Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Posts 201 to 250 of 345
  1. #201

    User Info Menu

    I don't have much to add because you guys are thinking waaay above my pay grade.
    My personal deal falls on the fundamental side of the fence which has been hard to reconcile as an artist and a musician.

    I would just like to say how proud I am of you all. None of my other forum hangs could maintain this kind of intelligent discourse for this length of time.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #202

    User Info Menu

    ah.clem. I appreciate your setting me straight on Kirlian photography. My last recollection of it was when I first heard of it in the '70s. I made the unfortunate and irresponsible mistake of using it to bolster my point. But my understanding of chi is more personal and real to me. There are many claims for the positive results from acupuncture and MDs who recommend it to patients not responding to other therapies. To the best of my knowledge, that form of chi has been charted but never scientifically substantiated. My experience with chi (or what I can only call chi) has nothing to do with acupuncture; it is more real and immediate to me than that, having experienced it on a very intense and personal level.
    Last edited by zigzag; 04-05-2014 at 09:46 PM.

  4. #203

    User Info Menu

    Maybe my computer analogy is taking things a bit off course. That last paragraph didn't seem to have anything to do with the conservation.

    I'm just saying my basic approach is skeptical. I'll disinclined to believe a wild-eyed hypothesis just because someone can wheel their arms around. Why do I need to believe in anything supernatural? In free will? My universe makes sense without them. I don't need to create anything in my image.
    Build bridges, not walls.

  5. #204

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    Maybe my computer analogy is taking things a bit off course. That last paragraph didn't seem to have anything to do with the conservation.

    I'm just saying my basic approach is skeptical. I'll disinclined to believe a wild-eyed hypothesis just because someone can wheel their arms around. Why do I need to believe in anything supernatural? In free will? My universe makes sense without them. I don't need to create anything in my image.
    in music or any art, or any interest you ask QUESTIONS. If you just happy with not doing so, then don't. It is up to you. But some people question because they sense there is something far deeper than the myth scientism pushes which tries to make out we are all will-less robots.

    In your universe or world it may feel comfortable, but the outcome of this myth has serious repercussion for those deemed 'mentally ill'. because the consensus amongst those that believe what you do is that when people cannot cope with this reality which dismisses spiritual reality then they are seen as defective, having a chemical imbalance and needing medication

    So let us go back to Rene Descartes. He is the philosopher who said "I think therefore I am" and assumed that there animals are robots who............? Yeah, have no free will. And dont feel pain, and then he tortured them. I suspect he felt alright with his worldview too. Bet his animals victims didn't!

    So there is a bigger picture BigDaddyLoveHandles. There are serious repercussions for what I see as toxic myths. Though they may not seem to affect you, they do others.

    by the way, it was Wilhelm Wundt who was the psychologist who said we were just bags of chemical and electrical interactions. So such a theory as this idea set to turn US into robots too!

  6. #205

    User Info Menu

    I'm all for a charter of right for robots. I know how they feel.
    Build bridges, not walls.

  7. #206

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    I'm all for a charter of right for robots. I know how they feel.
    oh, so they CAN feel?

  8. #207

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    I view my brain as a computer (warning: I am a software developer!). It recognizes logic and it can learn. Suppose I had a coworker who was a robot: no spirit, no free will. How could you tell us apart? Or what about the old idea of replacing biological parts of a human one at a time with manufactured components? At what point does one stop being a person? Where is free will and spirit when one is 0% biological?
    The 'brain as computer' analogy has been around for awhile now and presents many problems. (Here's a quick sketch of ten from a science blog. 10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers ? Developing Intelligence
    )

    Perhaps the most relevant to you as a software developer is that, in the brain, there can be no hardware/software distinction.

    In the robot / co-worker comparison you leave out something important: the difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. If one is 0% biological, one is not a living thing. The ancient definition of 'soul' was the animating principle of a living thing. Thus dogs and carrots would have souls so long as they were alive. These would not be immortal souls, which are what theologians take humans to have. Rocks, on the other hand, would not have souls because they are not alive, and neither would robots. For all its apparent sophistication, this argument is no more compelling that if you can't tell pyrite from gold by looking at them, then there really is no difference between them. Uh, yes there is. Not all differences lie on the surfaces of things. Even if your robot looked and smelled and moved and laughed and farted and ate like a human being, it would still be tough to pass the ol' Turing test.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  9. #208

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    I'm just saying my basic approach is skeptical. I'll disinclined to believe a wild-eyed hypothesis just because someone can wheel their arms around. Why do I need to believe in anything supernatural? In free will? My universe makes sense without them. I don't need to create anything in my image.
    I don't think you understand what skepticism means. The ancient skeptics weren't simply skeptical of religious claims; they denied the validity of ANY truth claims. This stance will always fail for the same reason it failed then: wait, are you saying it is true that you are a skeptic, or are you saying you are skeptical of even that claim? How can you be sure you even know what 'skeptic' means?

    This makes a complete hash of science too, by the way. Many postmodern thinkers, who despise religion, also despise science for its pretentious claims to be motivated by truth or to be conducted in an honest manner when 'everyone knows' it's just another attempt to seize and maintain power...

