# Is Music transcendental?



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Sometimes when I listen to some Renaissance music, I feel "something". I have the same feeling as with Klemperer's version of St. Matthew Passion. Can music tap into some kind of supernatural world? Or is it just our synapses firing up (maybe not the right expression, I'm not a pure science person).

I can see this turning into a religious debate. So let's say is Music able to make us transcend into or perceive something higher, or is it just baseless emotions?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

The synapses are firing up because of how you are digesting that St. Matthew Passion.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> The synapses are firing up because of how you are digesting that St. Matthew Passion.


Could you explain it non-metaphorically?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Could you explain it non-metaphorically?


The intent of the music is to intensify your feelings - it worked.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2018)

It is hard for me to understand why people feel it is necessary or useful to attach weird philosophical notions to their enjoyment of music. Music is a sensory stimulus to the brain, like eating a french fry or hearing thunder in the distance. This causes a combination of intrinsic and culturally associated responses in the brain.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is hard for me to understand why people feel it is necessary or useful to attach weird philosophical notions to their enjoyment of music. Music is a sensory stimulus to the brain, like eating a french fry or hearing thunder in the distance. This causes a combination of intrinsic and culturally associated responses in the brain.


I agree with the latter sentences, but I don't follow the logic that makes you claim the first one. If that were the case, then poetry wouldn't exist. Granted, some poetry can be very bad, but some can be quite insightful about giving some correlation in words to these brain responses.


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

I think music definitely can be but it (like anything) depends on the content and the context.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is hard for me to understand why people feel it is necessary or useful to attach weird philosophical notions to their enjoyment of music. Music is a sensory stimulus to the brain, like eating a french fry or hearing thunder in the distance. This causes a combination of intrinsic and culturally associated responses in the brain.


I completely agree with this. The only reason to attach 'weird philosophical notions' to one's enjoyment of music is just the fact that music _can_ be a catalyst to inspire discussion of non-musical things. But then, that's not really music any more.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Some people have more than a material response to music. It’s spiritual. It can make people forget their own problems or self-importance, the limitations and restraints of their ego--to transcend that, and then sometimes something good or miraculous can happen because the person got him- or herself out of the way. It’s a type of ”forgetting” of oneself that the music can create and lead to self-healing or a sense of well-being. Otherwise, there’s no lasting benefit after one has heard something—and that’s certainly not true for everyone. Such an experience has nothing to do with a ”weird philosophy” if the person has a direct experience that inspires or uplifts the heart and soul. The purely materialistically-minded who can only relate to music on an intellectual or entertainment level will not understand this—those who think that everything is rationally-based and in one ear and out the other. Why is it that a composer would write a Mass or other spiritual work if not to inspire a deeper understanding of one's own nature or one’s experience of life? It’s not a philosophy. It comes from direct experience, and it can change a person forever. A transcendental experience has that power, even if it hasn’t happened yet. It exists as something beyond the mind, perhaps even feeling like being in touch with a higher dimension, a ’presence’, or nonmaterial reality—something bigger than one's limited sense of self. There has to be something to transcend.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

...nevermind...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> I completely agree with this. The only reason to attach 'weird philosophical notions' to one's enjoyment of music is just the fact that music _can_ be a catalyst to inspire discussion of non-musical things. But then, that's not really music any more.


I completely _dis_agree with this, even more than with the Baron's original post!

What you mention is just a pedantic distinction, akin to some sort of musical platonism. If someone finds, say, Perotin's music as 'transcendental', I can actually easily imagine what they are trying to say (although, if it were me speaking, I would put it in terms of the perception of musical time, but that's because I have some technical training in music), even when those words are not the piece itself (duh, who is claiming that anyway). And you are also wrong in claiming that it's supposedly discussion of non-musical things. It is discussion of musical things by using things that are not directly musical. In the example I gave, it was about musical time. I really don't see why this is supposedly controversial. Sure, some people may just say nonsense, but that happens in every topic about anything. Even more, I claim, sometimes those things are the only way to speak about some rather elusive things in art. Imperfect, maybe even 'weird', but what music does on these brains is also weird, too .

This is a really old distinction... "if there's nobody in a forest, does a tree that falls make a sound?" It depends on how you define 'sound'. A pressure wave? Then yes. A subjective perception of that wave? Then obviously not. But, as far as I know, all of this 'music' business is about the second notion, the first just being a necessary medium (at the basic level, everything is wave and eardrum and neurons and etc., but that's irrelevant, as atoms are irrelevant when you study pure macroscopic thermodynamics and don't care about the microscopic origin of the phenomena at hand.) You can't simply reduce music to its physical, acoustical manifestation. Then with a fourier analysis should be enough, and not these pesky emotions or subjectivity and those difficult things that we better eliminate since they make everything difficult to analyse. Well, that's music for you! The inter-subjective aspects are part of music, music is the combination of its physical and inter-subjective aspects. Deal with it.

We also all have similar brains, that's why we feel similar things (with a certain degree of variation, of course). That's why I mentioned inter-subjectivity. I think this whole platonist view of music (in its current incarnation at least) came with high modernism, as a way to erradicate some romantic notions that were acting as constraints at that time. That was healthy then. But now, with the luxury of time, we can go back and pick up the baby and put it back in the bathtub.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is hard for me to understand why people feel it is necessary or useful to attach weird philosophical notions to their enjoyment of music. Music is a sensory stimulus to the brain, like eating a french fry or hearing thunder in the distance. This causes a combination of intrinsic and culturally associated responses in the brain.


During the next thunderstorm, I'm going to eat french fries and listen to some Beethoven.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Music, like most else, is multifaceted. It can speak to the ineffable better than just about any other form of communication. It can also be banal in the extreme. Contrast, for instance, "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" with the arietta from Beethoven's Opus 111. The latter doesn't transport everyone, but the former doesn't transport_ anyone_.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

aleazk said:


> I completely _dis_agree with this, even more than with the Baron's original post!
> 
> What you mention is just a pedantic distinction, akin to some sort of musical platonism. If someone finds, say, Perotin's music as 'transcendental', I can actually easily imagine what they are trying to say (although, if it were me speaking, I would put it in terms of the perception of musical time, but that's because I have some technical training in music), even when those words are not the piece itself (duh, who is claiming that anyway). And you are also wrong in claiming that it's supposedly discussion of non-musical things. It is discussion of musical things by using things that are not directly musical. In the example I gave, it was about musical time. I really don't see why this is supposedly controversial. Sure, some people may just say nonsense, but that happens in every topic about anything. Even more, I claim, sometimes those things are the only way to speak about some rather elusive things in art. Imperfect, maybe even 'weird', but what music does on these brains is also weird, too .
> 
> This is a really old distinction... "if there's nobody in a forest, does a tree that falls make a sound?" It depends on how you define 'sound'. A pressure wave? Then yes. A subjective perception of that wave? Then obviously not. But, as far as I know, all of this music business is about the second notion, the first just being a necessary medium (at the baisc level, everything is wave and eardrum and neurons and etc., but that's irrelevant, as atoms are irrelevant when you study pure macroscopic thermodynamics and don't care about the microscopic origin of the phenomena at hand.)


Oh, I see what you mean. This is indeed true, as a discussion using analogies. Perhaps, then, our views slightly differ in what 'a discussion of music' is, where mine is narrower than yours.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

See my edit about why I think your view is untenable


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

aleazk said:


> See my edit about why I think your view is untenable


I see your edit, but I'm not sure where I have reduced music to simply its physical properties (and I usually tend not to, as my interest lies a little more with music in its cultural, social and aesthetic contexts).


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

.............. .


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> I see your edit, but I'm not sure where I have reduced music to simply its physical properties (and I usually tend not to, as my interest lies a little more with music in its cultural, social and aesthetic contexts).


Yes, that was more a response to the Baron. Then what is exactly your NARROW view? 

Nevermind, I think it may be that you prefer not to use 'loaded' terms as 'transcendental' if there are more precise ways of doing it. Is that it? I agree, but people who are not music professionals can't always put their perception in that level of precision, even when that perception refers to something precise in the music. One should simply tolerate it, even more in a general forum like this.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It is great when it moves you and strikes you in a strong and personal way, but it is also nothing more than that, but that doesn't mean that connection isn't special.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

Ah, perhaps I am taking the word 'transcendental' to have more of a metaphysical or supernatural connotation, and that is something I don't usually concern myself with. I'm pretty sure there are ways to talk about how music affects us without mythologising it (which is where music is well suited as a catalyst to segue onto all of _that_ stuff). That's my 'narrower' view.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

shirime said:


> Ah, perhaps I am taking the word 'transcendental' to have more of a metaphysical or supernatural connotation, and that is something I don't usually concern myself with. I'm pretty sure there are ways to talk about how music affects us without mythologising it. That's my 'narrower' view.


I used to be so caught up in defining and objectifying genius, and what a masterpiece is and isn't. I used to think masterpieces tapped into Sacred Geometry and stuff.

It was difficult to realize there is no such thing as objective artistic genius and that there is no such thing as superiority in the arts, only what does it for you personally.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

shirime said:


> Ah, perhaps I am taking the word 'transcendental' to have more of a metaphysical or supernatural connotation, and that is something I don't usually concern myself with. I'm pretty sure there are ways to talk about how music affects us without mythologising it. That's my 'narrower' view.


Okay, I agree with that. But I don't know what else to tell you besides what I already said that sometimes people who are not professionals don't usually have the right vocabulary and that, also, some things in art can be very elusive. I usually take the 'transcendental' in either the musical time thing or as something that gives a particularly profound impression on the listener in some direction (I mentioned before that, e.g., Ravel's Osieaux Tristes gives a 'transcendental' view of the image of some birds in a 'hot and humid summer forest', in the composer's words).

Btw, I wouldn't put as nearly synonyms 'supernatural' and 'metaphysical' like that. For example, the assumption that there's an independent reality outhere is a type of metaphysical hypothesis and is common to all sciences. Nobody would call that 'supernatural'.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I used to be so caught up in defining and objectifying genius, and what a masterpiece is and isn't. I used to think masterpieces tapped into Sacred Geometry and stuff.
> 
> It was difficult to realize there is no such thing as objective artistic genius and that there is no such thing as superiority in the arts, only what does it for you personally.


Mmm, I would say that Bach, Mozart, Debussy, Stravinsky, etc., were all objective artistic geniuses by any reasonable measure. I'm equally sure that Martha Argerich is artistically superior to Richard Clayderman as pianists by any reasonable measure of genuine artistic quality. Equating objectivity with the sacred or the 'natural' is what religions do. But it's not the only nor the best one. In that, I do agree, one shouldn't be looking for which things are supposedly taped on the sacred geometry or whatever.

Now, is Brahms superior to Wagner? I have no clue nor I think it's even an interesting question since both were objective artistic geniuses by any reasonable measure. But that doesn't mean that all forms of hierarchy in art become meaningless. Some are not meaningless and we use them all the time. The same with masterpieces. What's up with all this relativism?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I'll offer my own 2 cents on this. I used to be quite religious, or at least pantheistic, and felt everything was connected somehow. Music or Art seemed logically like a doorway to the Divine. Beethoven seemed to truly believe that also from some of his comments. Also the Chinese believed in their Pentatonic scale, that each tone was one of the 5 elements, and music was the interaction of those elements. 

Going back to my belief tonality is natural. Most music that people tend to think is divine, is tonal and more consonant music, the Church also encouraged this idea. Consonance is the musical equivalence of order. When some people hear music of this type like Renaissance music, it may lead to feelings of the Divine. I know some critics would say it is just the association with the Church imprinted in our minds in the History of Western Music, but as I said, the Chinese also believed in the Divine nature of their music which is even more consonant than Western Music (each Chinese mode divides into a perfect fifth and fourth). I've been to a Pentacostal Church where they only alternate between a note and the dominant and people become estatic. 


Looking back, I do think there is something transcendental in music, in that it reflects something in Nature. Whether the spiritual or metaphysical could be tied into this, is not something I think anyone can answer.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Under the right circumstances, when all the stars line up, yes, music can be transcendental. Sometimes in live performance everything just clicks - the orchestra is on top of it, the conductor really into it, the audience paying attention - the results can be magical and spookily almost religious. I was at a Shostakovich 8th several years ago like that - at the close there must have been a minute silence; everyone was transfixed. It was astonishing and unforgettable. 

Then there's something else that happens that makes you think about higher things...transcendental aesthetics. Have you ever noticed how many composer's finest work is often on religious - transcendental - ideas? Schmidt's The Book with Seven Seals, Liszt's Christus, Elgar's Dream of Geronitius, Handel's Messiah, Mendelssohn's Elijah, even Mahler's 2nd. Coincidence or something more? 


Another thing: music - the right music - can really affect people and reach into their souls. I believe that totally. This is one are where the modern church has gone hopelessly astray. In a pointless attempt to bring the youth into the church they also brought low quality music along and ditched the beautiful heritage that was so meaningful for centuries. I've sat in a monastery in Austria and listened to the monks sing Gregorian Chant - talk about a transcendental experience. A tradition long gone, sorry to say.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I wouldn't jump to conclusions based on what humans choose to call 'divine' or think it's caused by the divine.

Someone having an illegal-drug hight can feel quite estatic, too (so I'm told ). But I doubt your church people would call that either divine or natural :lol:

And, actually, some mezo-american indigenous people did consider it divine. What proves that the important thing is the effect, a necessary condition for 'the divine'. But if they consider the thing that produced it as divine or not seems to depend more on the culture than anything else. And I don't find too surprising either that they would call an altered state of mind as divine. Hey, people tend to call divine to almost anything outside the ordinary experience.

I think I was wrong and I better agree with the Baron, his position seems less divine and more common sensincal.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Sometimes when I listen to some Renaissance music, I feel "something". I have the same feeling as with Klemperer's version of St. Matthew Passion. Can music tap into some kind of supernatural world? Or is it just our synapses firing up (maybe not the right expression, I'm not a pure science person).
> 
> I can see this turning into a religious debate. So let's say is Music able to make us transcend into or perceive something higher, or is it just baseless emotions?


No spirit realm, then no _real_ transcendental experience - just an imagined one. Certainly, I am drawn to music that I perceive as transcendent.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

It seems to me that music is sensory input that that works by gaming the auditory processing in our brains, eliciting a strong emotional and/or intellectual response. The spirituality that we may experience is something latent in our minds, rather than something intrinsic to the music. That's why music is so wonderful to experience.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> During the next thunderstorm, I'm going to eat french fries and listen to some Beethoven.


Let me know how it works out for you! (Reminds me of George Costanza, the character in Seinfeld, whose ambition was to have sex, eat a sandwich and watch television at the same time. It didn't work out for him.)


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is hard for me to understand why people feel it is necessary or useful to attach weird philosophical notions to their enjoyment of music.


Never mind the weird then - what about the non-weird philosophical notions? It is hard for me to understand the distinction - or the need to use the term 'weird'.

