s fucking amazingness
RSVP
Daniel Abraham (09/29, 5:55PM & 5:58PM)
No offence Daniel but I’m a word/thought man, not a music man. While I do enjoy a half hour listening to classical on my earphones after dinner (it’s on a French-language classical station here in Montreal), to otherwise sit and listen to music, particularly on a computer, comes close in my estimation to mental retardation. I mean, can you picture Montrealman staring slack-jawed at the screen while some ditty is played? Jamais monsieur, jamais!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I was just randomly trying to mix things up there. Half of it was satire.
Oh, and you, being a philosopher, should at least realize what areas of reality are definitely subjective. Whether or not personal taste has anything to do with what someone “is” based on what they find entertaining shouldn’t be something for you to struggle with since obviously a tastes in music vary with no correlation to character. Most people at least like something from every style of music.
Go sit on a rock.
(a) typo
“No offence Daniel but I’m a word/thought man (a man of inaction), not a music man” – LOLZ=) You can omit “thought” from that statement.
Danny – It’s a long read but if you start reading at about post 50, you’ll get an idea of Smeagols understanding of music (he has none).
http://www.thecoast.ca/LovetheWayWeBitch/a…
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (09/30, 1:11PM)
Well Daniel, there are those who would claim that music generally is not just an area of reality which is “definitely subjective.” For example, I prefer classical music generally and Bach in particular and, believe it or not, there are those who claim that both are objectively better than, say, rock.
The further question as to whether or not there is a correlation between tastes in music and qualities of character is vexed but I would say so. Of course, I could be wrong but just don’t tell me, show me.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM
You disturb me more and more the more you more.
You think musical taste might be a window into someones character indefinitely yet you think psychology is a bunch of Bullshit.
Now we have to talk.
Oh, and my lawyer who’s excellent loves Slayer (as do I.). You see, how he or she views the music might not have to do with what they identify with; a variety of tastes shows musical intelligence. Just ask the best musicians in the world. It’s too complicated for a sheltered individual like yourself.
P.S maybe if you changed every once in awhile just a little I’d think I got to know you better; I do find you interesting though I’m not sure if you’ve moved your furniture around in let’s say…. 10 years??
Also there are musicians who are musician musicians,like John Prine.
Boru
I have confidence in the way I handled this. There are plenty of brilliant musicians who never listened to Bach. Am I right PHAN?
Daneil I wasn’t arguing with what you said or how you handled the conversation you were having.I ,however off topic, was merely making a comment.I admit, I did not read all of the posts.
I’m aware of that. in retrospect I’m afraid i was using you (taking what you said out of context sarcastically to humorously “antagonize” Montreal man). Anyways sorry about that. Wasn’t my place (or is it “isn’t” my place. MM Ready… set… GO!)
Just listen to the fucking song people.
I listened to the song Danny Boy. Anne and Nancy Wilson carved a spot for themselves in rock lore. Can’t say I understood “Dream of an Archer” but the mindset of some of the songwriters back then was far from augmented reality and more like detached reality. Mostly drug-induced.
It was fresh back then Troodon.
while i would just LOVE to get into a philosophical discussion (because that’s what this is) let me comment on the hard technical side of this (since this is what you claim to be bitching about)
Anyone who understands the concept of augmented reality would probably not ask this question.
That was an interesting read, Hugo. I had no idea all those musicians had PhD’s.
RSVPs
Daniel Abraham (09/30, 5:09PM)
Sorry.
5:10PM
So talk.
5:09PM
A “sheltered life?” Danial, avoid “ad hominem” comments. Would you help me move the furniture?
6:54PM
Yo might be right, Daniel. No idea.
8:10PM
I’m not antagonized, Daniel.
: eats_crayons (11:05PM)
That’s because the concept of an “augmented reality” exists only in a metaphorical sense and not in an actual, real-world sense. But was that the question you were asking?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Daniel, you can’t apologize for double-triple-quadrupal posting… and then continue to repeatedly do so. Think about what you want to say… type it out… reread it a few times…
realize it’s inane and very boring…. click cancel… turn off computer… go outside… and let the troll die in peace.
Usually it’s just realizing that there is something else to say after the initial post. try not to let trivial things bother you so much Fire Rage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrtANPtnhy
This is what I consider ‘Augmented Reality’, at least as far as the OB is concerned
feck’…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vX-TjUnovk
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (10/01, 12:22PM)
An excellent reply to The Dribbling Half-Wit Daniel. He is without intellectual resources. Ignore him.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Asphinctersayscheerio
Hey Captain. That list took about 10 minutes to find, there’s a lot more if you care to dig. If you look at musicians who have a Masters Deg. then the list grows, exponentially.