    There is nothing wild-eyed about the claim that people use abstract nouns (-science is full of them: matter, force, energy, descent, evolution, infection) and can understand them (-and in some cases, misunderstand them). No wholly material conception of the brain can explain this. A child can know that 3 x 3 is 9 and a calculator may yield that result of the right buttons are pressed, but the calculator doesn't know that 3 x 3 is 9 or that '3' is a number and 'x' is operation sign or that "=" means that the formula to the left amounts to the same quantity as the digit to the right. The calculator has no knowledge of math at all. There is nothing wild-eyed about realizing this.

    I understand skepticism in the area of religious belief that begins with, "I have a hard time believing that," or "that doesn't make sense to me." But when you wind up thinking that maybe there really is no tell-tale difference between you and a robot, you are no longer skeptical but actually promoting a "wild-eyed hypothesis".

    I'm sure you're familiar with this infamous quote of Richard Lewontin in his review of Carl Sagan's last book.

    "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "

    Lewontin at least knew that his main objective was not truth but getting other people to accept whatever could be called 'science' as truth and thereby lead them in the direction of his prior commitments (-which were not reached through scientific means.). He hated religion but he wanted The People to accept whatever 'science' says in the same spirit (he thought) religious people accept what religion says. He operates from a deep ignorance of how religious thought works.

    But again, it is enough to start with something near to hand: your understanding of abstract nouns and your capacity to have your mind changed by an argument. (Such as, for example, an argument about biases in human thinking based on the researches of Tversky and Kahneman, which I regard as an important addition to knowledge.) Science isn't science if the scientists can't help what they think.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  10. #209

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    The 'brain as computer' analogy has been around for awhile now and presents many problems. (Here's a quick sketch of ten from a science blog. 10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers ? Developing Intelligence
    )

    Perhaps the most relevant to you as a software developer is that, in the brain, there can be no hardware/software distinction.

    In the robot / co-worker comparison you leave out something important: the difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. If one is 0% biological, one is not a living thing. The ancient definition of 'soul' was the animating principle of a living thing. Thus dogs and carrots would have souls so long as they were alive. These would not be immortal souls, which are what theologians take humans to have. Rocks, on the other hand, would not have souls because they are not alive, and neither would robots. For all its apparent sophistication, this argument is no more compelling that if you can't tell pyrite from gold by looking at them, then there really is no difference between them. Uh, yes there is. Not all differences lie on the surfaces of things. Even if your robot looked and smelled and moved and laughed and farted and ate like a human being, it would still be tough to pass the ol' Turing test.
    That "10 differences" article is interesting from the viewpoint of cognitive psychology. I accept that our brains, the result of millions of years of evolution, are more subtle than computers, which have only been around since the 1940's.

    I also see that that article doesn't mention "soul". I don't see that I have a soul. Perhaps you could point to it. Since carrots have souls, too, I realize having one only makes me carrot-special, but I'd still like an experiment that points it out.
    Build bridges, not walls.

  11. #210

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    I don't think you understand what skepticism means. The ancient skeptics weren't simply skeptical of religious claims; they denied the validity of ANY truth claims. This stance will always fail for the same reason it failed then: wait, are you saying it is true that you are a skeptic, or are you saying you are skeptical of even that claim? How can you be sure you even know what 'skeptic' means?
    You know much more about philosophy than I do. When I said I was skeptical, I didn't mean to imply I was an Ancient Greek Skeptic. I do not have those powers of sophistry.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    I understand skepticism in the area of religious belief that begins with, "I have a hard time believing that," or "that doesn't make sense to me." But when you wind up thinking that maybe there really is no tell-tale difference between you and a robot, you are no longer skeptical but actually promoting a "wild-eyed hypothesis".
    I'm a biological unit and a robot is not. I was just saying that I have no more free will than a robot. Again, if the universe is reset, how could I behave any differently?

    I want to stress that I am not a fatalist: someone who says why bother, the book is written. I see people all around me striving to do things, and they do it without free will, I claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    But again, it is enough to start with something near to hand: your understanding of abstract nouns and your capacity to have your mind changed by an argument. (Such as, for example, an argument about biases in human thinking based on the researches of Tversky and Kahneman, which I regard as an important addition to knowledge.) Science isn't science if the scientists can't help what they think.
    That, for me, is a tricky argument involving philosophy and science. Reality is certainly complex and even a little worker ant like myself is complex -- complex to my introspective eyes. So complex perhaps it's easier for me to go along believing I have a free will even if I don't understand how that can be. But then again, maybe thinking one way or another doesn't make a difference in my daily life.
    Build bridges, not walls.

  12. #211

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post

    I also see that that article doesn't mention "soul". I don't see that I have a soul. Perhaps you could point to it. Since carrots have souls, too, I realize having one only makes me carrot-special, but I'd still like an experiment that points it out.
    It is not important to me here for you to say you have a soul. It wouldn't surprise me if I too denied the existence of what you understand a soul to be.

    As for a thought experiment: you are on a game show and will win a million dollars if you can explain why robots never wonder what people are like. What do you say?
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  13. #212

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    As for a thought experiment: you are on a game show and will win a million dollars if you can explain why robots never wonder what people are like. What do you say?
    I'd like to spin the wheel?

