| Author
|
How neuroscience can help us understand music
|
Seppa
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
485
Posted : May 5, 2007 14:52
|
ok lets' talk about this . i don't know how you got to this point cause the thread is about : How neuroscience can help us understand music.
there's been a big jump here and I don't know what this has to do with the rest but since you brought that up i'm willing to argue about the new subject.
Quote:
| Science is nothing more than parallel religion. |
|
I really don't see the relationship between science and religion.
Science as limiting as it is bases all its work on facts and results. While religion has to do more with cultural habits and beleives. Everybody is free to beleive, and i'm won't judge that cause we all have different experiences.
but usually it is the result of a transmition from parents to children ect.... what religion say about god it is not proven, it is not undeniable.
now physics matematics ect.... its a representation of what we see and live everyday.
example. if I drive for an hour at a regular speed of 60 km/h, the distance made would be 60 km.... thats a representation of a fact and if you did it or everyone else did it for that matter , you would would find the exact same result (if you use meters as a unit) .
there are christians, muslims juish, budhists and so on, they all have different beleives and none can really agree on everything.
I have no reason to beleive there is a god, nor any reson to explain what we do not understand yet with a suprem entity(s) like religion do.
often scientists elaborate theories to explain certain enigmas but even them refer to them as "theories" and not proven fact like religion do.
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : May 5, 2007 15:38
|
both science and religion have politics and subjectivity.
But science is also empirical so even if it makes mistakes, sooner or later it will be forced to admit the physical truth as best it can. Whereas religion will be forever trapped in delusions and hallucinations, or even god forbid, raptures from supernatural deities.
So although there are parallels, on the whole science and religion are almost completely, but not entirely, unlike each other. 
If some1 knows of something better than scientific method please do tell. |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : May 7, 2007 04:17
|
In fact Christianity has often had "improvements" of it's doctrine. Each time the bible was translated or manually copied changes ware made. Today they have like more than 20 official versions and some of those had more pages of footnotes than the actual text. So religion is far from trapped. About religions being illusory I also agree, but they do change... big time!
 "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : May 7, 2007 04:28
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-05 14:52, Seppa wrote:
I really don't see the relationship between science and religion. |
|
Methodology differs, that's true. But both have the same purpose. That is to explain life (book of creation or Darwinian natural selection) and to give you a meaning and believe system. What's the difference between believing in God or believing in the myth about rains washing the primordial stones into primordial soup and than by a sudden stroke of unrepeatable luck few million genomes get assembled by pure chance?
Since we live in the world of duality religions must have it's dialectic... So we got science. Selling believes for the part of population not willing to buy religious believes.
Even on the surface they seem different on a deeper level they are two sides of the coin. Easy to tell apart but back to back on a single coin with mutual interest.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : May 7, 2007 09:05
|
|
Boobytrip
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
39
Posts :
988
Posted : May 7, 2007 11:55
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-05 04:24, Psycosmo wrote:
You are quite right, I did not pick the best title for this topic. A better title for it would have been "ethnomusicological neuroscience". The purpose of the study was clearly not "understand music" but rather to demonstrate the nervous systems ability to detect high-frequency air vibrations that are not directly "hearable" yet can in some way modulate brain activity and the perception of sounds that are audible. I guess I was came up with that title because I was thinking of this as one example of the many ways in which the scientific examination of how the body processes sensory information. Such knowledge could perhaps lead to new musical and artistic techniques.
The title I decided on did not convey those thoughts very well.
Anyway, I should have said all this to begin with instead of just posting that link under a not very well thought out title.
Thanks for bringin' it back on topic Boobytrip!
|
|
Maybe not a good title, but apparently it spawns a lot of posts
A problem with using these ultra-high freqs in music is that it's very hard to monitor and to consciously percieve them. Also, everything influences everything. However, it's THE DEGREE TO WHICH something influences other things that matters. My guess is that the ultra high frequencies have an influence, but that it is negligible compared to other elements in a track. Consequently, i think it's best to work on those other (audible) elements of the track first, and when those are perfect use the Hyperfrequencies as the icing on the cake 
|
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : May 7, 2007 17:32
|
First of all, his view is an effort to explain and construct already existing science. So it is not about how science works but rather about how he thinks science should work!