Smeagol – “Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.” Albert Einstein
I guess that kinda makes sense. It explains how these people have achieved a higher level of musical success and an almost legendary status. Especially compared to the Niki Minaj shite’ that’s been plaguing the airways lately. Which reminds me, I need to stuff some more cotton balls in my ears, I think some faint notes from Justin Beibers latest cacophony is leaking through and we can’t be having that. No. Way.
RSVP
Daniel Abraham:
Daniel, you seem to have strayed from my questions of 09/30, 4:46PM, to wit:
(1) Can some forms of music, eg. classical in general and Bach in particular, be said to be OBJECTIVELY better than others, eg. rock? To argue that different sorts of people subjectively like different sorts of music, while true in a commonplace sort of way, is to confuse that fact with a separate fact, ie., that different certain sorts of music are OBJECTIVELY better than others, and,
(2) Whether there is a correlation between tastes in music and qualities of character to which I would also have to add intelligence.
I await your analysis with anticipation. Don’t forget, just don’t TELL me, SHOW me.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
woo hoo!
sphincter
RSVP
Daniel Abraham:
Daniel, in addition to qualities of character and intelligence in respect to correlations between different tastes in music, i.e., classical vs. rock, let’s add differences in class. In other words Daniel, not only is classical music objectively better than rock in itself and not only does classical music correlate with higher qualities of character and intelligence than rock, but classical music also correlates with higher class membership than rock. Are you aboard with that, Daniel?
Daniel, are you there Daniel?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“not only is classical music objectively better than rock in itself and not only does classical music correlate with higher qualities of character and intelligence than rock, but classical music also correlates with higher class membership than rock” – LOLZ, Oh Sweet Jesus how that made me laugh, thanks Smeagol =). Now prove it. Can’t?, didn’t think so.
Being able to appreciate more than one type of music is a good indication of an open mind and a balanced intellect. Whereas you Smeagol, cannot fathom anything beyond what you’ve been told is “good music”, and that is a clear sign of a closed mind and a limited intellect.
What qualifies me to state that? Let’s see…I have 7 years of classical music training, and I’ve performed and competed at the international level. You?
As a matter of fact, being a classical musician was on the short list of my career choices.
You did suprise me with your choice of Bach though, I figured you to be more of a Chopin kind of asshole.
BTW – This is one of my fav Bach pieces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipzR9bhei_o…
Then there’s this guy, firggin amazing 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB7WKW7oEIY…
Daniel Abraham:
Daniel, are you there? Have you “gone to ground,” as they say? Are you in hiding? Are you being held captive? Have you become a fugitive from the mind of …. MONTREALMAN?
Come out, come out, wherever you are.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Ladies and Gentlemen, for you listening pleasure, Michael Kamen and the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNTK4T87fqs…
*Wipes tear from eye*
God I love Metallica, that was one of the first albums I ever bought. An excellent example of a blend of Rock and Orchestral music. From that album, one of my favorites…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd9ohpDDCRU
Thanks for sticking up for Music, Hugo. You da man
No Leaf Clover just wouldn’t sound right without the orchestra…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXpH_QH4vG0
Metallica’s One is my favourite of their songs,and cool video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM8bTdBs-cw
RSVP
: Boru 1014 (10/04, 10:14AM)
Boru, you said that Metallica’s “One” is your favourite song. As you are probably aware, Daniel Abraham and I were engaged in a discussion about whether different types of music correlate with differences in character, intelligence and even class. I maintain that classical music is objectively superior to rock, that its devotees are of higher character, intelligence and, indeed, of higher class. However, Daniel has appeared to have fled the scene.
On the basis of your favourite tune of Metallica, which I take to be a rock band, would you be able to take Daniel’s place and give reasons as to just why “One” is your favourite song. Write back soon.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Let me enlighten you…
‘One’ is a song about a Vietnam veteran. He’s hit by an artillery shell but survives… barely. The war has taken from him his arms, legs, eyes, ears, and speech, leaving him confined to his hospital bed. He is awake inside his own head, his mind perfectly intact, and this is what the song focuses on. He obviously wants to die, but how can he accomplish that in his position?…
This is based off of a book, ‘Johnny Got His Gun’, but I’m not sure if that was based off of real events. Its easy to imagine that there is truth to the song, especially knowing some of the events that transpired during the Vietnam war.