    No, I'd say that today, I don't think robots have been programmed with that capacity. Tomorrow?

    You can split that idea in two: wondering, and reflecting on people. I think you're alluding to consciousness. That's a big ball of wax; I only know there are all sorts of problems with coming to grips with it.
    Build bridges, not walls.

  14. #213

    User Info Menu

    1. Human beings don't have USB ports. Therefore, all analogies between humans and computers are invalid.
    2. Alan Turing was wrong about his prediction on the state of Artificial Intelligence in the year 2000. Therefore, people have mystical souls, and machines will never get more sophisticated.

    I really need to get back to playing my guitar.

  15. #214

    User Info Menu

    ...could a robot play guitar with soul?

    Feeling

  16. #215

    User Info Menu

    I think Pat's Orchestrion record and tour proved man and machine can meld and produce beautiful music.

    Build bridges, not walls.

  17. #216
    I spent a good part of yesterday reading about brain function, having read an article regarding a book about left handedness:
    http://www.brainpickings.org/index.p...-david-wolman/

    While it's only theory, it signified to me a reason why some may be more inclined to a materialist way of thinking, while others are more open to spiritual or supernatural (if you will) perspectives on life. The article refers to it as magic ideation, and says it's more prevalent in those with more bilateral brain function.

    Here is the particular part I'm talking about:

    Perhaps the most interesting theory, however, is a rather fringe proposition that ties handedness to “magical ideation” — one’s tendency to believe in metaphysical phenomena beyond that aren’t scientifically verifiable, from supernatural forces to extrasensory perception to reincarnation and other concepts that wouldn’t hold up to Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit. Wolman cites New Zealand scholar Michael Corballis, who has written about the potential link between more brain symmetry — something found in lefties — and magical ideation:

    Hemispheric asymmetry itself may lead to more decisive and controlled action, and perhaps a better ability to organize hierarchical processes, as in language, manufacture, and theory of mind. Those individuals who lack cerebral asymmetry [a.k.a. increased symmetry] may be more susceptible to superstition and magical thinking, but more creative and perhaps more spatially aware.

    On the magical ideation scale — the measure of belief in such phenomena — lefties tend to score higher than righties. And yet, Wolman points out, “anecdotal evidence that lefties are highly represented in low-bullshit-tolerating professions such as journalism and science doesn’t exactly support this notion,” suggesting instead that the magical ideation hypothesis is best “recalibrated as a degree-not-direction descriptor.”

    What makes this theory intriguing, however, isn’t its verifiability or lack thereof but what it reveals about our culture’s beliefs about creativity and mental illness, or cognitive abnormality. Wolman writes:

    The magical ideation line of thinking loops back to creativity when we consider findings indicating an increased proportion of left-handers who suffer from such disorders as schizophrenia. With due acknowledgment once again to Corballis for synthesis of this idea, it’s plausible that schizophrenia and magical ideation sprout from similar neurological roots. Research demonstrating connections between mixed-handedness and either of these two conditions advances that plausibility.

    […]

    Consider for a moment that there’s a thin, perhaps blurred line between genius and mental illness. What if some types of genius stem from the same aspect of the brain — or influence on the brain — as, say, magical ideation and schizophrenia, and that subtle variation in the arrangement of certain brain circuits determines the difference between the next da Vinci, the next graphology believer, the next Hendrix-like guitar god, or the next schizophrenic?





    Later in the day I came across this brilliant animation about the divided brain, well worth checking out:



    Interesting that Einstein referred to the right brain as a sacred gift and the left brain a faithful servant...

  18. #217

    User Info Menu

    I've been a atheist/non-supernaturalist my whole life. I've always wondered if some gene didn't switch on; if it did, I might believe in god and mystical beings.
    Build bridges, not walls.

  19. #218

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    I'd like to spin the wheel?

    No, I'd say that today, I don't think robots have been programmed with that capacity. Tomorrow?

    You can split that idea in two: wondering, and reflecting on people. I think you're alluding to consciousness. That's a big ball of wax; I only know there are all sorts of problems with coming to grips with it.
    Yes, consciousness is a big part of it. But the first problem I see for you---and the problem I hoped to get you to see---is that if you say, 'robots haven't been programmed with that capacity', you are in a hole already because people can wonder and they weren't programmed for it either. People weren't programmed at all. (I assume you think the human brain evolved absent any direction, end, or conscious programming of any kind.) Yet we can wonder. It's a curious thing, wondering. Aristotle said philosophy begins in wonder. It's not an attempt to get food or sex or protect the home front or fend off an enemy. Like philosophy (-at least as the ancients understood it), it serves no utilitarian purpose. (This is one reason Aristotle thought of philosophy as "free.")

    Aquinas said, "The reason the philosopher can be compared to the poet is that both are concerned with wonder."