People must be allowed to attach what they will to the music they listen to - not least because some attachments just can't be helped.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Phil loves classical said:


> Sometimes when I listen to some Renaissance music, I feel "something". I have the same feeling as with Klemperer's version of St. Matthew Passion. Can music tap into some kind of supernatural world? Or is it just our synapses firing up (maybe not the right expression, I'm not a pure science person).
> 
> I can see this turning into a religious debate. So let's say is Music able to make us transcend into or perceive something higher, or is it just baseless emotions?


I think that music can help us get beyond our everyday lives. Transcend can be another word used to express the same idea. In difficult situations, it can be the very thing that helps us keep mind over matter. I think it can be important in building a kind of inner strength.

I never forget the story of conductor Antal Dorati's mother, whose survival of the brutal German occupation during WWII was a direct result of this in action. She had all the Beethoven quartets memorised, and as a distraction from the harsh reality she repeatedly listened to them in her head. I think this is all the more poignant since those pieces where composed by a man who was deaf, therefore transcending his own reality by bringing forth this music.

So that's my view and Larkenfeld made a similar point earlier. A caveat to this is that not all people experience this in music. It only has a potential to do this, the best example being that in the case of Dorati's mother, its likely that some of her captors listened to music but obviously it didn't make a difference in terms of their actions towards their fellow human beings.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The OP is about music as a route (possibly accidental) to an altered state of consciousness. There are many such routes known to us. Some are chemical, some very physical and some (music included) might be the result of meditative practice. But the content of the "dream" (or whatever it is) has little to do with the stimulus that caused the state and much to do with the beliefs and expectations of the person experiencing the altered consciousness. I leave open any questions about the validity and utility of the state experienced.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Music is transcendental insofar as it changes mood and changes your brain. Everything that goes on when you hear music is in your brain, not in the rest of the world. It only changes you. As you listen to more music, especially more advanced music or music that challenges your concepts of it, you'll see it changes your brain in ways not related to emotions.

I read all the time that emotional response to music is the most important point (feelings of spirituality, despair or glee, for example) but I can't say that's been the case for me. I find I have more of an emotional response to my dog or cat than music. And whatever music creates emotionally is gone 10 seconds after the music is over. The more important intellectual growth music creates stays much longer. That's what "Mozart makes you smart" was all about.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Okay, I agree with that. But I don't know what else to tell you besides what I already said that sometimes people who are not professionals don't usually have the right vocabulary and that, also, some things in art can be very elusive. _I usually take the 'transcendental' in either the musical time thing_ or as something that gives a particularly profound impression on the listener in some direction (I mentioned before that, e.g., Ravel's Osieaux Tristes gives a 'transcendental' view of the image of some birds in a 'hot and humid summer forest', in the composer's words).
> 
> Btw, I wouldn't put as nearly synonyms 'supernatural' and 'metaphysical' like that. For example, the assumption that there's an independent reality outhere is a type of metaphysical hypothesis and is common to all sciences. Nobody would call that 'supernatural'.


Very interesting discussion! I agree that "transcendental" is often readable as an imprecise placeholder for something else used by those without technical training - except that it is used by professional theorists as well! (Robert Hatten in his work on Beethoven, for example). I'm not sure what you mean by "the time thing," but I believe much music from Beethoven on does transcend the clock time of everyday life in a very real and important sense - that it is governed by a qualitatively different temporal phenomenon, one philosopher Susanne Langer has called _virtual time_. She writes:

"musical duration is an image of what might be termed "lived" or "experienced" time-the passage of life we feel as expectations become "now," and "now" turns into unalterable fact. Such passage is measurable only in terms of sensibilities, tensions, and emotions; and it is not merely a different measure, but an altogether different structure from practical or scientific time." (_Feeling and Form_, 109)

I have a lot to say about music and subjective time but, alas, no time to do it now.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

Of course music can give you a transcendent feeling. That doesn't mean music is "transcendental." A sensory stimulus can open doors in the mind. Wasn't there a 3000 page novel by a guy named Proust about the memories a man recovers after eating a cookie?


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

A word like 'transcendental' is difficult because it's used in ways that are vague and don't have a common shared understanding of all that it entails. But from my personal point of view, I do find it appropriate - I experience music almost as if it is a living being, something with an essence that does 'transcend' just the notes and sounds. If you consider that each composer's music (or at least the more accomplished ones) has a unique character or personality that becomes recognizable when hear, often just after a very notes, I think there is an essence to it that really does 'transcend' just the notes, something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Consider also that these compositions withstand hundreds of years of being performed over and over, and even recorded over and over, and audiences and performers continue to find new meanings and nuances in them and return to them as to a well that never seems to run dry. It's hard to describe, but as a performer myself, I've experienced first-hand the sense, after studying a piece for years, of feeling it 'come alive' almost like a living, breathing entity outside of myself, as if I was channeling something rather than just playing it. I recall once watching Itzhak Perlman performing live and got the sense that he wasn't even playing his violin, but rather that he was simply holding the instrument and that the music was just flowing through him into it. I think is what artists have referred to over the years as being their 'muse', which they talk about almost as if it is a person who accompanies them and inspires what they do. 

Maybe I'm naïve, but I find this such a miraculous thing that I can't help but think that there has to be some kind of divine inspiration behind the creation of such things. If music isn't 'transcendent', then I have to ask what is?


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Spoken like a good Kantian!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is hard for me to understand why people feel it is necessary or useful to attach weird philosophical notions to their enjoyment of music. Music is a sensory stimulus to the brain, like eating a french fry or hearing thunder in the distance. This causes a combination of intrinsic and culturally associated responses in the brain.


But how is your description of music here inconsistent with "weird philosophical notions" or transcendence?


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

isorhythm said:


> But how is your description of music here inconsistent with "weird philosophical notions" or transcendence?


When I look up transcendental in the dictionary it says "something spiritual and outside of physical reality." I don't think music is outside physical reality, it is a particularly potent and sophisticated sensory stimulus.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Baron Scarpia said:


> It is hard for me to understand why people feel it is necessary or useful to attach weird philosophical notions to their enjoyment of music. Music is a sensory stimulus to the brain, like eating a french fry or hearing thunder in the distance. This causes a combination of intrinsic and culturally associated responses in the brain.


What, then is the meaning of music which does not include the human elements of "resonance" and empathy? It seems that it would be on the verge of being emblematic or simply an agreed-upon term, with no real connection to human psychology or the fact that "God gave us brains."

In my view, "psychological phenomena" can be linked to music and to spirituality, or a sacred sense of being, before it has to be connected to any religion, which in my view comes after the fact.

In fact, it sounds like you are saying that music works by itself apart from any connection to our psychology as humans. How could that be?

We can measure brain waves now. That was not possible in St. Augustine's day. Meditators are known to change their brainwaves when the go into deep states called Alpha.

Terry Riley's "Persian Surgery Dervishes" produces a similar effect on me. The frequencies of the music seem to lull me into a trance state.

If you ask me, this is "real" religious music, whose effect is audible, structural, and "in the music itself." Whereas other religious music seems to rely more on text, the setting, the belief and faith of the listener,etc, which are not universal or transferrable to all people. Perhaps users of the religious music forum feel more comfortable with that more restricted, less universal interpretation, so that my 'spiritual music' becomes 'mumbo-jumbo' compared to real religious music like theirs.

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the obstacle for many here is that I'm really not talking about 'religious' or 'spiritual' music per se, but rather what common and universal elements of human psychology and physiology are triggered by certain kinds of sounds, namely drones and repetitions, and how these sounds can affect us and lead us closer to being 'in tune' and resonating sympathetically with certain kinds of sounds and music.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> In fact, it sounds like you are saying that music works by itself apart from any connection to our psychology as humans. How could that be?


I do not know how you could conclude that from what I wrote. I can't imagine making it more explicit that I regard music as a sensory stimulus and how we react to it is a function of our brain physiology and psychology.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> What, then is the meaning of music which does not include the human elements of "resonance" and empathy? It seems that it would be on the verge of being emblematic or simply an agreed-upon term, with no real connection to human psychology or the fact that "God gave us brains."
> 
> In my view, "psychological phenomena" can be linked to music and to spirituality, or a sacred sense of being, before it has to be connected to any religion, which in my view comes after the fact.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone has said music cannot have psychological impact. You might be moved by a piece of music to feeling that God is near but that doesn't mean, of course, that God is in the music. Of course, she isn't! Nor does it mean that everyone who is moved by the music will be moved to experience the same thing that you do. The effect, then, is not "real" in the outside world but it is a real feeling that you get as a result of your brain processing that piece of music.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> When I look up transcendental in the dictionary it says "something spiritual and outside of physical reality." I don't think music is outside physical reality, it is a particularly potent and sophisticated sensory stimulus.


I'm not sure most people mean "outside of physical reality" when they say music is transcendental. I think they are talking about the capacity of music, in some circumstances, to bring about extraordinary states of consciousness. French fries are unlikely to do that, which is why people have more to say about music than french fries. Pointing out that music is a "potent and sophisticated sensory stimulus" is true as far as it goes, but doesn't go very far.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2018)

isorhythm said:


> I'm not sure most people mean "outside of physical reality" when they say music is transcendental. I think they are talking about the capacity of music, in some circumstances, to bring about extraordinary states of consciousness. French fries are unlikely to do that, which is why people have more to say about music than french fries. Pointing out that music is a "potent and sophisticated sensory stimulus" is true as far as it goes, but doesn't go very far.


Obviously you've never had the fries at In-N-Out Burger!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

There's a difference between eating the fries and _being_ the fries at the same time. Being the fries is transcendental - the person is at-one with them and miraculous things can transpire.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Thomyum2 said:


> A word like 'transcendental' is difficult because it's used in ways that are vague and don't have a common shared understanding of all that it entails. But from my personal point of view, I do find it appropriate - I experience music almost as if it is a living being, something with an essence that does 'transcend' just the notes and sounds. If you consider that each composer's music (or at least the more accomplished ones) has a unique character or personality that becomes recognizable when hear, often just after a very notes, *I think there is an essence to it that really does 'transcend' just the notes, something that is greater than the sum of its parts.* Consider also that these compositions withstand hundreds of years of being performed over and over, and even recorded over and over, and audiences and performers continue to find new meanings and nuances in them and return to them as to a well that never seems to run dry. It's hard to describe, but as a performer myself, I've experienced first-hand the sense, after studying a piece for years, of feeling it 'come alive' almost like a living, breathing entity outside of myself, as if I was channeling something rather than just playing it. I recall once watching Itzhak Perlman performing live and got the sense that he wasn't even playing his violin, but rather that he was simply holding the instrument and that the music was just flowing through him into it. I think is what artists have referred to over the years as being their 'muse', which they talk about almost as if it is a person who accompanies them and inspires what they do.
> 
> Maybe I'm naïve, but I find this such a miraculous thing that I can't help but think that there has to be some kind of divine inspiration behind the creation of such things. If music isn't 'transcendent', then I have to ask what is?


So true...at least for the music we each consider to achieve this.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

We need a 2-D chart:



Metaphysically
Objectively
Literally​ Emotionally
Subjectively
Metaphorically ​ 
Material
Physical 

*A*​rocks, atoms, bodies, sound waves, neurons, brains

according to naturalists: the human mind

*B*​hedonism, consumerism, narcissism, gluttony, 
perhaps Epicureanism

Spiritual
Transcendent

*C*​gods, ghosts

according to many traditional views: human souls, minds, and/or spirits

*D*​love, sublime beauty, compassion, justice, loyalty, integrity, courage...

and of course: *great music*


In this setting, we're not going to settle the question of whether all the stuff in Box D can exist without the stuff in Box C,[SUP]1[/SUP] but we can surely all agree that great music goes in Box D!

1. My own opinion is that precisely contrary to most assumptions, the most persuasive pairing is not Boxes A with B and C with D, but instead it is Boxes A with D and C with B.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

science said:


> We need a 2-D chart:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I more or less agree with your conclusion but am not sure I get the exercise. Why do we need to pair boxes and what are we doing when we do pair them?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

The greatest music is more than merely the sum of its parts. The ability to achieve such ends in a single work is a sign of good fortune. To do so multiple times is surely a sign of genius. (The difficulty, of course, is getting agreement on what qualifies as the greatest music, or even of specific examples of it.)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Could someone explain why the stuff (good) in Box D cannot also be in Box B right along with the bad stuff? Or is it just set up that way--take it or leave it? I'm big on love, beauty, compassion, etc., --even *great music*--just not into ghosts, etc.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

oh well whatever never mind


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I believe in a higher power and part of my spiritual life is to attend church and participate in its rituals. I also sing in the church choir. Through music sometimes I have a sense of oneness, of going beyond the material world, that may happen during liturgical music but also may happen with secular music which is not religious.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Of course for something to be _truly_ transcendental there has to be such thing as the transcendent, the existence or not of which is a question for ontology. Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, etc. would say yes, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Deleuze would say no. Then you would have to prove that music is somehow transcendent, which would be kind of nonsensical since we can hear and produce music, and the transcendent by definition transcends our senses/abilities. So philosophy says no.

But, whether or not music can be transcendent in the sense that it allows you to have a subjectively "spiritual" experience, of course! Music is so much more than entertainment. I think it's very clear that music can have actually transformative effects in a way that can feel spiritual, especially on drugs or at certain particularly sensitive moments in one's life.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I more or less agree with your conclusion but am not sure I get the exercise. Why do we need to pair boxes and what are we doing when we do pair them?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_diagram

I don't think you do pair them. You compare them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2018)

science said:


> We need a 2-D chart:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm just quoting this to see how you've done it.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Could someone explain why the stuff (good) in Box D cannot also be in Box B right along with the bad stuff? Or is it just set up that way--take it or leave it? I'm big on love, beauty, compassion, etc., --even *great music*--just not into ghosts, etc.


Whether we can have the stuff in Box D without the stuff in Box B depends on whether the stuff in Box B is real! Not up to us.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

shirime said:


> I'm just quoting this to see how you've done it.


Twelve thousand posts in, you learned a few tricks...

Most of the stuff can be found easily if you find the "Go Advanced" button when you're posting.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> Whether we can have the stuff in Box D without the stuff in Box B depends on whether the stuff in Box B is real! Not up to us.


I vote we just get rid of Box C and combine Boxes B and D .


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I hate to think that the materialists have been misguided (early on by the Greeks) and continue to be misguided post Einstein and his famous stubbornness. 4% of normal matter is what we think of as matter. And normal matter is 4% of the universe by mass. 4% of 4% gives us less than 2 tenths of one percent of the universe for materialists to work with. 

Just two tenths of one percent!, and even that sliver will probably be cracked open and dissected down into mostly 96% energy i.e. the fifth force being talked about now..

The greatest mystery is not 
that we have been flung at random 
among the profusion of the earth 
and the galaxy of the stars, 

but that in this prison, 
we can fashion images of ourselves, 
sufficiently powerful, 
to deny our nothingness! 