Also, it has a pretty sick guitar solo, you should check it out MM, it might make you cool
“Johnny Got His Gun” was based on a novel by Dalton Trumbo. It’s set in WW1 and there is not much evidence that it was anything but a creation of Trumbo’s imagination. A very pretentious and self-indulgent film was made in the early 70’s (Donald Sutherland as Jesus Christ) and I believe the band used clips from it in their video for the song – but I’m willing to be proven wrong about that because I don’t know for certain.
They did use that films footage in the official music video. But you probably know more about the book than i do, Ivan.
Captain Yes that’s a frieghtening video.I think he’s to make them understand he wants to die by signaling SOS by banging his head on his pillow.
MM I also enjoy Antonio Vivaldy’s Spring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4kTei0XrCs
So put on your best “armchair physcologist”hat…Is your diagnosis of me that, I’m just completely insane?
I enjoy Vangelis ‘Conquest of Paradise’.
It is a pretty cool video Boru, but my opinion on the bands quality is inadmissible because of my heavily biased view… meaning, I feckin’ love those guys!
I’ve actually never read it, Captain. I had it recommended to me by a hippie/commie social studies teacher in Grade 11 in Calgary who seemed to think it would be more beneficial to my social development than Guderian’s “Panzer Leader” which I was reading at the time.
Alas, we shall never know if he was on to something. >; )
For a good antiwar WW1 novel you can’t do much better than “All Quiet on the Western Front”, with Charles Yale harrison’s “Generals Die In Bed” a very close second.
I ,for one, totally love the fact that Metallica do “The Ecstasy of Gold” in their shows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0_JvuBpDB8…
I got to hear that one played live when they were here in Halifax, Ivan. Excellent…
‘All Quiet on the Western Front’, I’ve been told to read that book. Maybe it’s about time I do that.
MM
You’re just going with a view society has indoctrinated you with. How could you decide on the “superiority” of “Bach” if you don’t even understand the rock stuff.
Also rock has become an enormously wide spectrum. What characteristics in classical exist that make classical “superior” in your biased opinion.
Very cool *nods, head with envy*
The Nazis banned “All Quiet..” Can’t get a better endorsement than that.
’93 I think it was, Metallica was playing Halifax on a Friday(?) night, but I was to miss the concert because we were sailing that afternoon. Lo and behold, halfway out the harbour one of the main engines broke down. So suddenly I had the weekend off. Rushed down to the Metro Centre and picked up a couple of tickets for a buddy and me, got seats (cancellations) 10ft above, and 30ft away from stage left, great view, great concert. After the show, we decided to go for a beer at the Moon, turns out Asia was there that night =). After about 1/2 an hour, buddy decides that he didn’t like Asia all that much and left….his bad. Steve Howe comes out and does a 20 minute (totally awesome) guitar solo, the bar staff hated it because no one was buying anything, like me everybody was just too engrossed in the Steve’s playing, to bother drinking. One of the best concert nights of my life, one I’ll always remember, and one of my fav stories too 🙂
BTW – BOC is another phenomenal live band, saw them at the Moon too, but that’s a story for another day.
Now, for more underclass music that Smeagol couldn’t possibly appreciate 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR3K5uB-wMA
RSVPs
: Captain? (10/04, 12:45PM)
How could a “pretty sick guitar solo” make me cool? I do so desperately want to be cool but I’m not sure how that’s going to get me there. Also, I was talking about the music, not the story. I’m still going with classical. Back to the drawing board, Captain.
: Boru (1:02PM)
Well Boru, the question of “insanity” doesn’t come into it. Nor, for that matter, does psychology. Since it involves class in addition to intelligence and character, I would say that my question was more sociological. Anyway, I think we’re making progress.
In addition to Metallica’s “One” you also like Vivaldi’s “Spring.” You have a foor in both camps, so to speak. Now, passing by the question of your personal preference, do you think the latter rather than the former is objectively superior as well as correlating more closely with higher qualities of character, intelligence and social class and, of course, the reasons why you think so? Write back soon with your thoughts.