    Some consider wonder and all such folderol worthless, a waste of time, but even such people are prone to wonder, 'why is there something rather than nothing?' or 'is this all there is?' or, when gazing into a deep, starry sky, 'is there anybody out there?'
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  20. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    I've been a atheist/non-supernaturalist my whole life. I've always wondered if some gene didn't switch on; if it did, I might believe in god and mystical beings.
    I guess we could get down to nature or nurture (which could be a black hole in itself)? Were your parents atheists? I was raised in a Christian home, and so while belief in God seems normative to me, my observation is that my parents' very left-brained, compartmentalised, systematic view of religion, does not reflect my more right-brained, random-abstract, experiential view of spirituality. Perhaps you can get both brands of atheists, and both brands of religious types: an atheist who likens himself to a robot, or an ethical humanist who is on a mission to save the planet; a fatalistic intellectual believer who touts pre-destination, or an evangelistic Christian who is out to introduce everyone to their personal God. There is a range.

    I think this discussion is getting to the heart of my questioning about spirituality and music, and the reason I referenced Coltrane. Can music do anything? Coltrane professed to aspire to be a saint, and music was his vehicle. My understanding of spirituality is not so much that it adheres to a particular brand of beliefs but that it has to do with personal transformation, and social and cultural transformation in turn, in relation to something other. Perhaps for the religious, the something other is God, while for a humanist the something other is the greater good of humanity. To me, religion and music both address the reflective areas of wonder and questioning in our lives, which is why they interest me, and why I feel they are linked. They are able to hold things unresolved. I'm always slightly disappointed by hard scientific facts. I always feel like they don't tell the whole story. I'd rather live with the wonder, and feel like I'm living my life being transformed toward a truth that is beyond me, a truth that is not owned by any one human or institution.

    Jazz, or any kind of improvised music for that matter, at its best seems like an act of faith: the embodied self stepping out on the water toward something divine, believing that something is gonna hold you up that maybe shouldn't, while you walk around for a little while, only to return to the boat a changed person, in the company of other changed witnesses. At its worst, improvisation feels like the contrived tricks of a charlatan fake getting you from A to B, back to A again, the same person you always were.

  21. #220

    User Info Menu

    Some random thoughts:

    1. I interpret the word "soul" poetically and metaphorically, never literally. Sort of like using the words "warm" and "dark" to describe the classic arch top tone.

    2. On the "specialization of knowledge", which is a historical necessity in order for society to move forward--one of the residual legacies of the non-specialization of knowledge is the fact that PhDs are still awarded as "doctorates of philosophy". It used the be case that the entirely of knowledge was the scope of philosophical thought: from math to science to music. Hence, Pythagorus' Theorem, etc. Modern day post modern philosophy (spearheaded by the late Jacques Derrida), which seems to concern itself exclusively with the "dungeons of language", cannot be so bothered by concepts such as mathematics and science and art and music. What a total cop-out.

    3. Equally deplorable is what officially passes for officially Marxist philosophy these days, and it has been so wretched since at least the time of the consolidation of the Stalinist dictatorship in the USSR, which meant the twilight of any sort of critical and/or independent thinking, which had been the hallmark of thinking prior to that time. I used to enjoy reading Lenin or Luxemberg's or even György Lukacs writing about Hegel, historical materialism and the like. But the rise of the Stalinist dictatorship reminds me of my favorite Marx quote: "with all these Marxists around here, I only know one thing: I certainly am no Marxist". That almost seems to anticipate another Marx, this time Groucho, and his little quip about clubs that are so wretched that they would have him as a member.
    Navdeep Singh.

  22. #221

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by L4CESN View Post

    Jazz, or any kind of improvised music for that matter, at its best seems like an act of faith: the embodied self stepping out on the water toward something divine, believing that something is gonna hold you up that maybe shouldn't, while you walk around for a little while, only to return to the boat a changed person, in the company of other changed witnesses. At its worst, improvisation feels like the contrived tricks of a charlatan fake getting you from A to B, back to A again, the same person you always were.

    What an excellent analysis. Perhaps the charlatan aspect feels that way because the "act of faith" requires a lot of elbow grease, sweat and dedication behind the woodshed (the requisite 10,000 hours).

    There is the all important and necessary pathway to acquisition and arriving at musical knowledge that perhaps encumbers us and weighs us down, like an anchor. But since music is a process, we forget the art of forgetting, which is necessary as we move from the practice room to the act of spontaneous performance. I think it is the art of forgetting that allows us to be ourselves.

    It is like over-analyzing about "wrong notes". This to me is a malfeasance in which the practice room plagues the performance space. I heard this great piece of advice by Johnny Griffin that he gave to my friend Thomas (whose picture I had previously posted). After a performance, Griff when up to him and said, "you know why you played the wrong notes? Because you felt and thought they were the wrong notes, and the dwelling on this consequently affected your performance of the tune.".
    Navdeep Singh.

  23. #222

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    I've been a atheist/non-supernaturalist my whole life. I've always wondered if some gene didn't switch on; if it did, I might believe in god and mystical beings.
    I believe in God. To me believing in God is a choice. I choose to believe in God for my own reasons and because that choice works for me for my own reasons and for my own purpose.

    If you choose to not believe in god then that's cool. I assume that works for you for your own reasons and for your own purpose.

    What I really don't understand and what makes no sense to me are those who think that they have somehow got it right and that people who have different views must have it wrong. It's the zealots who piss me off whether they are of the deist, atheist, statist, humanist, scientist or whateverist variety who ridicule or damn the different. It's the Fred Phelps' and Christopher Hitchens' of the world, whose confidence in their own righteousness allows for no other paradigm but their own and who find it so offensive that anyone would hold any worldview different than their own, that they need to ridicule and condemn any such affront to their own beliefs.