Andre Malraux 1901 - 1976


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I hate to think that the materialists have been misguided (early on by the Greeks) and continue to be misguided post Einstein and his famous stubbornness. 4% of normal matter is what we think of as matter. And normal matter is 4% of the universe by mass. 4% of 4% gives us less than 2 tenths of one percent of the universe for materialists to work with.
> 
> Just two tenths of one percent!, and even that sliver will probably be cracked open and dissected down into mostly 96% energy i.e. the fifth force being talked about now..
> 
> ...


Astrophysicists, particle physicists, and cosmologists are working hard on both Dark Matter and Dark Energy as we post. Recent issues of _Sky & Telescope_ magazine have had excellent articles on both recently for the lay reader. Because we don't have a full theory now (on whatever subject under discussion) does not mean we'll not have one sometime in the future. Be Brave! By definition, we'll never have a testable theory on the immaterial/non-material/anti-material.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Astrophysicists, particle physicists, and cosmologists are working hard on both Dark Matter and Dark Energy as we post. Recent issues of _Sky & Telescope_ magazine have had excellent articles on both recently for the lay reader. Because we don't have a full theory now (on whatever subject under discussion) does not mean we'll not have one sometime in the future. Be Brave! By definition, we'll never have a testable theory on the immaterial/non-material/anti-material.


Thanks, I used to think like you, but no longer. Four outlook-changing ideas have hit me in the last 2 years. They've probably been nagging at cosmologists for years before that. I don't want to get farther off topic…(plus, we should feel that we can be confident physicalists).

10
e.i.m
ranges 
bumps


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Music must be transcendental; for me, it's the only source of spirituality.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Music must be transcendental; for me, it's the only source of spirituality.


How about poetry and nature and weather events? Transtheism?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> How about poetry and nature and weather events? Transtheism?


No, no and no. Why did you mention poetry?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Thanks, I used to think like you, but no longer. Four outlook-changing ideas have hit me in the last 2 years. They've probably been nagging at cosmologists for years before that. I don't want to get farther off topic…(plus, we should feel that we can be confident physicalists).
> 
> 10
> e.i.m
> ...


You've lost me now .


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> No, no and no. Why did you mention poetry?


I've been reading Emily Dickinson again, after a long time. Dylan Thomas sounds spiritual, but he likes to be circuitous. He leaves it up to you.
Read Swineburne's The Garden of Proserpine, see if you like it. He's anti-spiritual.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45288/the-garden-of-proserpine


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> You've lost me now .


Can we post about such an abstruse science subject in his thread?


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> I hate to think that the materialists have been misguided (early on by the Greeks) and continue to be misguided post Einstein and his famous stubbornness. 4% of normal matter is what we think of as matter. And normal matter is 4% of the universe by mass. 4% of 4% gives us less than 2 tenths of one percent of the universe for materialists to work with.


Mercifully, I only have to worry about the matter where I live, and this PC, the cars outside and the job I've been going to for the past 40 years seem pretty material to me. What goes on between here and Alpha Centauri and beyond is of interest, but largely immaterial.

I like the Malraux, by the way.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Electrons are only orbiting at 5 million mph (in a probability cloud). I was surprised.

Yes, people are just happy not knowing any specific details. Life is so ramshackle and fleeting. How else could it be?

Must it be? what about Beethoven’s Op. 135 a profound last testament or something else?
Beethoven working out his intention that his Op. 135 quartet would be the first of a new set? Which explains its character as a lighter and shorter spree. At least for LvB..


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> Thanks, I used to think like you, but no longer. Four outlook-changing ideas have hit me in the last 2 years. They've probably been nagging at cosmologists for years before that. I don't want to get farther off topic…(plus, we should feel that we can be confident physicalists).
> 
> 10
> e.i.m
> ...


You've got me very curious - please do tell more.

_Music is, to me, proof of the existence of God. It is so extraordinarily full of magic, and in tough times of my life I can listen to music and it makes such a difference._ - Kurt Vonnegut


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Thomyum2 said:


> You've got me very curious - please do tell more.
> 
> _Music is, to me, proof of the existence of God. It is so extraordinarily full of magic, and in tough times of my life I can listen to music and it makes such a difference._ - Kurt Vonnegut


It's a big, well-fed subject. Are you interested in cosmology and Dark Matter, or what happened to me when I heard about the Higgs 'fiasco'?


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> It's a big, well-fed subject. Are you interested in cosmology and Dark Matter, or what happened to me when I heard about the Higgs 'fiasco'?


I'm interested in knowing about the 4 'outlook-changing ideas have hit me in the last 2 years'. I've followed, on and off over the years, ideas in physics and cosmology that relate to philosophy but haven't kept up with it recently. I too have experienced similar changes in my life outlook as a result of developments in the world of science. Hawking's _Brief History of Time _had a big influence on my in my younger years and his ideas about time have shaped how I view our experience of many things. Feel free to pm me if you'd rather not take the thread down a tangent, but perhaps others would like to hear too. I do think it's relevant to the discussion!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> It's a big, well-fed subject. Are you interested in cosmology and Dark Matter, or what happened to me when I heard about the Higgs 'fiasco'?


what Higgs fiasco? I have a university degree in physics and never heard of any fiasco. But I heard about a spectacular confirmation of the Higgs boson at LHC. The boson was theoretically predicted decades before it was found with the collider. 
I also passed some exams from astrophysics and cosmology and one cannot be blown away at the massive scale of the universe. We are less then an insignificant dust. This is the Andromeda galaxy, and the Andromeda galaxy itself is also but a dust compared to the whole universe


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Thomyum2 said:


> _Music is, to me, proof of the existence of God. It is so extraordinarily full of magic, and in tough times of my life I can listen to music and it makes such a difference._ - Kurt Vonnegut


I think Vonnegut belittled the miracle that is a human being, and all the amazing things we are capable of. It is just as bad as claiming that aliens are behind our building of the pyramids because we could never have done it. By all means keep your faith, Kurt, but don't belittle what we are.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I think Vonnegut belittled the miracle that is a human being, and all the amazing things we are capable of. It is just as bad as claiming that aliens are behind our building of the pyramids because we could never have done it. By all means keep your faith, Kurt, but don't belittle what we are.


We are animals, mammals, monkeys. People do not like this fact and so pretend that we are something more. We think that music is unique to humans, but birds and some other animals are musical too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoomusicology
Most people's spirituality is quite silly and Dawkins does a good job and deconstructing it. If there is a God, he is certainly not anthropocentric.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I'm running off to church right now but..

10
e.i.m
ranges 
bumps

We find ourselves as energy bumps in an eternally inflating multiverse (e.i.m.) of 10 spatial dimensions with our very very lucky Higgs field and Dark Energy strengths which are so curiously at the very lower end of the theoretical ranges.

These are not my ideas. These are not accepted by all theorists, of course. This has been carefully and logically derived from a lot of work since the 1960s. There's a lot more to be said but I must stop here and go.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Jacck said:


> Most people's spirituality is quite silly and Dawkins does a good job and deconstructing it. If there is a God, he is certainly not anthropocentric.


Unfortunately, societies survive and flourish through their shared myths, not shared truths. Dawkins, for all that he's quite right, is helping demolish our own society. It's a conundrum, it is!

Added: Perhaps we should treat Dawkins like Socrates?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Jacck - "what Higgs fiasco?"

That's what the pop science writers called it. 

After the Higgs discovery they thought they had found another particle. It was a glitch. This is especially bad for physics because they were looking for more evidence in that predicted range of energy. Since they didn't find any - physicists started talking about the end of physics because of the huge ramifications of no deterministic constraints on the parameters of quadrillions (a lot more than that --- 10^200) of possible universes. They have the funding so they will be still looking with more energy but the hopes are less and less, I assume. It might be a question of being stuck with what we have which according to them seems to be a random outcome to dwarf all random outcomes. And this is where it gets into the realm of philosophy..


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Unfortunately, societies survive and flourish through their shared myths, not shared truths. Dawkins, for all that he's quite right, is helping demolish our own society. It's a conundrum, it is!


I rather think that primitive, contradictory, incoherent myths, unable to withstand the expansion of knowledge and desperate to preserve their dominion, are demolishing our society. We'd better take a chance on truth.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I rather think that primitive, contradictory, incoherent myths, unable to withstand the expansion of knowledge and desperate to preserve their dominion, are demolishing our society. We'd better take a chance on truth.


It's a thin chance indeed. Your truth? My truth? As Firesign Theater says, "In the beginning there were hot lumps."


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

KenOC said:


> Unfortunately, societies survive and flourish through their shared myths, not shared truths.


Where'd you get this gem from?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> It's a thin chance indeed. Your truth? My truth? As Firesign Theater says, "In the beginning there were hot lumps."


Well, obviously not yours.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Where'd you get this gem from?


Through many years of observing our species with an "intellect vast and cool and unsympathetic." Extra points if you get the reference!

BTW I welcome counter-examples.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

KenOC said:


> Through many years of observing our species with an "intellect vast and cool and unsympathetic." Extra points if you get the reference!
> 
> BTW I welcome counter-examples.


Hmmm, do I continue the war of the words, I wonder, or concede to your vast intelect?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Anyone who has had an experience of mystery knows that there is a dimension of the universe that is not that which is available to his senses. There is a pertinent saying in one of the Upanishads: When before the beauty of a sunset or of a mountain you pause and exclaim, 'Ah,' you are participating in divinity. Such a moment of participation involves a realization of the wonder and sheer beauty of existence. People living in the world of nature experience such moments every day. They live in the recognition of something there that is much greater than the human dimension. -Joseph Campbell

https://www.azquotes.com/quote/638935


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> Anyone who has had an experience of mystery knows that there is a dimension of the universe that is not that which is available to his senses.


Anyone who has had an experience of mystery knows that it merely means something that is not yet explained - not necessarily that which is not available to the senses.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> Anyone who has had an experience of mystery knows that there is a dimension of the universe that is not that which is available to his senses. There is a pertinent saying in one of the Upanishads: When before the beauty of a sunset or of a mountain you pause and exclaim, 'Ah,' you are participating in divinity. Such a moment of participation involves a realization of the wonder and sheer beauty of existence. People living in the world of nature experience such moments every day. They live in the recognition of something there that is much greater than the human dimension. -Joseph Campbell
> 
> https://www.azquotes.com/quote/638935


Several pure assertions and non-sequiturs here, attempting to glue together certain profoundly obvious truths into a wholly artificial construct. I know nothing of dimensions of the universe unavailable in some way to the senses. I can imagine and speculate about such, but cannot "know". As to the saying from the Upanishad, I find myself often pausing before the beauty of sunsets and mountains and much besides, but have no reason to assert that I am participating in divinity. As to Joseph Campbell, just about everybody understands that there are things "greater than the human dimension"; the question is what do we mean when we say this? Our Earth and the universe are wonderful, marvelous places in and of themselves. They need no extra "sauce" to justify their excellence.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

The feelings music can tap into seem to me no different than the way a sudden encounter with an aroma can also tap into emotions and memories and bring them all to the surface simultaneously. With the music you get these feelings and experiences at the same time as consciously listening to something excellent and for a sustained period.

Thus, why shouldn't it feel profound? Like love feels profound at the moment you're entwined in it. How things feel and how things really are, are not always identical.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Unfortunately, societies survive and flourish through their shared myths, not shared truths. Dawkins, for all that he's quite right, is helping demolish our own society. It's a conundrum, it is!
> 
> Added: Perhaps we should treat Dawkins like Socrates?


And there was I thinking that it is those with a religious fundamentalist frame of mind that were demolishing our society. Dawkins - love him or hate him - is about rationality and evidence: qualities we desperately need at the moment.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Maybe he felt a little guilty about wrenching away the child of his sister-in-law. After her attempts failed the second time in court she found herself pregnant again and had a little girl if I remember correctly. After a long dry spell through all the relationship and legal fracas Beethoven forced himself to compose his 29th Sonata. Lashing out in the first movement, we can imagine we hear him trying to pump up his imagination. The slow movement is a pure outpouring of depression and loss — the loss of his hearing, the loss of his musicmaking, the loss of the chance for normal family life. His health had been bad. The last movement is where he is trying to break all the rules as a result of how he was seeing the world (inside and outside) and then we hear him pulling it all back together in a logical bundle. Truth. One man’s truth for a very low point in his life as he was realizing it again so vividly, BUT made to be universal for all of us. What is a better example for people with ears to hear?

And Leo Tolstoy struggling against the world’s exiguous ‘truths’, “…continued to refuse to reconcile himself with the Russian Orthodox Church even as he lay dying.
He was still making his point, right until he breathed his last, saying: "Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six."


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Unfortunately, societies survive and flourish through their shared myths, not shared truths. Dawkins, for all that he's quite right, is helping demolish our own society. It's a conundrum, it is!


That's right, Ken. Religious stories helped us to survive. What else was there? Without them - chaos in the tribe.

The world was obviously created by a very intelligent, powerful and loving, outsized entity which needed to be revered. How else could it be? Try to explain nucleosynthesis and the arithmetic of the chemistry of life arising from the very opposite of a god.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> That's right, Ken. Religious stories helped us to survive. What else was there? Without them - chaos in the tribe.
> 
> The world was obviously created by a very intelligent, powerful and loving, outsized entity which needed to be revered. How else could it be? Try to explain nucleosynthesis and the arithmetic of the chemistry of life arising from the very opposite of a god.


That may have been how it was in prehistory, but not how it needs to be now.

Alas, we're saddled with an unfortunate legacy, where the religious story of the afterlife has such a strong hold on some minds that they are prepared to die and take others with them in pursuit of it. Now that may be the most extreme manifestation of belief in religious stories, but there are many less extreme examples of tensions wthin and between myth-believing communities and secular communities that also need resolution.

Perhaps the truth might not be such a bad idea after all.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> That may have been how it was in prehistory, but not how it needs to be now.
> 
> Alas, we're saddled with an unfortunate legacy, where the religious story of the afterlife has such a strong hold on some minds that they are prepared to die and take others with them in pursuit of it. Now that may be the most extreme manifestation of belief in religious stories, but there are many less extreme examples of tensions wthin and between myth-believing communities and secular communities that also need resolution.
> 
> Perhaps the truth might not be such a bad idea after all.


With longevity research, experts are offering a future in which people live for about 1000 years. People will choose to live as long as they want to. Very few babies will be born. So very few young people will need religious stories to give them the metaphorical allusions, experiential human guidance (looking up to spiritual leaders) and a perspective for the past. Can we imagine what kind of a world that would be? No more big questions for their personal lives, destiny, paradise in some heaven?

Preprogrammed death and life spans evolved about 800 million years ago for survival reasons. Can we make do without it?


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> With longevity research, experts are offering a future in which people live for about 1000 years. People will choose to live as long as they want to. Very few babies will be born. So very few young people will need religious stories to give them the metaphorical allusions, experiential human guidance (looking up to spiritual leaders) and a perspective for the past. Can we imagine what kind of a world that would be? No more big questions for their personal lives, destiny, paradise in some heaven?
> 
> Preprogrammed death and life spans evolved about 800 million years ago for survival reasons. Can we make do without it?