: Daniel Abraham (1:46PM)
Daniel, you’re back! Welcome aboard! But no Daniel, I’m not going with classical music as opposed to rock because I’ve been indoctrinated to believe that it is objectively superior as well as being more closely correlated with higher character, intelligence and class but rather because it’s, um, classical, i.e., it’s been around for hundreds of years. But you’re getting closer to my question when you speak about getting to “understand” the “rock stuff.” What, exactly, is there to understand? Write back soon.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“Also, I was talking about the music, not the story.” = A great illustration of how little you understand music. Even instrumental pieces try to convey a story on occasion. What a one dimensional way to look at something as diverse as music…
I was thinking that by you listening to that solo, it would build a sense of appreciation for different forms of musical expression. You might actually be able to relate better with others, you know, play nice with the other kids. If you can relate with others in a positive way, than this will build your overall ‘cool factor’.
By extension of Smeagols (ahem) “logic” – Since I like and appreciate Medieval Music, I must be of a considerably higher, class and intellect.
Thank you Muntremoleman 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPkLhSVtPS4
Hugo These girls are Bitchn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juUNs3vcPNk…
This may be Medieval music MM could get into.
Cool piece Boru, the fangs are a little weird though…so’s the guy with the pierced nipple in the see through top 😉
RSVPs
: Captain? (10/04, 4:08PM)
Thank you for your advice Captain but you’re missing the point. Your claim that I have only “a one dimensional way to look at something as diverse as music” is, in addition to being an “ad hominem” attack on me and therefore illegitimate, pre-supposes that which it purports to demonstrate. In other words, your view of music is assumed to be the correct one but, your assumptions notwithstanding, do not establish that view. So it’s back to the drawing board.
: Boru 1014 (7:59PM)
Boru, a simple point but one which demolishes your illogical claim to the effect that since I like (some) classical music then I must also like mediaeval music (I use the English spelling). The difference, of course, is that classical music has maintained its widespread popularity (among the more intelligent upper classes) while mediaeval music has not. For example, I found your attachment un-listenable. But keep thinking.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM I applaud you for keeping an open mind anyway.
RSVP
: Boru (10/05, 10:02AM)
Well thank you Boru, but I’m not sure what you have in mind by “an open mind” and, of course, whether it is something you ought to “applaud.” This is, of course, a very common expression but what, exactly, does it mean?
Ordinarily it suggests that one is not “judgemental,” that one is not normally given to negative judgements. But that certainly cannot apply to me since I have made many negative judgements, particularly on this site, as I am sure you will agree. On the other hand having “an open mind” might mean that one does not make “snap judgements.” But what is it to make a snap judgement? Judgements might be snap or not snap but does this affect their legitimacy? Does the speed of a judgement determine its validity? I’m sure you will agree when I say that I don’t think so, so that’s out as well. What’s left?
Well, finally and most negatively, having “an open mind” suggests that one doesn’t make any judgements at all. One suspends one’s judgement, perhaps indefinitely. One dithers. One is unable to take a stand. One is paralyzed by indecision. Do you think that applies to me? Hardly.
So Boru, we find ourselves at an impasse. It is not clear what you have in mind by “an open mind” and, “a fortiori” as they say in Latin, whether you should applaud it. Maybe you might want to re-consider. Write back soon.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
CAN ONE BE OPEN-MINDED ABOUT BEING OPEN-MINDED?
RSVP
: Boru (10/15, 10:02AM)
Further to my previous post about the nature of open-mindedness and the difficulties one encounters in giving the concept some substantive content, there is the further matter relating to the reflexive question, i.e., can one be open-minded about being open-minded? One would think that if one were to be fully open-minded one would also be open-minded about open-mindedness itself, i.e., one would not have come to any firm conclusion one way or the other about the virtue of being open-minded.
As a matter of fact, this very question arose in the discussion of William Hare’s book, “Open-Mindedness and Education” – I think I’ve remembered the title correctly – in “Paiseusis,” the journal of the Canadian Philosophy of Education Society (CPES) to which I used to belong. (That is another matter into which I will not venture here.) Hare, a professor of Philosophy of Education at Dalhousie, maintained that one of the purposes of education, if not the main purpose, was the cultivation of the virtue of open-mindedness. One must not be prejudiced in the sense of its proper meaning, i.e., one must not pre-judge any issue. One must be tolerant of different viewpoints. But others disagreed. One in particular raised the present question, can one be open-minded about being open-minded? The debate with Hare was carried out in the journal.