    I think all artists try to tap into something deep - something eternal - something that "touches the face of God". It's great that different artists have different ways of getting there, spiritual or not. Bach dedicated all of his works "for the glory of God" - worked pretty good for him I'd say. Charlie Parker, an atheist, didn't do too bad himself.
    Still working on it.

  24. #223

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by L4CESN View Post
    I spent a good part of yesterday reading about brain function, having read an article regarding a book about left handedness:
    The Evolutionary Mystery of Left-Handedness and What It Reveals About How the Brain Works | Brain Pickings

    While it's only theory, it signified to me a reason why some may be more inclined to a materialist way of thinking, while others are more open to spiritual or supernatural (if you will) perspectives on life. The article refers to it as magic ideation, and says it's more prevalent in those with more bilateral brain function.

    Here is the particular part I'm talking about:

    Perhaps the most interesting theory, however, is a rather fringe proposition that ties handedness to “magical ideation” — one’s tendency to believe in metaphysical phenomena beyond that aren’t scientifically verifiable, from supernatural forces to extrasensory perception to reincarnation and other concepts that wouldn’t hold up to Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit. Wolman cites New Zealand scholar Michael Corballis, who has written about the potential link between more brain symmetry — something found in lefties — and magical ideation:

    Hemispheric asymmetry itself may lead to more decisive and controlled action, and perhaps a better ability to organize hierarchical processes, as in language, manufacture, and theory of mind. Those individuals who lack cerebral asymmetry [a.k.a. increased symmetry] may be more susceptible to superstition and magical thinking, but more creative and perhaps more spatially aware.

    On the magical ideation scale — the measure of belief in such phenomena — lefties tend to score higher than righties. And yet, Wolman points out, “anecdotal evidence that lefties are highly represented in low-bullshit-tolerating professions such as journalism and science doesn’t exactly support this notion,” suggesting instead that the magical ideation hypothesis is best “recalibrated as a degree-not-direction descriptor.”

    What makes this theory intriguing, however, isn’t its verifiability or lack thereof but what it reveals about our culture’s beliefs about creativity and mental illness, or cognitive abnormality. Wolman writes:

    The magical ideation line of thinking loops back to creativity when we consider findings indicating an increased proportion of left-handers who suffer from such disorders as schizophrenia. With due acknowledgment once again to Corballis for synthesis of this idea, it’s plausible that schizophrenia and magical ideation sprout from similar neurological roots. Research demonstrating connections between mixed-handedness and either of these two conditions advances that plausibility.

    […]

    Consider for a moment that there’s a thin, perhaps blurred line between genius and mental illness. What if some types of genius stem from the same aspect of the brain — or influence on the brain — as, say, magical ideation and schizophrenia, and that subtle variation in the arrangement of certain brain circuits determines the difference between the next da Vinci, the next graphology believer, the next Hendrix-like guitar god, or the next schizophrenic?





    Later in the day I came across this brilliant animation about the divided brain, well worth checking out:



    Interesting that Einstein referred to the right brain as a sacred gift and the left brain a faithful servant...
    Interesting video. There is a lot of information to take in, the sound of voice, what he is saying, and the imagery and written text. How amazing that we can look at this and somehow it is all going on. I will try and reflect what I felt.

    First off it has to be said. it is a very 'white' story. There are no non-western culture represented, no dark skin!

    There is not mention (and I could have missed it) of how the very culture affects the brain as is being revealed in the 'revolutionary' understanding of neuroplasticity. That this very real cultural oppression could be a reason for the seeming felt-dualistic nature of the brain and mind!
    That this affect could be known about and manipulated by a predatory mindset which has access to vast amounts of money and power, and can fund the 'testing' on animals and then use the results on humans also.

    There is no mention of the OCCULT! I am understanding there is a connection between subliminal advertizing, propaganda, and occult symbolism magick which is being used on people. This is dependent on the same natural process as was being mentioned in the video shared by humans, and animals, birds. This is where we can focus, but there is also a peripheral awareness that is taking everything in. This is also related to unconscious processes.
    And that this is exactly what they do to influence our 'divided brains and minds'. They will have us focus, and then implant all forms of stuff which is designed to manipulate us toward an agenda which suits them. 'Them' being the ones who make money of it, and gain power from doing so.
    They do this with music also. More so popular music. Seen any lately where they are actual occult Satanic rituals going on...?
    I suggest you turn sound off lol:

    Last edited by elixzer; 04-07-2014 at 05:08 AM.

  25. #224

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    I think Pat's Orchestrion record and tour proved man and machine can meld and produce beautiful music.

    Like I've said, I have an eclectic taste in music and I also LOVE dancing. Of course much of the dance music now like Deep House etc is electronic, and the use of samples is often used. To me this sounds mechanical. That although you get some great grooves where I want to move, in a funny way dancing to most can MAKE me feel a bit like a machine part lol

    Hence a lot of the person music I have in my CD and cassette collection is dance music done by humans, and a lot of that will include Delta Blues which is as raw and real as you can get. It is full of meaning

    Also when you have human musicians playing the music there is that sense of meaning also. it is not mechanical samples. One of THE most powerful music to dance to I have ever got is from Mali. I cannot tell you how this music moves me when I dance to it!!!