Second thing that I have to mention is that all Karl Popper did (as many others) was partial use of Plato philosophy. Partial because Plato talks about 4 worlds (or 4 layers of reality). First three are relatively exact copy of Plato's work but like many other scientists Karl avoids the "platonic" dimension and uses only first three dimensions in order to maintain the "scientific" domination in front of the philosophical viewpoint.
Last but not the least - (I've well known about critical rationalism, reductionism and other "isms") all this description does is underline that all of the science is based on assumptions and that maybe one day (if the starting assumptions turn out to be in the right direction) science could survive "scientific selection" like we have survived "natural selection". And this is of course another assumption because "natural selection" is just an idea not more valid than "the book of creation" and less valid than recently popular "intelligent design". The latter "falsifies" the Darwinian theory quite well.
But "scientists" are long known for having schizophrenic symptoms. Somehow they manage to avoid the basic "rules" of "science" each time science collapses on it self and maintain a believe system that is giving them jobs, credentials and worldwide respect. Now I really don't see any difference from the way that priesthood acts in order to preserve dogma and their own status and power over people.
Long before I was even born real scientist have understood this and wrote about it. But by strange coincidence non of those writings are included in the educational PROGRAM! Once you start to recognize the implications of the word "program" you will start to doubt any "truth" or believe you've been programed to have. Now we maybe can understand this great statement:
A science is said to be useful if its development tends to accentuate the existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth, or more directly promotes the destruction of human life.
G. H. Hardy
Was it not Christianity that accumulated wealth by destroying any competitive believes, science and philosophy? Can we ignore that the science is doing the very same thing in this "modern" times? "It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Seppa
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
485
Posted : May 7, 2007 18:16
|
Quote:
| A science is said to be useful if its development tends to accentuate the existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth, or more directly promotes the destruction of human life.
G. H. Hardy |
|
I guess that proves your point, right ?
1st: I don't agree with this ridiculous statment....science is not only about economics
2nd: I don't know what type of drug you take but i'd recommend you stop immediately if its not already too late. |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : May 7, 2007 18:53
|
Shamantrixx - U must must be the only person ive "met" who pisses on popper.
So what do u believe is a better way forward, than scientific method?
Anyway
Quote:
|
First of all, his view is an effort to explain and construct already existing science. So it is not about how science works but rather about how he thinks science should work!
|
|
But what is your objection. Y specifically is his view wrong?
Quote:
|
Second thing that I have to mention is that all Karl Popper did (as many others) was partial use of Plato philosophy. Partial because Plato talks about 4 worlds (or 4 layers of reality). First three are relatively exact copy of Plato's work but like many other scientists Karl avoids the "platonic" dimension and uses only first three dimensions in order to maintain the "scientific" domination in front of the philosophical viewpoint.
|
|
How does this impact the plausibiliy of his conclusions that you r willing to demote him to a ditch.
Quote:
|
Last but not the least - (I've well known about critical rationalism, reductionism and other "isms") all this description does is underline that all of the science is based on assumptions and that maybe one day (if the starting assumptions turn out to be in the right direction) science could survive "scientific selection" like we have survived "natural selection". And this is of course another assumption because "natural selection" is just an idea not more valid than "the book of creation" and less valid than recently popular "intelligent design". The latter "falsifies" the Darwinian theory quite well.
But "scientists" are long known for having schizophrenic symptoms. Somehow they manage to avoid the basic "rules" of "science" each time science collapses on it self and maintain a believe system that is giving them jobs, credentials and worldwide respect. Now I really don't see any difference from the way that priesthood acts in order to preserve dogma and their own status and power over people.