Hare disagreed. One cannot be open-minded about being open-minded because being open-minded was a fundamental or non-optional virtue in itself. To say, in other words, that one could be open-minded about being open-minded was tantamount to saying that one could be open-minded about truth-telling. But to say that one could be open-minded about truth-telling logically entails the view that one might entertain lying as a legitimate activity. But surely this cannot be the case. In other words, in respect to fundamental virtues such as being open-minded we have reached down to what Wittgenstein called our “river-bed assumptions.” When we have dug down to that level, he maintained, “our spade is turned.”
The question then devolves into whether being open-minded and truth-telling exist at the same ontological level. Are they, in fact, the same type of virtue at all? Some would say not, that while the latter is a substantive virtue, the former is only a procedural virtue, that is a virtuous manner of proceeding but not in itself a substantive virtue. The question then further devolves into articulating criteria in terms of which substantive and procedural virtues might be distinguished, a matter into which I will not venture here but rather will pass over to Boru for further, and no doubt, better reflective analysis.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM
You contend that classical music has been around for hundreds of years and this makes it superior to rock.
1. I’m not contending that rock is better I’m contending that the entire area of music is subjective and mostly emotive.
2. Building has been around for thousands of years. Airplanes are built moving structures and they’ve only been around for a little over a hundred years. Are you telling me that houses are superior to airplanes because they have been making them for longer?
You have to go further into your characteristics of music in order to sufficiently argue your present contention.
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (10/06, 9:48AM)
1. Your first statement is false. I never maintained that because classical music has been around for hundreds of years and is therefore superior to rock. What I did maintain is that since classical has been around for hundreds of years AND IS STILL PRESENTLY APPRECIATED, that implies an objective and not merely a transient basis for its worth. Rock, in contrast, has not been around that long so one cannot make make a comparison on the single basis of longevity. But something tells me that rock will have been long forgotten in a couple of hundred years.
2. Yes, I know you are contending that the entire area music is subjective and mostly emotive. But that was never the point. As I said some time ago Daniel, you must show me and not merely tell me that there is no objective criterion – i.e., no non-subjective and non-emotive criterion of music’s, particularly classical music’s, worth. This is not to say that classical is without its subjective and emotive qualities. Rather, it is to say that classical is not wholly subjective and emotive. There is something more.
3. Your comparison of buildings and airplanes is both irrelevant to the issue and internally incoherent.
4. But Daniel, it is YOU who have to go further into YOUR characteristics of music since YOU are the one making the claim that there are no objective criteria to distinguish the worth of different sorts of music. I never made the claim. YOU did and so YOU have to support it.
Good luck.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM
If classical has more longevity does that mean that there is a certain level of intelligence that is required to appreciate it fully?
If rock lacks longevity does that mean that there is less intelligence required to appreciate it fully?
I still see no correlation between intelligence and listening to classical music. Not even by statistics that are based off “like not like” reports.
The airplane house analogy is merely there to illustrate a circumstance where you’re longevity point lacks ground. Music might be different THAT is what I am ASKING.
Oh, and you made the claim that more intelligent people listen to classical music, so it is your claim. I become more disappointed by the minute.
RSVP
Daniel Abraham (10/06, 10:40AM)
Good afternoon Daniel. I trust that your lunch was satisfactory.
Daniel, you are confounding what I said. Read #1 silently from my previous post over again. (Try not to move your lips.) My point about longevity – I thought it was quite simple – had nothing to do with the intelligence of those who listened to classical music as opposed to those who listened to rock. It was simply to point out that it was one – perhaps the distinguishing feature – of classical music. It’s been around a long time and is still being listened to around the world today. Have you managed to grasp that, Daniel?
Now, regarding the intelligence matter. My claim was that the listeners of classical music tend to conform to a certain pattern. They claim that there are certain objective grounds which distinguish it from other genres of music, including rock. These objective grounds of classical music correlate with qualities of the listeners to classical music, to wit character, intelligence and class. I claim that these qualities in the listeners of classical are superior to those who listen to rock. Now, and this is the important point – I previously (09/30, 5:09PM) claimed that I could be wrong, that I could be mistaken – but if I were that it was up to YOU to demonstrate that I am mistaken. That has always been my position.
Your airplane/house analogy is incoherent. One is a means of transportation, the other is a domicile. It is also irrelevant to the present discussion.