  26. #225

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ColinO View Post

    What I really don't understand and what makes no sense to me are those who think that they have somehow got it right and that people who have different views must have it wrong. It's the zealots who piss me off whether they are of the deist, atheist, statist, humanist, scientist or whateverist variety who ridicule or damn the different. It's the Fred Phelps' and Christopher Hitchens' of the world, whose confidence in their own righteousness allows for no other paradigm but their own and who find it so offensive that anyone would hold any worldview different than their own, that they need to ridicule and condemn any such affront to their own beliefs.
    I remember Hitch from back in his days as a columnist for The Nation (any Nation readers here?). He's in-your-face about everything; Atheism was just one strand on his bow.

    It must be tough being an Atheist in a country with lots of religious fundamentalism. It's pretty mellow in Canada, but I still get people coming to my door wanting to talk about God; I've never gotten anyone coming to my door wanting to talk about evolution.
    Build bridges, not walls.

  27. #226

    User Info Menu

    When I woke this morning I had this very vague wisp of a memory---you know how it can be with dreams, that I had had a remarkable dream. I went for a walk, and as I walked the memory suddenly came back. I had dreamt that I had come out of my body, either an OBE or an NDE but I was conscious of exiting the body, and next memory is that I was walking near the back door of my house and I said out loud "you can fly" and then I began to fly some feet above the ground!

    As far as I'm aware this is the first dream I have had of an OBE, but in my life I have experienced the real thing-- OBEs-- twice!

    It is amazing and I wanted to share it because it is great it happening when this thread was discussing souls.

    So then, what is the difference between this dream and the real thing (though maybe the dream experience was real also, who knows. I have though to distinguish). Well in the dream, I first had trouble remembering, and then eventually SOME parts of the dream came into memory but only little bits. However with the OBEs, especially the second one there was continuous awareness throughout--from finding myself out of the body to my dramatic re-entry after the very extraordinary experience where I had telepathic communication with two entities, and another two beings that I met first wore human masks of people I know, and later removed them and the looked like Satyrs underneath!

    Now this really did happen, but you tell a rationalist/materialist and they will either/or demand evidence or have the audacity to tell you what it meant even though they haven't experienced it.

  28. #227

    User Info Menu

    "
    I had just met these folks, so this was a rather personal question to ask them to respond to in front of a group, but this was California, we’re supposed to be honest and open folks, and after a few seconds everybody’s hand went up.
    I looked at them gravely, and after a few seconds of silence told them that, if I spoke from the apparent position of a modern scientist, which I certainly was, I would have to tell them that they were all fools! Ignorant fools at best, neurotic fools at worst. Didn’t they know that science had long ago shown that all religion and spirituality were nonsense, the only reality was that of the physical world?
    Like most of us, I have a strong need to be liked, so I felt like I was taking a risk in calling them fools, but I wanted to quickly get across the main thrust of The End of Materialism: in modern life many of us do believe that science has shown all spirituality to be nonsense. Yet my experience, both personally and professionally, has convinced me that there is some real and vitally important sense in which we do have a spiritual nature, and to deny and repress it wounds and lessens us. If you think the smartest people in your culture, the scientists, have proven your spiritual feelings to be dumb and neurotic, of course you try to suppress them….but yet….. So many modern people are thus wounded." [Professor Tart writing about his book The End of Materialism]

    Wounded yes. There is an epidemic of people hooked on psychiatric medication, and young people abusing themselves with drugs and alcohol (which is a drug!), and self-harming. And this woundedness affects how people relate to other species and planet Earth, and other humans, which is usually not in a good way----we are destroying everything! Spirit is lost. This spirit is connectedness and it is being suppressed

  29. #228

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ColinO View Post

    What I really don't understand and what makes no sense to me are those who think that they have somehow got it right and that people who have different views must have it wrong.
    This is easy to explain. Thinking one knows any truth----such as the winner of the most recent Super Bowl, the atomic weight of boron, whether Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone shooting President Kennedy, or what one's own name is--means thinking contradictory claims must be false.

    If God exists, those who say he doesn't are wrong. If he doesn't exist, those who say he does are wrong. Members of both camps realize that God cannot both exist and not exist (in the same sense). The same goes for the two camps on the question of whether intelligent life inhabits other planets. (Many would say, "I know that it either does or doesn't but I don't have any good reason to incline one way or the other, so my response to the question is a simple 'I don't know.'")
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  30. #229

    User Info Menu

    my response would maybe include eg:

    what do you mean by 'God'?

    if you say 'he' doesn't exist does this mean you already have a presumption that God is a he and is like patriarchal religion says 'he' is?

    Do you know that very anciently sacred vegetation in the form of fungi, for example, were thought of as god, and that you eat god? And were then possessed by the god? The ancient Greek term for this being possessed by god is enthousiasmos

    AND are you aware that the patriarchally created 'God' in the biblical 'creation myth' orders Adam and Eve NOT to eat such a Fruit? And that even the identity of the Fruit, in the script, is hidden, because that is how taboo the knowledge is.