Is the is fairy tale thread?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> With longevity research, experts are offering a future in which people live for about 1000 years. People will choose to live as long as they want to. Very few babies will be born. So very few young people will need religious stories to give them the metaphorical allusions, experiential human guidance (looking up to spiritual leaders) and a perspective for the past. Can we imagine what kind of a world that would be? No more big questions for their personal lives, destiny, paradise in some heaven?
> 
> Preprogrammed death and life spans evolved about 800 million years ago for survival reasons. Can we make do without it?


I don't know. Maybe we do need myths to keep us together in the tribe. But who said that the myth had to be full of magic and superheroes and an all-knowing entity? The only tribe that it makes sense to strengthen these days is a global one. I wonder what story could unite us all.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> I think Vonnegut belittled the miracle that is a human being, and all the amazing things we are capable of. It is just as bad as claiming that aliens are behind our building of the pyramids because we could never have done it. By all means keep your faith, Kurt, but don't belittle what we are.


Do you really feel that Vonnegut is belittling in this quote? I don't get that at all - I find it a very reverent and respectful sentiment. I don't think he was saying the God should get the credit for what humans do, but rather I've always taken this to mean that that he loved music, and found it so wonderful that it made him feel in touch with something or someone higher.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Is the is fairy tale thread?


Possibly. But serious amounts of funding are going into amortality research.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> That may have been how it was in prehistory, but not how it needs to be now.
> 
> Alas, we're saddled with an unfortunate legacy, where the religious story of the afterlife has such a strong hold on some minds that they are prepared to die and take others with them in pursuit of it. Now that may be the most extreme manifestation of belief in religious stories, but there are many less extreme examples of tensions wthin and between myth-believing communities and secular communities that also need resolution.
> 
> Perhaps the truth might not be such a bad idea after all.


Unfortunately, science is unlikely to be a unifying source. People aren't naturally science-driven and in fact will always deny good science if it conflicts with their ideologies.

Today the US is pretty polarized between two factions, each of which denies fair swaths of pretty good science. I'm sure that anybody here will readily identify the sciences denied by their opposite numbers, but few will be able to see their own denials. Like most humans, they will be too busy trying to explain away the science they deny, or attacking its believers.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^Some examples would be helpful, especially of science-denial on the left side of the spectrum. I concur that science is not a powerful element in most political thinking these (or any) days.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

dogen said:


> Possibly. But serious amounts of funding are going into amortality research.


Funding from Silicon Valley billionaires who think they are visionaries because they came up with an app that is addictive to pre-teens.

Money spent cannot be equated with progress achieved. It is a sign of our age that legitimate scientific research is being starved for resources while billionaire-idiots shower amortality (is that a word?) charlatans with money.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

Jacck said:


> We are animals, mammals, monkeys.


Have you been spending too much time with Darwin bashers?! 

We are not monkeys, we are apes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The question is, are you going to look for more similarities between humans and apes, or look for the differences? 
If you look for the similarities, you're a liberal; if you look for the differences, you're a conservative.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Funding from Silicon Valley billionaires who think they are visionaries because they came up with an app that is addictive to pre-teens.
> 
> Money spent cannot be equated with progress achieved. It is a sign of our age that legitimate scientific research is being starved for resources while billionaire-idiots shower amortality (is that a word?) charlatans with money.


Er, well I don't know the story of Silicon Valley billionaires but it is certainly a word! I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that as more is learned about things such as programmed cell death (and hence how to turn the program "off") that life expectancies may dramatically increase (in tandem with cyborg technologies). Such "healthcare" may be only for the super-wealthy, but amortality seems a realistic goal. In a sense it is simply the "end-point" of medical research generally.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

L


millionrainbows said:


> The question is, are you going to look for more similarities between humans and apes, or look for the differences?
> If you look for the similarities, you're a liberal; if you look for the differences, you're a conservative.


It's not a political matter, it is a scientific taxonomic matter.


----------



## Crawford Glissadevil (Jul 23, 2018)

Vonnegut thought humans were stupid.

“As stupid and vicious as men are, this is a lovely day.” 

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle 

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder,
‘Why, why, why?’
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Some examples would be helpful, especially of science-denial on the left side of the spectrum. I concur that science is not a powerful element in most political thinking these (or any) days.


Heh-heh. Not on this forum I won't! :lol:

But I'm sure you can think of several with a bit of thought.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The question is, are you going to look for more similarities between humans and apes, or look for the differences?
> If you look for the similarities, you're a liberal; if you look for the differences, you're a conservative.


There's something to that. "Speciesism" is the interspecies variant of racism; both depend upon emphasizing differences to shore up assertions of superiority and structures of dominance. On the other hand, if you look for the similarities, you may be an evolutionary biologist. But I'm guessing that not many of those are conservatives, given the obsolete nonsense people want to "conserve" these days.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I wonder why for a few dozen pieces I shake my head, sometimes cry and mutter this isn't of this planet. This normally happens when I listen to JS Bach.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Heh-heh. Not on this forum I won't! :lol:
> 
> But I'm sure you can think of several with a bit of thought.


Not even one example??


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

dogen said:


> Er, well I don't know the story of Silicon Valley billionaires but it is certainly a word! I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that as more is learned about things such as programmed cell death (and hence how to turn the program "off") that life expectancies may dramatically increase (in tandem with cyborg technologies). Such "healthcare" may be only for the super-wealthy, but amortality seems a realistic goal. In a sense it is simply the "end-point" of medical research generally.


Programmed cell death (apoptosis) occurs through a variety of mechanisms, and this how different cell lines confine themselves to the tissues where they belong. The ultimate limit to cellular reproduction in higher organisms is through telomere loss. There is an enzyme which prevents telomere loss, which is only active in a few specialize cell types and is turned off in almost all cells.

It is a hallmark of cancer that cells fail to trigger apoptosis and form tumors or invade other tissues. If you could turn off programmed cell death you would not live for ever, you would die of cancer in short order.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Some examples would be helpful, especially of science-denial on the left side of the spectrum. I concur that science is not a powerful element in most political thinking these (or any) days.


The anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people are the obvious example of anti-science attitudes on the "left." But anti-vaccine is more selfishness and narcissism than science hostility. It is actually to your advantage if you are not vaccinated and everyone else is, because you get the benefit without the risk or inconvenience of being vaccinated. The belief that GMO is intrinsically dangerous is against science, but it is not against science to be concerned about GMO organisms for some specific reasons. You can legitimately worry that some GMO organisms could damage ecosystems, or that some companies could exploit GMO organisms in a way that is against the public interest. I don't find it unreasonable for GMO projects to be labeled so people know what sort of agriculture they are supporting with their purchases.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know. Maybe we do need myths to keep us together in the tribe. But who said that the myth had to be full of magic and superheroes and an all-knowing entity? The only tribe that it makes sense to strengthen these days is a global one. I wonder what story could unite us all.


I don't want to think about it, but if we find other intelligences out there I expect we'll bond more with eachother.

There's a recent scary testimonial by a credible Navy commander;


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Baron Scarpia said:


> The anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people are the obvious example of anti-science attitudes on the "left."


Is the anti-vaccine thing really more prevalent on the left? Maybe so.

"George was always such a nice, normal boy. Then, exactly two weeks after the vaccination he began wearing a MAGA hat and going on about how evolution was only a theory."


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I don't want to think about it, but if we find other intelligences out there I expect we'll bond more with eachother.
> 
> There's a recent scary testimonial by a credible Navy commander;


This is nothing. People are routinely taken up into alien spacecraft and their sexual organs carefully probed and examined. Happens all the time. You can look it up .


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> This is nothing. People are routinely taken up into alien spacecraft and their sexual organs carefully probed and examined. Happens all the time. You can look it up .


Yeah, if they had merely gotten probed it would be another nothing as you say, but since the UFO took a large sample from our ocean they might be going to report back with their analysis of this planet's biota. Their higher-ups will decide whether they want this jewel of a planet for future expansion. The Navy F18s would just be lowly insect-type life to THEM and confirmation that no resistance should be expected from this primitive planet.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^That's why Stephen Hawking thinks letting others know who and where we are is a bad idea.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I would also consider crop circles-their absolute perfection and sacred geometry-as 'not being of this world', despite the ridiculous attempts to imitate them with flat-boards to discredit them. Some are magnificent! As perfect as Mozart.  Are we as a species being watched and observed by an alien species who are more intellectually, aesthetically and technically advanced? I hope so. The complex perfection of the circles is simply beyond human capability and some are formed over night, though a few have obviously been faked over the years as a hoax.

[video]http://midnightinthedesert.com/tag/crop-circles/[/video]


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^That's why Stephen Hawking thinks letting others know who and where we are is a bad idea.


Fortunately, there may be other reasons we're safe.

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml#1

Or on YouTube: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...079E64A49DCA44412026079E64A49DCA444&FORM=VIRE


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> I would also consider crop circles, their absolute perfection, their symbolism, as 'not being of this earth', despite the ridiculous attempts to imitate them with flat-boards to discredit them. They are as magnificent as Mozart!  Are we as a species being watched and observed by a greater and benign intelligence? Let's hope so.
> 
> https://temporarytemples.co.uk/crop-circles/2018-crop-circles


If some human team created the most impressive crop circles they should receive a lengthy prison sentence in my opinion. IMO, this type of deception along with ransomware and re-formatting malware should be dealt with harshly. What are the typical sentences for such hackers these days?


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Programmed cell death (apoptosis) occurs through a variety of mechanisms, and this how different cell lines confine themselves to the tissues where they belong. The ultimate limit to cellular reproduction in higher organisms is through telomere loss. There is an enzyme which prevents telomere loss, which is only active in a few specialize cell types and is turned off in almost all cells.
> 
> It is a hallmark of cancer that cells fail to trigger apoptosis and form tumors or invade other tissues. If you could turn off programmed cell death you would not live for ever, you would die of cancer in short order.


I am led to believe that the cancerous cell is one of seven major causes of molecular and cell death in the body, but no matter because I was referring to amortality (age-resistance), not immortality.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

dogen said:


> Have you been spending too much time with Darwin bashers?!
> We are not monkeys, we are apes.


no, it is just my English. We have just one word where English has two words - ape and monkey - and I do not know which word to use in which situation. Evolution is a fact that no reasonable person can deny. The thing that seems to set us apart from other animals is our ability for metacognition.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

Jacck said:


> We have just one word where English has two words - ape and monkey


Wow, in the context, that is really bad. Your country is a safe haven for Christian fundamentalists! :lol:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

An Atheist Meets God


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

Jacck said:


> An Atheist Meets God


"Video unavailable"

Blocked by God?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

God unblocked it for me.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Fortunately, there may be other reasons we're safe.
> 
> http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml#1
> 
> Or on YouTube: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...079E64A49DCA44412026079E64A49DCA444&FORM=VIRE


I like this one;

https://worldwideinterweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/taco-bell-diarrhea-meme.png


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> God unblocked it for me.


Albuquerque, that's where Volkswagon scientists tested their diesel exhaust on chimpanzees to see if it would kill them.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> We are animals...


That is not an established fact.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> Evolution is a fact that no reasonable person can deny.


Micro, yes - macro remains unproven.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

This thread unraveled.....


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Micro, yes - macro remains unproven.


i knew this would turn into a religious debate. But what convinced me of macroevolution was the fact (at least from what I heard) that our genes / DNA are more similar to apes than a mouse is to a rat. That put things into perspective to me.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> i knew this would turn into a religious debate. But what convinced me of macroevolution was the fact (at least from what I heard) that our genes / DNA are more similar to apes than a mouse is to a rat. That put things into perspective to me.


It doesn't have to be religious. I was merely stating a truth. I wasn't necessarily denying Darwinism and arguing as a religious apologist.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> God unblocked it for me.


Praise the lord.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

janxharris said:


> That is not an established fact.


Which then, mineral or vegetable?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

janxharris said:


> It doesn't have to be religious. I was merely stating a truth. I wasn't necessarily denying Darwinism and arguing as a religious apologist.


What truth? .


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> I don't want to think about it, but if we find other intelligences out there I expect we'll bond more with eachother.
> 
> There's a recent scary testimonial by a credible Navy commander;


Well, I do agree that our bonding seems to depends upon the existence of "the other". While we are alone we need to solve that one.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

dogen said:


> Which then, mineral or vegetable?


 Something for another forum.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

dogen said:


> What truth? .


The truth that macro evolution isn't proven.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Thomyum2 said:


> Do you really feel that Vonnegut is belittling in this quote? I don't get that at all - I find it a very reverent and respectful sentiment. I don't think he was saying the God should get the credit for what humans do, but rather I've always taken this to mean that that he loved music, and found it so wonderful that it made him feel in touch with something or someone higher.


Why should any god get the credit for our achievements as a species .... or, indeed, for our crimes? Such sentiments belittle what we are and that is dangerous, I think.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> It doesn't have to be religious. I was merely stating a truth. I wasn't necessarily denying Darwinism and arguing as a religious apologist.


Fair enough. It seems some of the others are feeding off the religious vibe :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

janxharris said:


> The truth that macro evolution isn't proven.


Science is not in the business of eternal truths. Evolution remains the current best explanation for speciation, unless or until new evidence results in a reassessment by the scientific community.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

dogen said:


> Science is not in the business of eternal truths. Evolution remains the current best explanation for speciation, unless or until new evidence results in a reassessment by the scientific community.


However you want to dress it, it remains unproven - an extrapolation; it's a historical science after all. But, granted, there is evidence.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> However you want to dress it, it remains unproven - an extrapolation; it's a historical science after all. But, granted, there is evidence.


But in science it is about proving a theory wrong. Evolution explains so much - and such a variety of observations - that it remains probably the most secure theory in science. Unfortunately it also debunks nearly all the claims of most religions - although, of course, there is no compulsion to take these literally (you can have faith and accept Darwin) - and those who want to take the Bible as literally true are making fools of themselves. If evolution is replaced by a better theory that theory will not be in the Bible.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

janxharris said:


> However you want to dress it, it remains unproven - an extrapolation; it's a historical science after all.


Then you don't understand what science is.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> But in science it is about proving a theory wrong. Evolution explains so much - and such a variety of observations - that it remains probably the most secure theory in science. Unfortunately it also debunks nearly all the claims of most religions - although, of course, there is no compulsion to take these literally (you can have faith and accept Darwin) - and those who want to take the Bible as literally true are making fools of themselves. If evolution is replaced by a better theory that theory will not be in the Bible.


This might be better directed at a creationist apologist. I accept that macro-evolution is a possibility.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

dogen said:


> Then you don't understand what science is.


Ok.
.....................


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Micro, yes - macro remains unproven.