(10:59AM)
No, to repeat Daniel, I never made the claim that more intelligent people listen to classical than rock. I’m sure the numbers who listen to rock far exceed those who listen to classical. My claim, which you have yet to refute, was that classical listeners reflect a certain demographic, one which includes particular qualities of character, intelligence and class which distinguish it from listeners to rock. My further claim is that such qualities of classical listeners are generally superior to those possessed by listeners to rock. While the claim is impressionistic, I believe that it would be possible to empirically demonstrate it given sufficient time and interest of which, I might add, I have neither.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM
I’m getting pretty tired of this. You’re like a lawyer who takes the witness stand. Enough. Time for more interesting convo
You weren’t saying that more intelligent people listen to classical but that a certain demographic do.
OK, you were snobbishly implying it. Enough for what I’m saying to be suiting.
See I can play the little dance too. I just find it completely pointless and inflated. Obviously you don’t so please; continue to inflate.
MM
“Daniel, in addition to qualities of character and intelligence in respect to correlations between different tastes in music, i.e., classical vs. rock, let’s add differences in class. In other words Daniel, not only is classical music objectively better than rock in itself and not only does classical music correlate with higher qualities of character and intelligence than rock, but classical music also correlates with higher class membership than rock. Are you aboard with that, Daniel?”
No I’m not on board with that.
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (10/06/ 5:04Pm & 5:46PM)
You’re right, Daniel. I’m getting pretty tired of it too. It’s time to say goodbye, Daniel, “Goodbye.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Happy 127th birthday, Niels Bohr.
Interesting historical fact, in 1943 Bohr was in in imminent danger of being arrested by the Gestapo in Denmark, so he was smuggled across the border into Sweden and flown to Scotland in the bomb bay of a civil-registered Mosquito fighter-bomber.
https://sites.google.com/site/mazexx/il2-s…
http://chzscience.files.wordpress.com/2012…
AN INTERESTING STORY
As I believe I have mentioned before I used to comment regularly under my real name on the Chronicle-Herald (Opinions/Columnists). My usual comment was usually a critique of Marilla Stephenson and Gail Lethbridge, but not limited to them. I wasn’t interested so much in the content of their opinion pieces as in their mental processes. I would trace the trajectory of their thought processes from their introduction to conclusion, seeing if their processes were coherent. Usually not. However, things recently took an unusual turn.
On October 5 I commented on Lezlie Lowe’s piece (“Rules force the working poor to stay that way”) about a divorced woman of two who didn’t want to go on welfare – she was embarrassed when she had to before – and instead wanted $700 a year to top up her income as a child-carer in her home. Her husband had decamped owing $35,000 in support payments and was “somewhere in Ontario working, according to the woman, “under the table.” She couldn’t afford the medical bills for her kids. If she went on welfare again she would receive $1000 a month and, in addition to the income, her medical expenses would all be covered. But, as I say, she was embarrassed to do so. It sounded as though the Nova Scotia welfare people were heartless but I thought the story sounded fishy and said so. Anyway, I posted my comment. It never appeared. No reason was given, it just never appeared.
“That’s strange,” I said to myself. (I have a rich interior life.) “Oh well,” I said, “I’ll try again.” This morning I did. I posted a comment on Gail Lethbridge’s “Nova Scotia tourism industry badly needs an overhaul.” When I pressed “send” a notice popped up saying, “You do not have permission to post on this thread.” Can you believe it? I had been kicked off the site. The moderator for the comments section is Rick Conrad – I think it’s Rick but know it’s Conrad – so I thought I’d send him a note asking why my first post had been deleted and my second blocked. I got the same notice again: “You do not have permission to post on this thread.” So I never found out why Rick, bless his black little heart, had done the dirty on me.
So there you go. I don’t have permission to post on the Chronicle-Herald anymore. I’ve been kicked off. I thought it was an interesting story and that I’d share it with you. I’m just that kind of guy.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM
Once everyone is on the internet (as has happened) the same problems with intellectual control that the human race has done to itself time and time again will be more complicated and easier for the controllers.
I’m outraged, MM! This kind of proto-fascist repression cannot be allowed to stand. I’d call for a boycott of the Chronically-Horrid were it not for the fact that I haven’t touched a copy in years. The Coast is , I find , softer, more absorbent and gentler on the bottom. Important factors when us Underclass are choosing our information media.
However, SOBova and I are organizing a “Nude In”* to protest your ill treatment. Any other interested Bitchers are welcome to join:
http://articles.absoluteelsewhere.net/Grap…
*Disclaimer: Not exactly as illustrated
Ivan It would be easier for you to talk about the subjects you DO NOT know about.Is there anything you don’t know? I’m being serious.