Long before I was even born real scientist have understood this and wrote about it. But by strange coincidence non of those writings are included in the educational PROGRAM! Once you start to recognize the implications of the word "program" you will start to doubt any "truth" or believe you've been programed to have. Now we maybe can understand this great statement:
A science is said to be useful if its development tends to accentuate the existing inequalities in the distribution of wealth, or more directly promotes the destruction of human life.
G. H. Hardy
Was it not Christianity that accumulated wealth by destroying any competitive believes, science and philosophy? Can we ignore that the science is doing the very same thing in this "modern" times?
|
|
I dont understand y u think science has this hidden agenda of disinformation. Its full of well intentioned educated people with clear consciences and a good sense of self worth based on integrity. All that they are trying to do is understand the world. and are working toward it as best they can. Whats wrong with that?
|
|
|
|
Boobytrip
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
39
Posts :
988
Posted : May 7, 2007 20:43
|
It's the sound of science...
Now here we go dropping science dropping it all over
Like bumping around the town like when you're driving a Range Rover
Expanding the horizons and expanding the parameters
Expanding the rhymes of sucker M.C. amateurs
Naugels, Isaac Newton Scientific E.Z.
Ben Franklin with the kite getting over with the key
Rock shocking the mic as many times times the times tables
Rock well to tell dispel all of the old fables
I've been dropping the new science and kicking the new knowledge
An M.C. to a degree that you can't get in college
The dregs of the earth and the eggs that I eat
I've got pegs through my hands and one through my feet
Shea Stadium the Radium E M D squared
Got kicked out of the Palladium you think that I cared
It's the sound of science
Time and money for girls covered with honey
You lie and aspire to be as cunning
Reeling and rockin' and rollin' B size D cup
Order the quarter deluxe why don't you wake up
My mind is kinda flowin like an oil projector
Had to get up to get the Jimmy protector
Went berserk and worked and exploded
She woke up in the morning and her face was coated
Buddy you study the man on the mic
D. do what you like
Drunk a skunk am I from the celebration
To peep that freak unique penetration
I figured out who makes the crack
It's the suckers with the badges and the blue jackets
A professor of science cause I keep droppin' it
I smell weak cause you keep poppin' it
People always asking what's the phenomenon
Yo what's up know what's going on
No one really knows what I'm talking about
Yeah that's right my name's Yauch
Ponce De Leon constantly on
The fountain of youth not Robotron
Peace is a word I've heard before
So move and move and move upon the dance floor
I'm gonna die gonna die one day
Cause I'm goin and goin and goin this way
Not like a roach or a piece of toast
I'm going out first class not going out coach
Rock my Adidas never rock Fila
I do not sniff the coke I only smoke sinsemilla
With my nose I knows and with my scopes I scope
What I live I write and that is strictly rope
I've got science for any occasion
Postulating theorems formulating equations
Cheech wizard in a snow blizzard
Eating chicken gizzards with a girl named Lizzy
Dropping science like when Galileo dropped the orange
Beastie Boys - Sounds Of Science
|
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : May 7, 2007 22:54
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-07 18:16, Seppa wrote:
I guess that proves your point, right? |
|
No. It does not prove my point. But it proves something else and that will become self evident in next few lines of text.
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-07 18:16, Seppa wrote:
1st: I don't agree with this ridiculous statment... |
|
So you have proven that you have a capacity for selective "scientific" view. When you ridicule those scientists who have a critical reasoning about their profession (oh btw, look out for the origin of the word professor) you are being selective in already selective domain of science. To ignore and ridicule fellow scientists is to defend your believe system and that has nothing to do with "scientific" point of view. It's a classical case of delusion by selectivity.