There are of course countless proofs, like the thalassaemia mutation offering protection against malaria etc. I read a great book about the evolution of the human body recently
https://www.amazon.com/Story-Human-Body-Evolution-Disease/dp/030774180X
the first half of the book is a summary of the evolution of homo sapiens (starting 7 milions years in the past) and chronologically showing the evolution, the second half is about civilization diseases from an evolutionary perspective


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> There are of course countless proofs, like the thalassaemia mutation offering protection against malaria etc. I read a great book about the evolution of the human body recently
> https://www.amazon.com/Story-Human-Body-Evolution-Disease/dp/030774180X
> the first half of the book is a summary of the evolution of homo sapiens (starting 7 milions years in the past) and chronologically showing the evolution, the second half is about civilization diseases from an evolutionary perspective


You don't need to prove it, no. And you didn't.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> This thread unraveled.....





Phil loves classical said:


> i knew this would turn into a religious debate. But what convinced me of macroevolution was the fact (at least from what I heard) that our genes / DNA are more similar to apes than a mouse is to a rat. That put things into perspective to me.


I've followed and largely stayed out of this discussion, but actually found it interesting both that it sort of fizzled out as far as the music-related discussion goes, and also in that it went off-course into talk about science and religion. I think it is illustrative of the premise underlying the original question of whether or not music is 'transcendental'. As was pointed out early on, transcendental by definition implies something 'outside of physical reality'. It seems to me that it is impossible to ever prove the existence or non-existence of anything outside of reality, in fact it is almost an oxymoron to even say that. So in the absence of proof, it requires a 'leap of faith' essentially to believe in something transcending reality - an act and a choice to believe. So it seems to me that those who do not make that leap will naturally argue that music may 'feel transcendent' or engender spiritual feelings in the listener, but that there is nothing inherently about it that actually is outside of reality. On the other hand, those who do make that leap of faith, do allow themselves to believe there are things that are not purely contained within the material universe, and those people would say that music is in fact transcendent. The interesting thing is that there is no real middle ground between these two points of view, so not so surprising that there can't really be a lot of discussion without going a little off-topic.

But to stir things up a little, I'll offer a thought - don't we all actually make leaps of faith all of the time in our lives? For example, as each of you is reading this, aren't you making a leap of faith that this post was typed by a living human somewhere in the world and not by a sophisticated computer programmed to attempt to induce you to make a particular response or reveal certain information? Don't we all accept many things and make assumptions in life that could be fallible without actually requiring proof, and act on those assumptions? Does this make those things into primitive 'myths' if they are later proven to be false or if they are replaced later on by different beliefs? With the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to classify past mistaken beliefs as myths, but how do we know for sure which of our beliefs now will someday be called a myth. And with this in mind, what is so different in anyone making a leap of faith that music is transcendental?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Good post.

As to your question: it's a matter of probability isn't it. It's _quite_ likely you are a human behind these words on a screen, so one accepts it on that basis. Like science, it is always provisional. The probably of something existing outide of reality is, as you say, an oxymoron.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

dogen said:


> As to your question: it's a matter of probability isn't it. It's _quite_ likely you are a human behind these words on a screen, so one accepts it on that basis. Like science, it is always provisional.


Well, is it really quite likely? If you've followed at all the advent of 'fake news' and manipulation of social media, it seems that we are becoming less able to distinguish between humans and AI through this form of communication, and moving into the future it may become less and less likely that we are able to rely on that probability.



dogen said:


> The probably of something existing outide of reality is, as you say, an oxymoron.


Yes, well put! But perhaps it would be clearer to say something 'existing outside of the material universe'?

Or is that saying the same thing?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> This might be better directed at a creationist apologist. I accept that macro-evolution is a possibility.


Well, I directed it at whoever is reading this thread! I answered your post because I felt it was misleading about how secure evolution is as a theory.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Thomyum2 said:


> I've followed and largely stayed out of this discussion, but actually found it interesting both that it sort of fizzled out as far as the music-related discussion goes, and also in that it went off-course into talk about science and religion. I think it is illustrative of the premise underlying the original question of whether or not music is 'transcendental'. As was pointed out early on, transcendental by definition implies something 'outside of physical reality'. It seems to me that it is impossible to ever prove the existence or non-existence of anything outside of reality, in fact it is almost an oxymoron to even say that. So in the absence of proof, it requires a 'leap of faith' essentially to believe in something transcending reality - an act and a choice to believe. So it seems to me that those who do not make that leap will naturally argue that music may 'feel transcendent' or engender spiritual feelings in the listener, but that there is nothing inherently about it that actually is outside of reality. On the other hand, those who do make that leap of faith, do allow themselves to believe there are things that are not purely contained within the material universe, and those people would say that music is in fact transcendent. The interesting thing is that there is no real middle ground between these two points of view, so not so surprising that there can't really be a lot of discussion without going a little off-topic.
> 
> But to stir things up a little, I'll offer a thought - don't we all actually make leaps of faith all of the time in our lives? For example, as each of you is reading this, aren't you making a leap of faith that this post was typed by a living human somewhere in the world and not by a sophisticated computer programmed to attempt to induce you to make a particular response or reveal certain information? Don't we all accept many things and make assumptions in life that could be fallible without actually requiring proof, and act on those assumptions? Does this make those things into primitive 'myths' if they are later proven to be false or if they are replaced later on by different beliefs? With the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to classify past mistaken beliefs as myths, but how do we know for sure which of our beliefs now will someday be called a myth. And with this in mind, what is so different in anyone making a leap of faith that music is transcendental?


But I think the problems start when myths are enforced and evidence to the contrary is ignored or suppressed. It can get so bad that people are killed for the sake of a myth that has long been discredited.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Thomy,

Yes I know of the AI and fake news developments. But so far, I've provisionally decided you are quite likely to be a human. If you start telling me who to vote for, I shall reconsider your status!

Hmmmm... reality and material universe....I don't have a snappy answer to that one.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

You got matter. You got energy. You got A. Einstein's formula giving the equivalence between the two, and all kinds of evidence via experiment, observation, and further extrapolations validating the equivalence and interchangeability. So once we define "material universe" as being constituted of matter/energy, we're pretty much defining "reality". No need or evidence for any Secret Sauce as an undefined but necessary additional ingredient.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Micro, yes - macro remains unproven.


The detailed sequence events that led to the creation of a new species has not been mapped out, but the theory of evolution, including macro evolution, is the most exhaustively confirmed theory in the history of science.

The evidence for macro evolution involves the fact that if you compare the chromosome structure of two species, let's say a human and a mouse, you will find close correspondence. For instance, the attached image shows the relationship between mouse chromosomes and human chromosomes using color coding. If you look at, for example, human chromosome 12 you will see that it consists of a segment of mouse chromosome 6, followed by segments from chromosomes 15, 10 and 5. These matching segments have the same genes, in the same orientation, in the same order, padded with the same bits of regulatory and non-functional DNA. Evolution theory had hypothesized that new species arrive from chromosome replication errors (duplication, breaking up, fusion of chromosomes). The genomic data is exactly what would be expected from such a sequence of events.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

janxharris said:


> However you want to dress it, it remains unproven - an extrapolation; it's a historical science after all. But, granted, there is evidence.


Unproven. As of yet we have no complete theories, so we can't point to anything that has been proven by the scientific method. It gets highly improbable but anything is possible if you don't have a complete theory. We have no proof that a herd of flying, purple marmosets did or didn't create everything last Tuesday.

You can go by the authority figures or by the evidence that we do have -- and the hopes and dreams of humans, but we need a complete theory. The beauty of this is we can still come up with the best explanations currently available to us called theories, strictly according to the converging lines of evidence with the stipulation that the conceptions are always falsifiable.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

janxharris said:


> However you want to dress it, it remains unproven - an extrapolation; it's a historical science after all. But, granted, there is evidence.


The depreciation that evolution is a "historical science" and different from other sciences is spurious. The basis of the scientific method is using observations to form a hypothesis, then obtaining new data and determining if the hypothesis "predicts" the new data. The theory of evolution included a mechanism for species creation which made very detailed predictions of statistical correlations in genomic data. The genomic data was obtained and the predicted statistical properties were confirmed. It is the most exhaustive confirmation of a theory in the history of science.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

If 'transcendental' means outside physical reality, how do we experience it?



janxharris said:


> it's a historical science after all.


What do you mean by this?


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Is it to do with excessive dopamine and nor-adrenaline?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> The depreciation that evolution is a "historical science" and different from other sciences is spurious. The basis of the scientific method is using observations to form a hypothesis, then obtaining new data and determining if the hypothesis "predicts" the new data. The theory of evolution included a mechanism for species creation which made very detailed predictions of statistical correlations in genomic data. The genomic data was obtained and the predicted statistical properties were confirmed. It is the most exhaustive confirmation of a theory in the history of science.


If I begin to doubt the fact of evolution and its predictions I like to review the story of Tiktaalik.

A paleontologist reasoned that there was a fossil which was something like Tiktaalik out there with its developmental breakthroughs for early survival on land (arm bones and neck). He estimated the age. He found the rocks of that age and a few years of trips and he found Tiktaalik. Amazing!

If evolution is incorrect as an approach then it was just luck?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> Unproven. As of yet we have no complete theories, so we can't point to anything that has been proven by the scientific method. It gets highly improbable but anything is possible if you don't have a complete theory. We have no proof that a herd of flying, purple marmosets did or didn't create everything last Tuesday.
> 
> You can go by the authority figures or by the evidence that we do have -- and the hopes and dreams of humans, but we need a complete theory. The beauty of this is we can still come up with the best explanations currently available to us called theories, strictly according to the converging lines of evidence with the stipulation that the conceptions are always falsifiable.


Hello Pyhrro. I didn't know you were a member here? Perhaps you were even beginning to doubt it yourself?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> You got matter. You got energy. You got A. Einstein's formula giving the equivalence between the two, and all kinds of evidence via experiment, observation, and further extrapolations validating the equivalence and interchangeability. So once we define "material universe" as being constituted of matter/energy, we're pretty much defining "reality". No need or evidence for any Secret Sauce as an undefined but necessary additional ingredient.


This isn't even a complete description of modern physics, which any modern physicist will tell you is itself incomplete!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> This isn't even a complete description of modern physics, which any modern physicist will tell you is itself incomplete!


"Of Course Not!" is my response. All of modern physics in a brief TC post. Why go to college?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> "Of Course Not!" is my response. All of modern physics in a brief TC post. Why go to college?


Fair enough.

The real problem with with attempts at reductive materialism is that they omit the observer.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heartbreaking beauty will remain when there is no heart to break for it.".

Robinson Jeffers: _Credo_

We can have a material universe with an observer. We can have a material universe without an observer. Not much difference, really.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

isorhythm said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> The real problem with with attempts at reductive materialism is that they omit the observer.


They don't though. They actually put the observer's observations first.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> Hello Pyhrro. I didn't know you were a member here? Perhaps you were even beginning to doubt it yourself?


Yes, he was probably right (but I don't misspend time on ethics). That's where we are as humans, we can't know yet. You don't agree?


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> "The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heartbreaking beauty will remain when there is no heart to break for it.".
> 
> Robinson Jeffers: _Credo_
> 
> We can have a material universe with an observer. We can have a material universe without an observer. Not much difference, really.


And the whole universe might just be a dream I am having. Can't prove me wrong, na, na, na. Is that what we are reduced to.

Science deals in practical questions. This sort of stuff is not the domain of science, it is the domain of string theorists, philosophers and alcoholics.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

#168

For once you may be right.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> And the whole universe might just be a dream I am having. Can't prove me wrong, na, na, na. Is that what we are reduced to.
> 
> Science deals in practical questions. This sort of stuff is not the domain of science, it is the domain of string theorists, philosophers and alcoholics.


Yes, but we can always fall back on probabilities. Which of the several ways of examining and contemplating the nature of reality have the largest probability of asymptotically approaching "truth"? I am reasonably convinced that the moon existed before I observed it and that there is a fair chance it will survive my passing, as will the rest of reality. If not, all pray for my immortality, for, if I go, I'm taking it all with me .


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> "The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heartbreaking beauty will remain when there is no heart to break for it.".
> 
> Robinson Jeffers: _Credo_
> 
> We can have a material universe with an observer. We can have a material universe without an observer. Not much difference, really.


It makes a big difference to me whether I exist!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> #168
> 
> For once you may be right.


In my job I get my salary dependably whether I'm 'right' or I'm very wrong.

Around here they say I'm like the president. lol


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> It makes a big difference to me whether I exist!


It very likely makes a big difference to others. But to you? Not so much. Same is true for me.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

isorhythm said:


> It makes a big difference to me whether I exist!


Yes, but only because I imagine you that way.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> It very likely makes a big difference to others. But to you? Not so much. Same is true for me.


Maybe I should have said: it matters to me that I exist.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Yes, but only because I imagine you that way.


Ken, didn't you work in government health departments? IMAGINE what our vitamin C RDA should be. Our livers can't convert glucose into ascorbic acid. Rats with a normal diet produce between 4mg and 14mg of vitamin C per day.

RDA should be at least 500mg. It's a govmint conspiracy to kill us all off early.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Baron Scarpia said:


> The detailed sequence events that led to the creation of a new species has not been mapped out, but the theory of evolution, including macro evolution, is the most exhaustively confirmed theory in the history of science.
> 
> The evidence for macro evolution involves the fact that if you compare the chromosome structure of two species, let's say a human and a mouse, you will find close correspondence. For instance, the attached image shows the relationship between mouse chromosomes and human chromosomes using color coding. If you look at, for example, human chromosome 12 you will see that it consists of a segment of mouse chromosome 6, followed by segments from chromosomes 15, 10 and 5. These matching segments have the same genes, in the same orientation, in the same order, padded with the same bits of regulatory and non-functional DNA. Evolution theory had hypothesized that new species arrive from chromosome replication errors (duplication, breaking up, fusion of chromosomes). The genomic data is exactly what would be expected from such a sequence of events.


I did say that I accept there is evidence that supports evolution - however one might also say that it isn't surprising that similarities of body parts requires similar or even identical genes (and that efficient functionality might also necessitate the same).
Genes code for proteins which are the building blocks of all bodies, so we should expect this.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> If 'transcendental' means outside physical reality, how do we experience it?
> 
> What do you mean by this?


Science of the past. Verification of science requires empirical evidence but macro evolution occurs over long time periods - hence the difficulty in establishing it as fact.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Luchesi said:


> If I begin to doubt the fact of evolution and its predictions I like to review the story of Tiktaalik.
> 
> A paleontologist reasoned that there was a fossil which was something like Tiktaalik out there with its developmental breakthroughs for early survival on land (arm bones and neck). He estimated the age. He found the rocks of that age and a few years of trips and he found Tiktaalik. Amazing!
> 
> If evolution is incorrect as an approach then it was just luck?


On the other hand Niles Eldredge:

_And it has been the paleontologist- my own breed-who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: ...We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not._

Of course Eldredge remains a evolutionist and, with Stephen Gould, he wrote 'Punctuated Equilibrium' in support of selection at the species level (in response to the above observation).


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Science of the past. Verification of science requires empirical evidence but macro evolution occurs over long time periods - hence the difficulty in establishing it as fact.