LOL, Boru. Let’s see. I SUCK at math. Biology was the only science in High School that I was any good at. Philosophy goes right above my head at 747 type altitudes. (I hope you appreciate that I’ve just given MM a cudgel to pummel me with) Abstract thinking is quite beyond me. I’m not good at board games or cards, chess, checkers. I have the eye-hand coordination of a paramecium so video games are something that I avoid if there are any witnesses. My knowledge of pop culture pretty much ends at around the point that Springsteen released “Born In The U.S.A.” I’ve spent most of my life with my nose in book of one sort or another so I have a big vocabulary which makes me sound smarter than I really am. I can still play a pretty mean game of Trivial Pursuit but you can always stonewall me with a Sports question.
But, I am your go-to guy on Military History >: )
http://quirkbooks.160over90.com/sites/defa…
LOLZ @ Smeagol =)
Poor little Stoor, did someone hurt wittle Golem’s fweelings? Pouty face?
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/59…
What some cheese with that wine?
Waaa!!! Waaa!
http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/attachm…
Obviously you violated the terms of use, again. I said as a joke once that you’ve probably been kicked off every philosophy forum in the English speaking world, now I sure of it. LTWWB is probably the only site that hasn’t banned you yet.
We all know you’re an asshole, why do you keep insisting on proving it?
RSVPs
: Daniel Abraham (10/07, 3:55PM)
I think I understand your post Daniel, but I’m not sure. In any case, keep thinking.
: Ivan Sonofabitch (5:12PM)
Thank God the publicity photo for your “Nude In” was “not exactly as illustrated.” Yoko doesn’t become a beard.
Anyway, without being uncharacteristically pontifical or even tendentious – I hope Boru is reading this – I do think that there is a principle concealed somewhere in the matter. Not that it bothers me that much but Conrad came across as the trial judge in Kafka’s “Der Prozess” (I always prefer the German, don’t you?). I felt like Joseph K who was charged, found guilty and sentenced for a crime he did not know he had committed. On the one hand, I have no idea what his beef might have been but, on the other, I feel that simple manners if not principled justice might have compelled him to give me some explanation. The (somewhat) interesting point is that the vast majority of other commenters on that thread are, almost to a man, redneck blowhards whose empty bluster is totally unsupported by any reasoning process. In effect, they embody “the stupid man” who equates his simple, unsupported opinion with the truth about the matter under discussion. Remind you of anyone on this site?
(6:55PM)
“Philosophy goes right over my head at 747 type altitude.” But Ivan, you must remember Socrates’ assertion to the effect that, “The only thing I know is that I know nothing.” Of course, he meant “know” in the sense of apodictic certitude, not in the loose sense we employ the term. In any case, I found your review of the areas in which your knowledge fell short – whatever that might mean – was itself philosophical. What could be more philosophical than reflecting on the scope of one’s own reflections? Ivan, I think you might be approximating the Socratic ideal here. You must keep on philosophizing.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
How the fuck do you not just float away with that self-inflated giant douche of a hot air balloon attached to that meager, stumpy body of yours?
Ivan Considering how big the world and all there is in it,the list of things you don’t know is shorter than (what I think) the list of things you know about.
You’re very kind Boru. Suffice to say, the act of learning only ends when life itself does.
Knowledge and information is useless unless it is shared (Dear God – Ivan talking like a SOCIALIST? >: 0 IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD, PEOPLE!) ^^^ I probably learned as much at uni listening to conversations in the dining hall as I did in the classroom or library.
That’s what I love most about LTWWB. Everybody has some kind of knowledge, experience or story to share.
What a crock of bullshit.
It makes absolutely no difference if what we experience is reality, or is a dream of reality or simply the delusions of a cosmic intellect .
If it seems real , if it can hurt you, make you happy, sad, afraid, horrified etc. THen it is ‘real’ to you & Me & that is all that is truely important.
Just because physicists have theorized that there are huge gaping holes in solid lead blocks ( or they are huge holes in the reality of a neutrino) on the molecular scale. Doesn’t make lead any lighter in my reality. Water being made up of Hydrogen & Oxygen molecules doesn’t make it seem any drier in my reality either…but maybe the rest of you don’t get wet !
I think I am
Or do I
I am
I think
I’m not sure !