    So what I am saying is that spirituality is not some abstract intellectual words. You can experience it sacramentally, and of course in 'ordinary' life too.

    This is the real meaning of mythology. Authentic mythology is the direct experience of the eternal.

  31. #230

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    I remember Hitch from back in his days as a columnist for The Nation (any Nation readers here?). He's in-your-face about everything; Atheism was just one strand on his bow.

    It must be tough being an Atheist in a country with lots of religious fundamentalism. It's pretty mellow in Canada, but I still get people coming to my door wanting to talk about God; I've never gotten anyone coming to my door wanting to talk about evolution.
    I personally love listening to Hitchens and Dawkins et al. I'm Canadian too and get lots of people coming by wanting to talk about God. Is that so bad? I love to talk - maybe too much. If an atheist did come by to talk I would be happy to talk to him and to listen to him.

    I know what you're talking about. Most of the people who are demanding that you believe what they believe are of the religionist persuasion. But I think those are the minority. Really most religious people don't give a shit whether you believe in a god or not.

    I'm cool with everyone believing what they want to believe. I think most people are good with that. It's the dipshits who can't accept that other people don't believe the same thing that they do that fuck the whole thing up.
    Still working on it.

  32. #231

    User Info Menu

    Re: Christopher Hitchens


    Cockburn basically got it right in his remembrance when Hitchens died. A totally self-centered, displaceable cretin who craved attention, most o fall.


    Farewell to C.H. » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

    "He wrote some really awful stuff in the early 90s about how indigenous peoples — Indians in the Americas — were inevitably going to be rolled over by the wheels of Progress and should not be mourned."

    "Anyway, between the two of them, my sympathies were always with Mother Teresa. If you were sitting in rags in a gutter in Bombay, who would be more likely to give you a bowl of soup? You’d get one from Mother Teresa. Hitchens was always tight with beggars, just like the snotty Fabians who used to deprecate charity."

    "
    He courted the label “contrarian”, but if the word is to have any muscle, it surely must imply the expression of dangerous opinions. Hitchens never wrote anything truly discommoding to respectable opinion and if he had he would never have enjoyed so long a billet at Vanity Fair.Attacking God? The big battles on that issue were fought one, two, even five hundred years ago when they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in the Campo de’ Fiore. A contrarian these days would be someone who staunchly argued for the existence of a Supreme Being."

    Navdeep Singh.

  33. #232

    User Info Menu

    Last edited by elixzer; 04-07-2014 at 05:45 PM.

  34. #233

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by elixzer View Post
    my response would maybe include eg:

    what do you mean by 'God'?.
    This is an evasion. I gave four examples of truth claims. God wasn't in any of them. The reference to God, and another to intelligent life possibly inhabiting other planets, were applications. Nothing hinges on a reference to God. Any truth claim is also a claim that its contradictory is false. This is why the childish gambit 'there is no truth' fails. If there is no truth, then THAT claim cannot true. If that truth claim is not true, then it is false. If the claim 'there is no truth' is false, and it is, then there must be some truth. And there is.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  35. #234

    User Info Menu

    Former Star Trek Captain featured in film that attempts to show that Galileo was wrong and that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    ?Star Trek? actress lends her gravitas to film promoting idea that sun revolves around Earth | The Raw Story

    From the article:

    "About one in four Americans believe in geocentrism, which places the Earth at the center of the universe and the sun, planets, and stars revolving around it."
    Navdeep Singh.

  36. #235

    User Info Menu

    I stand by what I said

    I don't trust philosophy

  37. #236

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ View Post
    Former Star Trek Captain featured in film that attempts to show that Galileo was wrong and that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

    ?Star Trek? actress lends her gravitas to film promoting idea that sun revolves around Earth | The Raw Story

    From the article:

    "About one in four Americans believe in geocentrism, which places the Earth at the center of the universe and the sun, planets, and stars revolving around it."
    To be precise, many believe lower Manhattan to be the centre of the Universe.
    Build bridges, not walls.

  38. #237

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    To be precise, many believe lower Manhattan to be the centre of the Universe.
    There may be a split in that group. N.B., the one's that have moved to Billyburgh, Park Slope, and other enclaves. "Brooklyn is the new Manhattan" is the new mantra. Skyrocketing rents lend credence to this assertion.

    Shockingly enough, there are even jazz musicians who have moved there-no, not to East New York, Brooklyn, but the parts that have replicated the Lower East Side and the Village vibe in the Borough With No Big Buildings. How they are able to afford such real estate on a jazz musician's, ahem, "salary" is beyond me. I presume spouses with executive salary worthy occupations may have been involved with such real estate transactions.
    Navdeep Singh.

  39. #238

    User Info Menu

    The spiritual music of creation...


  40. #239

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by elixzer View Post
    I stand by what I said

    I don't trust philosophy
    Your choice, as is mine to cease conversing with you.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  41. #240

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by elixzer View Post
    Like I've said, I have an eclectic taste in music and I also LOVE dancing. Of course much of the dance music now like Deep House etc is electronic, and the use of samples is often used. To me this sounds mechanical. That although you get some great grooves where I want to move, in a funny way dancing to most can MAKE me feel a bit like a machine part lol

    Hence a lot of the person music I have in my CD and cassette collection is dance music done by humans, and a lot of that will include Delta Blues which is as raw and real as you can get. It is full of meaning

    Also when you have human musicians playing the music there is that sense of meaning also. it is not mechanical samples. One of THE most powerful music to dance to I have ever got is from Mali. I cannot tell you how this music moves me when I dance to it!!!