I don't think "establishing it as fact" is the scientists' goal. As has already been pointed out, science aims to provide the latest best explanation of phenomena, not incontrovertible facts.

As for macroevolution, try http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It seems to me that we've wandered rather too far from the topic of whether 'music is transcendental' because we can't agree on what 'transcendental' is without reference to whether our means of explaining our experiences are amenable to scientific testing. From thence, to other areas of controversy where some argue that science doesn't work, such as "proving the theory of evolution".

There is nowhere to go when people start talking about "beyond physical reality", since there is no such place that any of us can experience: if we can experience it, it has a physical reality.

I can't say that any music has given me anything that I might imagine is a transcendent experience. An intense emotional experience, yes; a sense that I have been so absorbed by listening to the music that when the music ends, it feels akin to a "return to reality". But that's just me. Others here will report differently, but personal testimony is notoriously unreliable, even more so when the relationships needed to develop trust are so hard to establish on the interweb.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

janxharris said:


> I did say that I accept there is evidence that supports evolution - however one might also say that it isn't surprising that similarities of body parts requires similar or even identical genes (and that efficient functionality might also necessitate the same).
> Genes code for proteins which are the building blocks of all bodies, so we should expect this.


We might expect similar organisms to have similar genes. Sure. That is only a small part of what this result says. We compare human genome and mouse genome and find that a human chromosome consists of ~40 million base pairs copied verbatim from one mouse chromosome (including fragments of defective genes, insertions from viruses, non-coding sequences, etc) followed by ~20 million base pairs copied verbatim from another mouse chromosome (including fragments of defective genes, insertions from viruses, non-coding sequences, etc), followed by ~60 million base pairs copied verbatim from a third mouse chromosome, etc.

If I read a post you wrote on this web site and I found that the first paragraph was word-for-word identical to a paragraph in a wikipedia article, and the wikipedia article had 7 mis-spellings and your post had the same 7 mis-spellings. Then I found that your second paragraph was identical word-for-word with another wikipedia article, and the wikipedia article said Mozart was born in 1746 and your article said Mozart was born in 1746. And similar results for the third and forth paragraphs, etc. Do I have evidence that you cut and pasted your post from Wikipedia articles? That is what is found in comparing the genomes. Chromosomes seem to be made up of segments of chromosomes from the other organism fused together, with obvious replication errors such as gene fragments, viral insertions, etc, conserved between the two organisms. Why would the same errors be in the two organisms if they did not evolve from a common source containing the errors?

The theory of macro-evolution predicted these sorts of features, and they were found.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Science of the past. Verification of science requires empirical evidence but macro evolution occurs over long time periods - hence the difficulty in establishing it as fact.


You have not given any reason why the fact that it "occurs over long time periods" creates difficulty.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Baron Scarpia said:


> We might expect similar organisms to have similar genes. Sure. That is only a small part of what this result says. We compare human genome and mouse genome and find that a human chromosome consists of ~40 million base pairs copied verbatim from one mouse chromosome (including fragments of defective genes, insertions from viruses, non-coding sequences, etc) followed by ~20 million base pairs copied verbatim from another mouse chromosome (including fragments of defective genes, insertions from viruses, non-coding sequences, etc), followed by ~60 million base pairs copied verbatim from a third mouse chromosome, etc.
> 
> If I read a post you wrote on this web site and I found that the first paragraph was word-for-word identical to a paragraph in a wikipedia article, and the wikipedia article had 7 mis-spellings and your post had the same 7 mis-spellings. Then I found that your second paragraph was identical word-for-word with another wikipedia article, and the wikipedia article said Mozart was born in 1746 and your article said Mozart was born in 1746. And similar results for the third and forth paragraphs, etc. Do I have evidence that you cut and pasted your post from Wikipedia articles? That is what is found in comparing the genomes. Chromosomes seem to be made up of segments of chromosomes from the other organism fused together, with obvious replication errors such as gene fragments, viral insertions, etc, conserved between the two organisms. Why would the same errors be in the two organisms if they did not evolve from a common source containing the errors?
> 
> The theory of macro-evolution predicted these sorts of features, and they were found.


It's impressive Baron Scarpia - can you cite the source please? - I'll have a look when I get a chance.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Baron Scarpia said:


> You have not given any reason why the fact that it "occurs over long time periods" creates difficulty.


Merely that lab demonstration for empirical evidence would be difficult.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

janxharris said:


> On the other hand Niles Eldredge:
> 
> _And it has been the paleontologist- my own breed-who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: ...We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not._
> 
> Of course Eldredge remains a evolutionist and, with Stephen Gould, he wrote 'Punctuated Equilibrium' in support of selection at the species level (in response to the above observation).


I'm not sure what your misquote of Eldredge is aimed at showing. See quote #71 on this page http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure what your misquote of Eldredge is aimed at showing. See quote #71 on this page http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html


Eldredge wasn't afraid to admit that gradual adaptive change was not supported by the evidence. I didn't misquote him.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Eldredge wasn't afraid to admit that gradual adaptive change was not supported by the evidence. I didn't misquote him.


Taking chunks out of what he said strikes me as a misquote. Compare yours:



> _And it has been the paleontologist- my own breed-who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: ...We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not._


with TalkOrigins:



> _"And it has been paleontologists -- my own breed -- who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: geneticists and population biologists, to whom we owe the modern version of natural selection, can only rely on what paleontologists and systematic biologists tell them about the comings and goings of entire species, and what the large-scale evolutionary patterns really look like.
> 
> "Yet on the other hand, the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection works in nature, but that we know precisely how it works, has led paleontologists to keep their own counsel. Ever since Darwin, as philosopher Michael Ruse (1982) has recently said, paleontology has occasionally played the role of the difficult child. But our usual mien has been bland, and we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not._


But I'm still not clear what this shows, other than that evolution scientists have different views on the processes by which evolution works.

[add] If you search the internet for your quote within quote marks, it returns a number of results that show it as a misquote used by a number of creationist websites eg

https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/abrupt/
http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/fossilr.txt
http://www.fryroad.org/_fryroad/BibleStudy/Evidences/Articles/WhyanOldEarth/tabid/107/Default.aspx


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Taking chunks out of what he said strikes me as a misquote. Compare yours:
> 
> with TalkOrigins:


I quotes word for word - no intention to mislead was intended.



> But I'm still not clear what this shows, other than that evolution scientists have different views on the processes by which evolution works.


I was responding to:



Luchesi said:


> If I begin to doubt the fact of evolution and its predictions I like to review the story of Tiktaalik.
> 
> A paleontologist reasoned that there was a fossil which was something like Tiktaalik out there with its developmental breakthroughs for early survival on land (arm bones and neck). He estimated the age. He found the rocks of that age and a few years of trips and he found Tiktaalik. Amazing!
> 
> If evolution is incorrect as an approach then it was just luck?


Tiktaalik is hailed as a missing link between fish and land animals - Niles Eldredge's book was a response to the lack of such missing links. Darwinism is founded on gradual adaptive change.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> But I'm still not clear what this shows, other than that evolution scientists have different views on the processes by which evolution works.


I guess the problem might be in the word "gradual". Evolution is probably not a slow gradual process, but occurs in jumps, or in phases of slow and rapid evolution. 
https://phys.org/news/2010-11-darwin-theory-gradual-evolution-geological.html
some abrupt change (for example a climatic one) caused a lot of species to dissappear, which made space for an explosion of new species. 
But no scientist with a sane mind would question the basic mechanism of evolution which is natural selection. But natural selection can occur at different speeds depending on how abrupt are the environmental changes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

janxharris said:


> I quotes word for word - no intention to mislead was intended.


I'm sure it was not intended, but you can see how the source for your quote - wherever it was - was mistaken.



janxharris said:


> Darwinism is founded on gradual adaptive change.


Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin. Your use of the term "Darwinism" rather gives the game away. It's a word used by others as a shorthand - sometimes misused as derogatory shorthand - for Darwin's original theory, and shouldn't be used as a descriptor for modern evolutionary theory.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I guess the problem might be in the word "gradual". Evolution is probably not a slow gradual process, but occurs in jumps, or in phases of slow and rapid evolution.
> https://phys.org/news/2010-11-darwin-theory-gradual-evolution-geological.html
> some abrupt change (for example a climatic one) caused a lot of species to dissappear, which made space for an explosion of new species.
> But no scientist with a sane mind would question the basic mechanism of evolution which is natural selection. But natural selection can occur at different speeds depending on how abrupt are the environmental changes.


Yes, quite. What I should have said was, "I'm not sure what point you are making in offering this quote." I assume that janxharris is offering it as an example of a scientist sceptical of "macroevolution" when that is plainly not the case.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

janxharris said:


> It's impressive Baron Scarpia - can you cite the source please? - I'll have a look when I get a chance.


I will try to find some more detailed information. Stuff with more detail is hard to find in non-academic publications, but the NIH web site has some very good information, if you can find it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

janxharris said:


> On the other hand Niles Eldredge:
> 
> _And it has been the paleontologist- my own breed-who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: ...We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not._
> 
> Of course Eldredge remains a evolutionist and, with Stephen Gould, he wrote 'Punctuated Equilibrium' in support of selection at the species level (in response to the above observation).


Do you understand PE?

I very much admire Stephen Gould and I probably don't understand what he meant by punctuated equilibrium. I think there's no such thing as punctuated equilibrium. It's just what we observe in the fossil record. That would be my first guess but paleontologists study what they can piece together and imagine population dynamics and so like I said I might not actually have a good grasp of it. It might not be as simple as what I've read. I would think if a new trait is highly successful we're going to see a 'punctuation'. But why does that require a new phrase?


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> Do you understand PE?
> 
> I very much admire Stephen Gould and I probably don't understand what he meant by punctuated equilibrium. I think there's no such thing as punctuated equilibrium. It's just what we observe in the fossil record. That would be my first guess but paleontologists study what they can piece together and imagine population dynamics and so like I said I might not actually have a good grasp of it. It might not be as simple as what I've read. I would think if a new trait is highly successful we're going to see a 'punctuation'. But why does that require a new phrase?


There is a genetic basis for punctuated equilibrium. A major evolutionary event probably requires a gross modification of the genome which causes some genes to be duplicated. This can be an extra copy of a chromosome, or an extra copy of a chromosome region being accidentally spliced into a chromosome. When you have redundant copies of a gene you have a greater possibility of useful mutation, since one copy of the gene can be mutated to fulfill a new function while the other copy is conserved to perform the original function. So the phases of rapid evolution might be instances after a duplication event has occurred.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> Do you understand PE?
> 
> I very much admire Stephen Gould and I probably don't understand what he meant by punctuated equilibrium. I think there's no such thing as punctuated equilibrium. It's just what we observe in the fossil record. That would be my first guess but paleontologists study what they can piece together and imagine population dynamics and so like I said I might not actually have a good grasp of it. It might not be as simple as what I've read. I would think if a new trait is highly successful we're going to see a 'punctuation'. But why does that require a new phrase?


Daniel Dennett, in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, critiques the punctuated equilibrium theory by claiming that the punctuation phases are on such a long time scale that it is really a lot a hype about nothing, just accelerated change resulting from extreme environmental pressures - that there is no substantive difference between this model and the gradual change model. In any case, Dennett is good at explaining complex theories and it is a fun read.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> There is a genetic basis for punctuated equilibrium. A major evolutionary event probably requires a gross modification of the genome which causes some genes to be duplicated. This can be an extra copy of a chromosome, or an extra copy of a chromosome region being accidentally spliced into a chromosome. When you have redundant copies of a gene you have a greater possibility of useful mutation, since one copy of the gene can be mutated to fulfill a new function while the other copy is conserved to perform the original function. So the phases of rapid evolution might be instances after a duplication event has occurred.


Thanks. Genetics is moving right along. I'm glad I've lived long enough see the progress, even though most all of it requires more background than I have.

This guy does a good job with science subjects. Here's his history of the concept of PE with examples;


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Daniel Dennett, in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_, critiques the punctuated equilibrium theory by claiming that the punctuation phases are on such a long time scale that it is really a lot a hype about nothing, just accelerated change resulting from extreme environmental pressures - that there is no substantive difference between this model and the gradual change model. In any case, Dennett is good at explaining complex theories and it is a fun read.


Yes, he's up on things.

I really enjoyed listening to how articulate Stephen Gould was. Amazing how he spoke.






I can't say the same about Daniel Dennett however. He writes much better than he lectures.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I may have this wrong but it seemed to me that Dennett was arguing that PE doesn't make a lot of difference to the validity of evolution as a theory. His disdain was aimed at those who jumped on Gould's idea as demonstrating that "evolution is wrong" in some way - which, of course, is not what PE does. Gould's idea - whether right or wrong - was about a relatively small detail about how evolution manifests over time.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I may have this wrong but it seemed to me that Dennett was arguing that PE doesn't make a lot of difference to the validity of evolution as a theory. His disdain was aimed at those who jumped on Gould's idea as demonstrating that "evolution is wrong" in some way - which, of course, is not what PE does. Gould's idea - whether right or wrong - was about a relatively small detail about how evolution manifests over time.


Yes, gradual accumulations of helpful mutations and bursts of genetic change resulting in the rapid rise of very successful populations even showing up in the imperfect fossil record. As experts in evolution emphasize, we should expect evolution to be very complicated. When I was growing up I was interested in the great mystery of where flowering plants came from. At the time there were a few guesses about the likely progenitor group. But now they're making great strides;

"The phylogenetic position, conservation of genome structure, and absence of a lineage-specific polyploidy event have made the Amborella genome a unique and valuable reference that facilitates interpretation of major genomic events in flowering plant evolution, including the polyploid origin of angiosperms and a genomic hexaploidization event in eudicots. Amborella has enabled the identification of an ancestral gene set for angiosperms of at least 10,088 genes, including many that resulted from the ancestral angiosperm genome duplication, thereby helping to elucidate the origin of genes critical in flowering and other processes. The ancestral angiosperm-wide genome duplication apparent in the Amborella genome not only serves as a genetic marker for the origin of extant angiosperms, but it may also have set in motion a series of events as numerous genes evolved novel functions, eventually leading to modern flowering plants. As the only extant member of an ancient lineage, Amborella provides a unique window into the earliest events in angiosperm evolution."

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6165/1241089.full


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Darwin? What happened to "transcendental?" This thread is in danger of being overtaken with scientific materialists.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> This thread is in danger of being overtaken with scientific materialists.


Or a range of people happy to post off-topic


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Darwin? What happened to "transcendental?" This thread is in danger of being overtaken with scientific materialists.


Can people come to a lasting appreciation of music by studying evolutionary psychology and the science of aesthetics?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

There is Trancendental Meditation and then there is Trancendental Medication:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Can people come to a lasting appreciation of music by studying evolutionary psychology and the science of aesthetics?


That could surely be one route of many.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> Can people come to a lasting appreciation of music by studying evolutionary psychology and the science of aesthetics?


I hope your psychology is evolving, and that your science is aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I hope your psychology is evolving, and that your science is aesthetically pleasing.