If life’s a dream
I wonder where I go when I’m asleep ? – More ~;)
The whole idea of perception is interesting if you talk to a schizophrenic. I know a lady that hears a baby crying all the time and believes Satan talks to her through the TV set. Any channel except Treehouse. I say to her “you know that’s not actually happening” and “that you have nothing to be scared of” in regard to those experiences. However, this is her reality and who am I to tell her that these things are not real. Am I making it worse by saying things that are obvious to her aren’t there, even if I’m just trying to help?
She tends to get heavily medicated by her doctor because of the amount of fear she carries. This makes her seem punch drunk and incoherent and that depresses me. Now instead of a reality of scary sights and sounds, she now she has a reality of fog. She can’t function in society either way.
I’m not condemning her mental health practioners because I do not hve any solutions myself but it seems she’s paying high price for her feelings and perceptions.
I like this Bitch…and I totally agree with Mr. Science Dork…..man, i LOVE physics……
RSVPs
: The Dribbling Half-Wit (10/08, 9:38AM)
Read the last five sentences of my reply (10/07, 5:12PM) to Ivan, the part about “redneck blowhards whose empty bluster is totally unsupported by any reasoning process.” Ring any bells?
: Ivan Sonofabitch (10:12AM)
“Knowledge and information are useless unless it is shared.”
I am glad to see that you are taking my advice to “keep on philosophizing” to heart, Ivan, but I detect a worrying element of simple-minded pragmatism in your reference to knowledge and information being “useless” unless shared. While passing by the information/knowledge distinction – the two are not the same – one does wonder, “useless” (or useful) for what? The problem with pragmatism is that, in itself, it is unable to answer that question. The answer, of course, will reflect your underlying philosophical viewpoint and, as I say, invoking the principle of utility is worrying. Would you want to tackle that one, Ivan? I mean, its useless unless it is shared. Right?
: More (11:49AM)
Your opening sentence immediately made me think of my reply to The Dribbling Half-Wit (see above) as applicable to you as well. But your case is more serious. On the one hand it is an incoherent rejection of objective truth. In other words, your truth is anything you want it to be and my truth is anything I want it to be, even if what you want and I want are mutually exclusive. That is incoherent. However, as with extreme subjectivist relativists generally, you also contradict yourself. Your assertion – there is no objective truth – is itself a claim to objective truth. In other words, in addition to incoherence you also fall victim to self-contradiction. So, apart from being an incoherent, self-contradictory redneck blowhard, everything is just fine.
: troondon formosus (12:49PM)
“However, this is her reality and who am I to tell her that these things are not real.”
Well Troon, one must salute your modesty but it has been purchased at the cost of incoherence. You state that the lady is a schizophrenic, that is, she is certifiably deranged. However, such is the breadth of your (unannounced) philosophical relativism you proclaim your incapacity to tell her that these things are not real, that sanity and insanity are indistinguishable. Your incoherent subjectivist relativism exceeds even that of More, which is saying something.
: Shesangbeyondetc. (1:25PM)
Good. Now tell us why.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“redneck blowhards whose empty bluster is totally unsupported by any reasoning” – says the lying Guttersnipe who’ll never have enough class to be considered White Trash, let alone Redneck.
WHERE HAVE ALL MY INTERLOCUTORS GONE?
Where have all my interlocutors (RSVPs: 10/08, 4:25PM) gone? All of them must have agreed with my claims or – what amounts to the same thing – were unable to refute them.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
An interlocutor is a person, you dip-shit.
“must have agreed with my claims or – what amounts to the same thing – were unable to refute them.” – Like the way you can’t respond to/refute my posts?
Keep it up Smeagol and you’ll get kicked off this site too 🙂
INTERLOCUTOR
1: one who takes part in dialogue or conversation
2: a man in the middle of the line in a minstrel show who questions the end men and acts as leader.
Care to come play? Dip-shit.
RSVP
: Hugo Phurst (10/10, 2:03PM)
Look at #1. Then look at the title of my post of 10/09, 3:57PM). See any connection, dipshit?
I’m replying just this once to your stupid, jealous comments. Don’t write back.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Awww, my mistake Smeagol, I thought you were whining about your posts (inane drivel actually) being deleted again. You really didn’t expect anybody to go back and re-read your bullshit did you?
People stop replying to you when they realize that you’re a fucking moron, who’s full of shit and knows nothing about what you’re takling about…..like music, science, philosophy…