There is plenty of material about G.H.Hardy but here is a brief copy paste from Wikipedia:
Professor Godfrey Harold Hardy FRS (February 7, 1877 – December 1, 1947) was a prominent English mathematician, known for his achievements in number theory and mathematical analysis. Non-mathematicians usually know him for A Mathematician's Apology, his essay from 1940 on the aesthetics of mathematics. The apology is often considered one of the best insights into the mind of a working mathematician written for the layman.
Once you start discrediting people from the domain you believe to defend it is clear that you really don't defend the domain or method or point of view. You defend your illusions from anything pointing in other direction. When confronted with it you tend to ridicule and simply not believe it to be true.
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-07 18:16, Seppa wrote:
I don't know what type of drug you take but i'd recommend you stop immediately if its not already too late.
|
|
After ridiculing scientists who dared to suggest the real purpose of science it is quite useful to ridicule the person who introduced the information and construct a believe that will support discrediting (which is the final goal of ridiculing).
If I have no benefit from what I'm introducing (since I'm not getting paid for it and being a ridiculing subject can hardly be considered as benefit) than there must be a logic reason why you should a priori ignore my statements. Insanity and drug addictions are quite common because it is impossible to prove otherwise by any written reply. In another words, it's a believe system that will serve you for the rest of your life since I can't prove you wrong on any of those accusations. Or maybe I just did?
Back in the old days people used to make progress by work, reasoning, creating or simply by acting from compassion. Now days people "progress" by repressing the
ever surrounding mediocrity. That is why scientists like Nikola Tesla never ridiculed other people. Ridiculing is the tool of ignorance.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Pavel
Troll
Started Topics :
313
Posts :
8649
Posted : May 7, 2007 22:56
|
Thank you Shamantrixxx for your monthly dose of pseudo hippie mumbo jumbo science and thank you Undertow for being the voice of reason through all this blasphemy. Sometimes i think that Inquisition wasn't such a bad idea after all.
Everyone in the world is doing something without me |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : May 8, 2007 00:28
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-07 18:53, bukboy wrote:
Shamantrixx - U must must be the only person ive "met" who pisses on popper. |
|
I did not "piss" on him. C.G. Jung was also learning from Plato and I find him to be one of the best scholars EVER! As I've said many have used Platonic structure for their own ideas. There's nothing wrong with that. But when you don't mention that and once we recognize the influence it is good to see what was the original idea that you used as a model. If we find that you have disregarded the KEY element of original idea and never mentioned or explained why you did so...
I don't know... maybe it's just me but I get a bit suspicious about thing like that.
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-07 18:53, bukboy wrote:
So what do u believe is a better way forward, than scientific method? |
|
Why do you constantly think in terms of good and bad, better or worse etc? Do we really HAVE to exclude anything? Science is a great tool. What is wrong is how it's being used. and that is a problem of human intention. Scientist have to defend their jobs so they tend to present science as the ONLY valid explanatory tool in town. Either you're a scientist or you're against them. That is the position of todays scientists. So what we need is to move above this symbolic and dualistic exclusions and start to think, feel and act as humans using all existing tools. Even this is simple logic the world is full of people that are more involved in presentation of their particular tool than in making any use of that tool. Now you may ask why would such a nonsense behavior ever took place in this world and the answer to that question can be found in another question:
Will the monthly pay checks continue to arrive each month if suddenly you say that you don't know the answers and that you should work together with other "tools" and "toolmakers" in order to get some real answers?
Would a regular company hire you for the benefit of humanity or they hire just in their interest? Who finances scientists? Who is giving them they monthly paychecks that they are depending on? How many scientific institutes that you know of is being financed by the scientist working in that institute? What is the interest of scientists working for paycheck? Have we already reasoned that we hire only what is in our interest and that when we are hired we serve some purpose other than our own? Of course we can always act like we have some interest of our own, specially when it can make us look cool and feel better about the fact that our primal goal of work from month to month is another paycheck.