Psychology is always evolving, and good science is always aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If music is hard-wired into us, based on physics, mathematics and frequencies, and the way our ears hear, then it doesn't have to be based on experience; it is ontological and intuitive. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs). That means it's transcendental. I just proved it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> If music is hard-wired into us, based on physics, mathematics and frequencies, and the way our ears hear, then it doesn't have to be based on experience; it is ontological and intuitive. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs). That means it's transcendental. I just proved it.


If you think you've proved anything with that I'd like to know what you're smoking.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> If music is hard-wired into us, based on physics, mathematics and frequencies, and the way our ears hear, then it doesn't have to be based on experience; it is ontological and intuitive. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs). That means it's transcendental. I just proved it.


You might agree that music is preternatural AND the most natural thing so it's in a larger category than transcendental.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> Darwin? What happened to "transcendental?" This thread is in danger of being overtaken with scientific materialists.


Never mind that, please respond to members asking what is meant by 'transcendental' and how, if it is 'beyond physical reality', it can be perceived. We've had 14 pages of waffle and nothing concrete. Just calling me a materialist doesn't make my enquiry redundant and worthy only of contemptuous dismissal.

Thank you.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> *If *music is hard-wired into us, based on physics, mathematics and frequencies, and the way our ears hear, then it doesn't have to be based on experience; it is ontological and intuitive. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience, as with mathematics (3 + 2 = 5), tautologies ("All bachelors are unmarried"), and deduction from pure reason (e.g., ontological proofs). That means it's transcendental. I just proved it.


If. But it isn't. Not in that way. Music uses the way our perceptual facilities (our hard wiring) work. After all it is written for us.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> I'm sure it was not intended, but you can see how the source for your quote - wherever it was - was mistaken.


When I quoted Eldredge, I was careful to state that he remains a Darwinist which avoids any charge of misleading with quoting his words. Perhaps I should have included explicit ellipses. Apologies.



> Evolutionary theory has come a long way since Darwin. Your use of the term "Darwinism" rather gives the game away. It's a word used by others as a shorthand - sometimes misused as derogatory shorthand - for Darwin's original theory, and shouldn't be used as a descriptor for modern evolutionary theory.


Neo-Darwinism, I believe.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> I assume that janxharris is offering it as an example of a scientist sceptical of "macroevolution" when that is plainly not the case.


I wasn't citing it as you suggest (I said that Eldredge is still a Darwinist after all). I cited it because it shows that macro-evolution isn't proven but, rather, it is inferred.

It's a good and fair inference - I don't deny it. I just think it is healthy to be wary of anything that is an extrapolation.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I will try to find some more detailed information. Stuff with more detail is hard to find in non-academic publications, but the NIH web site has some very good information, if you can find it.


You mean you have a physical publication?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Luchesi said:


> Do you understand PE?
> 
> I very much admire Stephen Gould and I probably don't understand what he meant by punctuated equilibrium. I think there's no such thing as punctuated equilibrium. It's just what we observe in the fossil record. That would be my first guess but paleontologists study what they can piece together and imagine population dynamics and so like I said I might not actually have a good grasp of it. It might not be as simple as what I've read. I would think if a new trait is highly successful we're going to see a 'punctuation'. But why does that require a new phrase?


I believe it's about a species population that becomes isolated from the rest of the group and undergoes rapid evolution due to their new environment.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I may have this wrong but it seemed to me that Dennett was arguing that PE doesn't make a lot of difference to the validity of evolution as a theory. His disdain was aimed at those who jumped on Gould's idea as demonstrating that "evolution is wrong" in some way - which, of course, is not what PE does. Gould's idea - whether right or wrong - was about a relatively small detail about how evolution manifests over time.


There is some degree of rift among the gradualists and the PE supporters.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

This is interesting - though I don't necessarily accept it.

https://www.crisismagazine.com/1998/dogmatic-darwinism


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2018)

janxharris said:


> This is interesting - though I don't necessarily accept it.
> 
> https://www.crisismagazine.com/1998/dogmatic-darwinism


I just skimmed it, but I would have said idiotic, not interesting.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I would have said idiotic.


what is it about? I am lazy to read it. I remember having read The Selfish Gene 20 years ago. I remember that even then (as a student) I was not that convinced by the book, Dawkins was anthropomorphising genes, ie ascribing the genes human qualities such as "selfish" to better sell his theories. But those theories were nothing original. We are not just vehicles for individual genes, but the whole genom survives and reproduces as a whole, so the genes need to coevolve with other genes. I find these discussions about evolutionary theory perplexing, ie not understanding what others fail to understand about such a self-obvious concept as evolution. Only those genoms that produce offspring survive. The genoms mutate to produce changes that sometimes offer evolutionary advantages. Nothing difficult or mysterious about this. There are countless proofs proving that this is actually so. There might still be some unclear details but the basic principles are clear enough.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2018)

Dawkins is not necessarily one of the great scientists ever, he is a good scientist with the "gift of gab." Things like anthropomorphizing genes seem gratuitous, but that is his way of explaining ideas that require a lot of computer simulation, data analysis, etc, to justify. The basis of evolution does not hinge on it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> If. But it isn't. Not in that way. Music uses the way our perceptual facilities (our hard wiring) work. After all it is written for us.


That's overly objective. the desire to create music, and listen to music, i.e. our "musical sense" is hardwired. I know that Wagner's ring cycle is not hardwired into my brain; he wrote it. But some of these other Wagner enthusiasts might be.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Darwin had a major problem since he didn't know how the Sun could shine for more than 50,000 years. Darwin died before solar fusion and the origin of the elements could be theorized about.﻿
Darwin didn't know about mutations or DNA or genes. Supercontinents, continental drift or whether the Moon came out of the Pacific Ocean which his son later proposed was feasible.

What did Darwin know that was relevant?, just what was observable. It wasn't his fault, anymore than the creation writers of Genesis should've known more.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

janxharris said:


> I believe it's about a species population that becomes isolated from the rest of the group and undergoes rapid evolution due to their new environment.


Yes, evolution is just change. And the changes adequate for survival have survived. Evolution is faster or slower according to human perceptions and opinions.
People sometimes forget that living things are also evolving on the inside, bones and organs etc. on the small-scale. Not noticeable from the outside until studied.

recent important changes for us to be us today; (I feel old, lol)
* ASPM gene mutates 7+ million years ago. Encodes a protein found in immature neurons, regulates brain size.
* HAR1F (RNA) gene mutates about 5 million years ago; RNA active in nerve cells in embryonic development and play a critical role in the formation of the layered structure of the human cerebral cortex. 
* MYH16 gene mutates about 5.3 to 2.4 million years ago. Jaw muscles weaken as a result, permits expansion of skull size.
* HACNS1 gene mutates after split from common ancestor with apes, aids dexterity: tool use becomes practical.
* SRGAP2 gene duplicates, twice, 3.4 to 2.5 million years ago. Speeds up migration of neurons.
* FOXP2 gene mutates, at least a quarter of a million years ago, seems to have allowed better memory for language. Neanderthals and modern man have this mutation.
* AMY1 gene duplicates, a hundred thousand years ago, enhancing a salivary enzyme production, which helps us to digest starch: probably enabled subsequent development of agriculture. Chimps only have two duplicates; modern humans average 6 and as many as 15. 
* Microcephalin gene mutates between 60,000 and 14,000 years ago, regulates brain development.
* ASPM gene mutates again, after 14,000 years ago.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2018)

janxharris said:


> I wasn't citing it as you suggest (I said that Eldredge is still a Darwinist after all). I cited it because it shows that macro-evolution isn't proven but, rather, it is inferred.


It doesn't show anything of the sort. You offered it as a rebuttal to the preceding post about Tiktaalik, which is offered as evidence of "macroevolution". I posted links to other evidence in support of "macroevolution".

As for the link to the Behe, it's really not that interesting, as it's connected to the theory of ID, and aims at debunking that which had already been debunked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I just skimmed it, but I would have said idiotic, not interesting.


You didn't justify your charge.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> It doesn't show anything of the sort. You offered it as a rebuttal to the preceding post about Tiktaalik, which is offered as evidence of "macroevolution". I posted links to other evidence in support of "macroevolution".
> 
> As for the link to the Behe, it's really not that interesting, as it's connected to the theory of ID, and aims at debunking that which had already been debunked.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory


Darwin lamented the lack of fossil evidence for intermediary species and Eldredge confirmed that not much has changed. Gradualism is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory - so if someone of the calibre of Eldredge confirms that what was predicted to be discovered hasn't been then it's worth taking note.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> As for the link to the Behe, it's really not that interesting, as it's connected to the theory of ID, and aims at debunking that which had already been debunked.


It's of interest that Haeckel's fraud continued to be printed in science text books for so long when it was clear it should not have been.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> Darwin lamented the lack of fossil evidence for intermediary species and Eldredge confirmed that not much has changed. Gradualism is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory - so if someone of the calibre of Eldredge confirms that what was predicted to be discovered hasn't been then it's worth taking note.


I think the word "cornerstone" is leading you astray ... or perhaps you are leading us astray with it? Gradualism is a detail (one that could be abandoned without threatening the theory) of Darwin's theory: it is not a cornerstone.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

janxharris said:


> Darwin lamented the lack of fossil evidence for intermediary species and Eldredge confirmed that not much has changed. Gradualism is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory - so if someone of the calibre of Eldredge confirms that what was predicted to be discovered hasn't been then it's worth taking note.


As someone with training in geology, I note that it is a wonder that we have the fossil record that we do, as the conditions for the long-term preservation of fossils are so very problematic. Yet the passage of time yields, slowly, additional material to help fill the gaps in the record. We will never have all the steps from species A to species B; certainly never enough to satisfy the deniers and the ID crowd, yet the path continually becomes more clear. People who want all the answers now from science, especially from paleontology, are doomed to disappointment and will fall back readily into the facile certainties of ID.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I didn't read all the answers to the original post...I used to say that music is my religion, and I'm not religious, only a bit superstitious...aha, the latest posts say this took off in all directions...


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

janxharris said:


> It's of interest that Haeckel's fraud continued to be printed in science text books for so long when it was clear it should not have been.


There's been many mistakes in science in the past. Look at the religions and get up good view of human fallibility. It's turned into 'good' by apologists.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Luchesi said:


> There's been many mistakes in science in the past. Look at the religions and get up good view of human fallibility.


Absolutely................


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Absolutely................


Do any of us want evolution to be true? Wouldn't we rather be the prized creation of an omniscient god(s)?

...But maybe we are the creation of a loving god who's very far away and hides for our own good. What's above the hierarchies of multiverses?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Do any of us want evolution to be true? Wouldn't we rather be the prized creation of an omniscient god(s)?
> 
> ...But maybe we are the creation of a loving god who's very far away and hides for our own good. What's above the hierarchies of multiverses?


Thanks for the offer but I'll stay with a demystified world. I don't believe in the legitimacy of royalty, either.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Thanks for the offer but I'll stay with a demystified world. I don't believe in the legitimacy of royalty, either.


Well, it's a great mystery, what was before the universe? what's beyond the universe? why the universe is the way it is? what will happen to the universe in a googol of years?

There are fascinating mechanisms being discovered and proposed. There are fascinating theories giving answers to all those questions. If you've been able to settle on one demystified picture I'd like to know which one you've chosen?


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2018)

janxharris said:


> if someone of the calibre of Eldredge confirms that what was predicted to be discovered hasn't been then it's worth taking note.


What hasn't been discovered?



janxharris said:


> It's of interest that Haeckel's fraud continued to be printed in science text books for so long when it was clear it should not have been.


Well the fraud of Adam and Eve was peddled for some time before it was realised that it was an imperfect version of the creation of man. I suppose it's as interesting as that.



Luchesi said:


> Do any of us want evolution to be true? Wouldn't we rather be the prized creation of an omniscient god(s)?


What we want to be true and what is true won't necessarily be the same. I might like the idea of immortality, but I doubt it's available to me. Whether I'd like to be the prized creation of a god rather depends on the nature of that god, something which those in the profession proclaim we can't know, but must have faith is omnibeneficial too.

Meanwhile, back at the OP...?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

MacLeod (named for the insulin guy?)- "What we want to be true and what is true won't necessarily be the same."

That's what people in the Buddhist countries resign themselves to and they don't make any progress compared to the west.

Back when Carl Sagan and Stephen Gould were on the Phil Donahue show -- fundamentalists were just beginning to show up on TV shows. I saw the show and I sensed that this would become bigger in the US, because of the silly pioneer attitudes, i.e. keep the government away UNLESS you really need something and then go crying to the government, right?

Anyway, Sagan came to our your geophysical lab because one of his experiments was on our package, stellar cartography. I'll never forget what he said in that informal setting around the coffee pot in the morning. He would never say it on national TV, but he said that the fundamentalists are playing the hominid game more authentically than us scientists. We all thought, what did he mean by that? Was he defending fundamentalism and Bible literalism. No, he was making the observation that humans are superstitious and ritualistic and tribalistic because of our natural history. Can we change it? Should we embrace our primal nature in our scientific endeavors? As he was observing our operation he concluded that we interact with eachother little bit like that in a small lab like this. 

Later, I said to my boss, yup, we’re a ritualistic, superstitious tribe when we’re in project mode, it gets hectic. He just smiled and walked away. He has the heavy burden of keeping us all on point. We get experimenters from many universities we have to deal with and they're usually physicists. Physicists are a special category of scientist, for good or bad.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2018)

Resigned to?

Macleod's statement is, simply, correct though; whether or not hominids are superstitious and tribal.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

dogen said:


> Resigned to?
> 
> Macleod's statement is, simply, correct though; whether or not hominids are superstitious and tribal.


What's the 'correct' statement?

When we say that there's something correct about religions or gods or devils or spirits or miracles, what do we mean?

And so for me it hasn't sunken in yet but, Courtois's Rule: If people listened to themselves more often, they'd talk less.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> What hasn't been discovered?


Darwin predicted the finding of intermediary species but that hasn't happened (hence the quote).



> Well the fraud of Adam and Eve was peddled for some time before it was realised that it was an imperfect version of the creation of man. I suppose it's as interesting as that.


I haven't asserted the veracity of the Genesis tale so I wonder why you are bringing it up.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

All sorts of transitional fossils have been found. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> What's the 'correct' statement?


"What we want to be true and what is true won't necessarily be the same."

Keep up.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Darwin predicted the finding of intermediary species but that hasn't happened (hence the quote).
> 
> I haven't asserted the veracity of the Genesis tale so I wonder why you are bringing it up.


Every associated group of individual organisms is slightly different, drifting one way or another. Darwin might have thought that there would always be some obvious missing links between groups, somehow preserved in rock?, but there rarely is. It's generally human perceptions about what is linking what to what. What we consider important?, morphologically?, as to immunology?, as to metabolism?