    I just started to investigate dance music. There's isn't much written about it but that's good in way. I think techno is going to explode. There's a concept behind it. It's tailor made for jazz musicians, especially one's who can swing.

    Another thing, it's truly multi-cultural. Jazz was marketed that way but it isn't. Techno started at the same time in Europe and the US.

  42. #241

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    I just started to investigate dance music. There's isn't much written about it but that's good in way. I think techno is going to explode. There's a concept behind it. It's tailor made for jazz musicians, especially one's who can swing.

    Another thing, it's truly multi-cultural. Jazz was marketed that way but it isn't. Techno started at the same time in Europe and the US.
    Acid-jazz was tried in the 90s and early oughts. Some of it was quite enjoyable. People started re-mixing the Blue Note Catalogue.

    Perhaps the best compilation was this:

    Saint-Germain-des-Prés Café - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Navdeep Singh.

  43. #242

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ View Post
    Acid-jazz was tried in the 90s and early oughts. Some of it was quite enjoyable. People started re-mixing the Blue Note Catalogue.

    Perhaps the best compilation was this:

    Saint-Germain-des-Prés Café - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    People want electronic sounds. techno and jazz can be the same thing rhythmically. I'd be careful about what I added to rhythms and simple bass lines. It should really be electronic music with a lot of improv. DJs, DAWs and software are passe'. Hardware is in.

    It might not be the most satisfying music but it will pay plenty of $ if you're good at it. Might as well do away with the 'DJ' thing too. DJ-shmee-J. I don't want to even hear the term any more.

    Roland just came out with the TR-8. They nailed the analog 808 and 909 analog sounds digitally. Since it doesn't save songs you HAVE to create beats on it and really perform.

    I think it might be a game changer. German manufacturers of this kind of equipment seem to be committed to analog machines.

  44. #243

    User Info Menu


  45. #244

    User Info Menu

    Is there an underlying reason you would post something as offensive as this . . . and then try to avoid ownership of it by not posting any dialog along with it?

    I can pretty much see this thread being shut down now.
    Patrick2 . . Heritage representative (now former)

  46. #245

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    Is there an underlying reason you would post something as offensive as this . . . and then try to avoid ownership of it by not posting any dialog along with it?

    I can pretty much see this thread being shut down now.
    C'mon its just the Onion having a laugh at whole science and religion intersection. A topic that's been discussed where.
    Navdeep Singh.

  47. #246

    User Info Menu

    For the record, I found it funny, not offense, and I worship a monkey god.
    Build bridges, not walls.

  48. #247

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ View Post
    C'mon its just the Onion having a laugh at whole science and religion intersection. A topic that's been discussed where.
    I don't know who or what "The Onion" is . . but I find it offensive and out of line to have been publised at all and even more so to have been posted here.

    We're living in a time where Christians are being persecuted all over the world . . and in some parts of the world slaughtered. Christianity is constantly under attack here in the USA. Then, a post like this pops up from a forum member with the last name of Singh . . one whom might not be a Christian believing in God . . . and might possibly be of the Hindu or Muslim faith . . and there is no dialog to accompany the offensive post, so the intentions behind posting it were left open to interpretation.

    Would you have posted this if it compared Allah or The Profit Mohammad to a chimpanzee . . or if it suggested that either of them were descendants of the chimpanzee? Would The Onion have even published such an article?

    Totally out of line to have been posted.
    Patrick2 . . Heritage representative (now former)

  49. #248

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles View Post
    For the record, I found it funny, not offense, and I worship a monkey god.
    "For the record" . . I'd not be so insensitive to offer up such a post . . in the name of humor . . if I though it might be interpreted as offensive to your monkey God.
    Patrick2 . . Heritage representative (now former)

  50. #249

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    I don't know who or what "The Onion" is . . but I find it offensive and out of line to have been publised at all and even more so to have been posted here.

    We're living in a time where Christians are being persecuted all over the world . . and in some parts of the world slaughtered. Christianity is constantly under attack here in the USA. Then, a post like this pops up from a forum member with the last name of Singh . . one whom might not be a Christian believing in God . . . and might possibly be of the Hindu or Muslim faith . . and there is no dialog to accompany the offensive post, so the intentions behind posting it were left open to interpretation.

    Would you have posted this if it compared Allah or The Profit Mohammad to a chimpanzee . . or if it suggested that either of them were descendants of the chimpanzee? Would The Onion have even published such an article?

    Totally out of line to have been posted.
    The article doesn't reference any PARTICULAR religion.

    I'm sorry you don't know what the Onion is-they lampoon everyone.

    The sad thing us there are many articles today that people have to warn-"this is actually not the Onion".

    This article was clearly the Onion at its witty best.
    Navdeep Singh.

  51. #250

    User Info Menu

    I think "Planet of the Apes " has a lot to answer for!!......