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-07 18:53, bukboy wrote:
But what is your objection. Y specifically is his view wrong? |
|
I've answered to that question by earlier statement about selective use of existing ideas. It is not wrong... it is partial. To see what's missing you'll have to read Plato and after that maybe C.G. Jung. Plato has detailed explanations and reasoning that remains remembered even 3000 years after his death, but Jung describes it in the language of our time and science (psychology). So it helps us to understand and fully appreciate Plato reading it 3000 years after it was written.
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-07 18:53, bukboy wrote:
How does this impact the plausibiliy of his conclusions that you r willing to demote him to a ditch. |
|
I did not "demote him to a ditch". I've tried to point out that he's being selective in his work and that we should be aware of the common human error. For being a human means to have a capacity for error. We all have it. If you're interested in the topic you'll have to read authors that inspired authors that you felt inspired by (if that still makes any sense after translation to English). It's the ways thing have evolved but "education program" had programed us to focus on latest discoveries and only mention the ones before. But to study something from the end and than going back in time is to view the movie backwards. Now imagine what conclusion can you get from the film played back in reverse. Or better still, reverse one track that you like and try to spot how similar it sounds to the original when played that way. We're all conditioned by various programs (educational, religious, cultural, professional etc.) that sometimes in this rush we don't see the obvious. So consequently by observing in reverse the world gets turned upside down. No hidden agenda, no conspiracy... just infinite capacity for error enforced with materialistic point of view founded upon economies and consumerism. It started as a way to escape strict religious bounds of the dark ages but now we have different kind of the dark ages and we simply have to move on by integrating existing tools and using them as a building blocks for yet another layer of complexity. It's the way the Universe is based on. Novelty being foundation for the next level of novelty without attaching to any particular level. By attaching to any layer you start to act against progress to the next level. Governments, religion and science are heavily used in this manner. We don't need to destroy any of them. We just have to be open to transcendence in any time and on any level. Identifications with tool, toolmaker or any personal title are a means of empowering stagnation and that is being constantly enforced by governments.
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-07 18:53, bukboy wrote:
I dont understand y u think science has this hidden agenda of disinformation. Its full of well intentioned educated people with clear consciences and a good sense of self worth based on integrity. All that they are trying to do is understand the world. and are working toward it as best they can. Whats wrong with that? |
|
I've explained earlier why i see it that way so there's no need to repeat. Once you stop thinking in "true or false" or "right or wrong" terms you will also become aware of the fact that the only hidden agenda in this world is our own agenda that somehow manages to stay hidden from us behind the cultural symbols and education based believes. We work for money, fame, status... we should really start wondering about long term effects of competitive human behavior and turn towards cooperative behavior.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : May 8, 2007 00:50
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-07 22:56, Pavel wrote:
Thank you Shamantrixxx for your monthly dose of pseudo hippie mumbo jumbo science and thank you Undertow for being the voice of reason through all this blasphemy. Sometimes i think that Inquisition wasn't such a bad idea after all. |
|
I respect Undertow regardless to our ever different point of view. I respect devotion and effort to advocate what he believes in. Sometimes we get emotional, sometimes we act stupid and at least one of us is always wrong. So by communicating in the first place we share more than you could imagine from reading arguments. Taking things for granted is not a skill that any human being should be proud having.
Now I don't think that your "voice of reason" will share your ideas about Inquisition (at least I hope so) but since you're mentioning it in the same context you're not actually doing him a favor. Cause being recognized as authority by the person who considers Inquisition a good idea and labels differing ideas as blasphemy is really an insult for any one with more than two brain cells.
So since I always argue with Undertow, and obviously I consider him worth arguing and therefore respect him (as peculiar as it may look) I would really appreciate that you stop insulting people with your ass kissing point of view and start avoiding posting when you have nothing to say. For what you've just said is actually less than nothing.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : May 8, 2007 03:00
|
Who cares? Really...
Good music has been produced so far without any super frequencies and neuro science.
Adding some magic frequencies ain't going to make the music good.
So what's the point?
Better write music instead of make up bogus theories.
|
|
|
|