The Genesis example is just like all the mistakes that we know about. All the centuries of scientific and religious thought with all the assumptions and guesses to give rise to hypotheses, which later need to be accepted and authorized --- or actually supported with reliable, repeatable evidence.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> All sorts of transitional fossils have been found. See
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil


I spoke in the context of the Eldredge quote who is trying to explain why they aren't generally found. Eldredge believes in intermediary species but is arguing a case for why they don't survive - hence punctuated equilibrium.

My point isn't that Darwinism is necessarily wrong - just that the current evidence isn't totally satisfactory.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

janxharris said:


> My point isn't that Darwinism is necessarily wrong - just that the current evidence isn't totally satisfactory.


That's true. With the evidence we have it could be aliens coming here every few years and engineering genetics in some highly advanced manner. After all we monitor wolves and black bears without them ever knowing we're watching them. It could be gods and spirits too.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Luchesi said:


> That's true. With the evidence we have it could be aliens coming here every few years and engineering genetics in some highly advanced manner. After all we monitor wolves and black bears without them ever knowing we're watching them. It could be gods and spirits too.


I guess this is a touchy subject. We need to be careful about what we assert regarding our origins. I think the desire to know the truth is quite overwhelming.

I think some music *seems* to peak beyond the everyday which is probably why it fascinates.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

janxharris said:


> My point isn't that Darwinism is necessarily wrong - just that the current evidence isn't totally satisfactory.


In real science, the current evidence is never totally satisfactory.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Luchesi said:


> That's true. With the evidence we have it could be aliens coming here every few years and engineering genetics in some highly advanced manner. After all we monitor wolves and black bears without them ever knowing we're watching them. It could be gods and spirits too.


Speaking of Nietzsche - Also Sprach Zarathustra would be a good candidate for transcendental music...despite the fact that it rails against what he perceived as man's irrationality.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm not sure what all the shouting's about. Evolutionary theory, at base, says that any two living organisms have, at some point in the past, a common ancestor. If you have the two sets of DNA, you can calculate how long ago that branch of life separated by applying the known rates of genetic drift. The results are repeatable and generally match the appearance of the organisms in the fossil record. You can do this on-line!

http://timetree.org/

Genetics and evolutionary theory are closely aligned and mutually supportive. The math involved goes all the way back to Mendel's experiments with pea plants. Looked at as a unified science, it is very compelling and makes many verifiable predictions. As somebody said, "Without evolution, biology makes no sense."


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

janxharris said:


> I guess this is a touchy subject. We need to be careful about what we assert regarding our origins. I think the desire to know the truth is quite overwhelming.
> 
> I think some music *seems* to peak beyond the everyday which is probably why it fascinates.


Yes, we don't know anything about interfering aliens coming here, or gods or spirits. It's just a cold hard fact.

Even some pop songs peak beyond the everyday such as the theme from the Deer Hunter and the theme from Somewhere in Time. I've memorized them both, which I don't normally spend the time on (because songs don't usually hold up that well).. Lyrics have been added to them (I'm curious as to when the lyrics were added). I found them sung very sensitively on YouTube.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Ken, have you played this enough for an attractive result? Just by random chance something could rival Mozart's little gems (for our ears today).

In reply to an earlier post on May 3, 2017, 5:08:51 PM PDT

KenOC says:
Mozart seems to have had interests branching out in odd directions. For example, he invented a game to write aleatoric music using dice and small cards with snippets of melody. By repeatedly throwing the dice, you would assemble a minuet. The game has been computerized and can be found on the Internet, on a page that plays your results as a MIDI file.

http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Darwin predicted the finding of intermediary species but that hasn't happened (hence the quote).
> 
> I haven't asserted the veracity of the Genesis tale so I wonder why you are bringing it up.


Yes, it has happened. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03

I brought it up as an easy example of something persisting for longer than you might have thought possible, given the flaws.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> MacLeod (named for the insulin guy?)- "What we want to be true and what is true won't necessarily be the same."


No, nothing to do with the insulin; it's just one of my names.

If there were a God who would take care of me and mine for eternity, I might go for it. But nobody's yet described something in sufficiently convincing detail for me to put faith in the idea. Hence, the difference between what I might want to be true, and what actually appears to be the truth.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> No, nothing to do with the insulin; it's just one of my names.
> 
> If there were a God who would take care of me and mine for eternity, I might go for it. But nobody's yet described something in sufficiently convincing detail for me to put faith in the idea. Hence, the difference between what I might want to be true, and what actually appears to be the truth.


Intelligent people of the past have said that you should believe in something like that, just in case it's out there and we're too pea-brained to see it or find it or recognize it. I've always thought that resorting to duping and bilking whatever gods that may be is a very scary and disrespectful undertaking. Bad karma! Makes small the god concept -- and it exposes the haughtiness in that person.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

If we were to run into God, how would we know it wasn't just a sufficiently advanced alien being?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> If we were to run into God, how would we know it wasn't just a sufficiently advanced alien being?


We have pictures of him. He will look like Charlton Heston. (Unless the aliens think of that and alter their appearance accordingly. Hmmmm, this may be harder than I thought.)


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> If we were to run into God, how would we know it wasn't just a sufficiently advanced alien being?


Ask a preacher who talks to God on a daily basis?

"If God had looked into our minds he would not have been able to see there whom we were speaking of."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> In real science, the current evidence is never totally satisfactory.


Well as an example, observing that a clock runs slower when placed on a jet aircraft (ie moving at speed) as compared to one at rest - I think most people would be satisfied that this proves time dilation.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> If we were to run into God, how would we know it wasn't just a sufficiently advanced alien being?


If we were to run into a putative intermediary fossil, how would we know if it wasn't intermediary?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

janxharris said:


> Well as an example, observing that a clock runs slower when placed on a jet aircraft (ie moving at speed) as compared to one at rest - I think most people would be satisfied that this proves time dilation.


Nonetheless, I can safely guarantee that future observations will show Einstein's equations to be approximations, and that a more complete theory is more accurate. That's the way it has always been. What remains, today, of the physics of a century or two ago?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, it has happened. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
> 
> I brought it up as an easy example of something persisting for longer than you might have thought possible, given the flaws.


You might be right but the evidence is circumstantial.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Nonetheless, I can safely guarantee that future observations will show Einstein's equations to be approximations, and that a more complete theory is more accurate. That's the way it has always been. What remains, today, of the physics of a century or two ago?


I accept your point.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> MacLeod (named for the insulin guy?)- "What we want to be true and what is true won't necessarily be the same."
> 
> That's what people in the Buddhist countries resign themselves to and they don't make any progress compared to the west.


I'm not sure all "Buddhist countries" (countries with Buddhist populations? governments?) fit your suggestion that they fail in comparison to the West. And if you look at how they are doing compared to neighbours I think it is clear that their religion is not the leading determining factor in their economic "progress". And even if we were to accept your assertion (which, as I say, we cannot) who says that they are wrong and we are right. Our destruction of our environment seems to suggest that we in the West are destroying not only our own world but theirs, too.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> That's true. With the evidence we have it could be aliens coming here every few years and engineering genetics in some highly advanced manner. After all we monitor wolves and black bears without them ever knowing we're watching them. It could be gods and spirits too.


Yeah, it is so much easier to believe that aliens (or even a god) created the fossil record and everything else to fool us into theorising about evolution. That makes sense! It is so much more likely than that a simple mechanism acting over a very long time led to the species that currently inhabit our world!

I am not always sure whether you are joking or really believe what you post. So, just to be clear, I don't really think that the idea that aliens did it all makes sense.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure all "Buddhist countries" (countries with Buddhist populations? governments?) fit your suggestion that they fail in comparison to the West. And if you look at how they are doing compared to neighbours I think it is clear that their religion is not the leading determining factor in their economic "progress". And even if we were to accept your assertion (which, as I say, we cannot) who says that they are wrong and we are right. Our destruction of our environment seems to suggest that we in the West are destroying not only our own world but theirs, too.


I read the concept years ago about the Buddhist outlook and the predicament of African countries. I was thinking about the 1800s. It would be the West that could rescue us from the coming overpopulation and the climate change that's caused by human activity.

I imagine that the first thing that AI will 'demand' of us is that we invest heavily in protecting the planet. GRBs, dangerous stars nearby, asteroids and comets, solar flares. AI will say learn from the history of indigenous people, learn from the dinosaurs. You've just been lucky so far!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Yeah, it is so much easier to believe that aliens (or even a god) created the fossil record and everything else to fool us into theorising about evolution. That makes sense! It is so much more likely than that a simple mechanism acting over a very long time led to the species that currently inhabit our world!
> 
> I am not always sure whether you are joking or really believe what you post. So, just to be clear, I don't really think that the idea that aliens did it all makes sense.


It's true that this universe is very young and one estimate is that a technological civilization will only arise on one site among 10,000 galaxies so early in its history. So it's unlikely that they've come here yet.

On the other hand, adjacent universes might not be as young as ours and they might have evolved godlike entities by now. It would be more cost-effective to guide our jewel of the planet compared to other planets? How about recreational pursuits or maybe they have a religious compunction.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> It's true that this universe is very young and _*one estimate *_is that a technological civilization will only arise on one site among 10,000 galaxies so early in its history. _*So *_it's unlikely that they've come here yet.
> 
> On the other hand, adjacent universes _*might *_not be as young as ours and they _*might *_have evolved godlike entities by now. It would be more cost-effective to guide our jewel of the planet compared to other planets? How about recreational pursuits or maybe they have a religious compunction.


Sorry, you lost me. You start by stating someone's estimate and then assume it it true. The second paragraph is about what might have happened (but almost certainly didn't) and even then I don't get what point you are wanting to make from it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)




----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

JAS said:


> We have pictures of him. He will look like Charlton Heston. (Unless the aliens think of that and alter their appearance accordingly. Hmmmm, this may be harder than I thought.)


No, he looks like George Burns:


----------



## endelbendel (Jul 7, 2018)

Lots better than cutting just to feel something.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Music springs from and is replenished by a hidden source which lies outside the world or reality. Music ever spoke to me of a mysterious world beyond, which moved my heart deeply and eloquently intimated its transcendental nature.

The domain of rhythm extends from the spiritual to the carnal.

Our music, whose eternal being is forever bound up in its temporal sounds, is not merely an art, enriching beyond measure our cultural life, but also a message from higher worlds, raising and urging us on by its reminders of our own eternal origins.

The works of the creative spirit last, they are essentially imperishable, while the world-stirring historical activities of even the most eminent men are circumscribed by time.

Bruno Walter


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> Music springs from and is replenished by a hidden source which lies outside the world or reality. Music ever spoke to me of a mysterious world beyond, which moved my heart deeply and eloquently intimated its transcendental nature.
> 
> The domain of rhythm extends from the spiritual to the carnal.
> 
> ...


Bruno Walter: marvelous conductor! As a philosopher?.........


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Bruno Walter: marvelous conductor! As a philosopher?.........


Fairly typical views (insights?) of someone of his time? He puts it nicely but you don't need to take it literally.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> Fairly typical views (insights?) of someone of his time? He puts it nicely but you don't need to take it literally.


You're right; I do not need to take it literally. But the question is whether Walter did? And does Larkenfield? It is possible to be deeply moved and affected by music and also many other things, without having to believe and assert that the stimulant must have originated in another plane entirely.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> You're right; I do not need to take it literally. But the question is whether Walter did? And does Larkenfield? It is possible to be deeply moved and affected by music and also many other things, without having to believe and assert that the stimulant must have originated in another plane entirely.


Yes. For me he would have to explain what he means by "a hidden source which lies outside the world or reality" and "our own external origins".

"a mysterious world beyond"

Beyond what? beyond our planet? beyond our sense of time as physics tries to define it?

Does he know anything about any of this? This is what theoretical science is working every day to describe and yet the progress is very slow even this many years later.

People will believe the great conductor sentimentalizing self-indulgently like this and then they'll never explore what's being carefully formulated in science. And I think that's a very sad situation. It's only gotten worse in recent decades with online surfing and searching superficially through what passes for science explanations on pop science websites (or worse, anti-science websites with a nasty agenda for gullible people).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think "transcendentalism" gets bad treatment, because most people are rationalists, as evidenced by this thread. As an artist, I appreciate rational thinking, but I recognize the importance of intuition, non-thinking/just doing, and activities which lie outside the realm of rationality. It's sometimes called "the unconscious." I think a lot of the differences have to do with our early cognitive experience, and how this has "wired" most people's brains to be rational. People who have somehow "escaped" this cognitive conditioning are seen as non-rational, outsiders, on the artistic fringe, etc.
You have to realize that a lot of the things like Tarot cards, the I Ching, chance, etc. are simply "tools" to access the areas of the mind which are non-rational. I think John Cage understood this very well; hence the almost universal dislike of him & his methods by "normally wired" rational people.
I think that, as well, the entire globe is becoming "rationalized," as technology increases and formerly "non-rational" mythological societies become more Westernized.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think "transcendentalism" gets bad treatment, because most people are rationalists, as evidenced by this thread. As an artist, I appreciate rational thinking, but I recognize the importance of intuition, non-thinking/just doing, and activities which lie outside the realm of rationality. It's sometimes called "the unconscious." I think a lot of the differences have to do with our early cognitive experience, and how this has "wired" most people's brains to be rational. People who have somehow "escaped" this cognitive conditioning are seen as non-rational, outsiders, on the artistic fringe, etc.
> You have to realize that a lot of the things like Tarot cards, the I Ching, chance, etc. are simply "tools" to access the areas of the mind which are non-rational. I think John Cage understood this very well; hence the almost universal dislike of him & his methods by "normally wired" rational people.
> I think that, as well, the entire globe is becoming "rationalized," as technology increases and formerly "non-rational" mythological societies become more Westernized.


Yes, navel gazing. Have you ever had a long conversation with somebody who thinks like you? What did you guys talk about when it's impossible to put into words? Or do you have the words for us?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

There is a subjective world behind the objective world, and the subjective world is best appreciated through the functioning of the right brain. It’s been estimated by some brain researchers that only about 10% of the population have a fully functional right brain. The left brain is rational, logical, skeptical, but the right brain works through intuition, visualization, sensing, experiencing, and other remarkable brain functions that are not considered rational or that transcend the rational functioning of the mind. Bruno Walter apparently had a fully functional right brain mind that could sense the subjective forces of life that go beyond the visible objective realty, and yet he had a solid left brain too or he couldn’t have conducted music. The idea is to have both brain hemispheres functioning at the appropriate times. Read Writing the Natural Way by Gabriele Rico for the research that’s been done on both sides of the brain to better understand how the right brain can be stimulated and awakened, and it’s never too late. It’s essential for those who wish to understand the creative process, and everyone can be creative, or perhaps to better understand a man like Bruno Walter


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I think "transcendentalism" gets bad treatment, because most people are rationalists, as evidenced by this thread. As an artist, I appreciate rational thinking, but I recognize the importance of intuition, non-thinking/just doing, and activities which lie outside the realm of rationality. It's sometimes called "the unconscious." I think a lot of the differences have to do with our early cognitive experience, and how this has "wired" most people's brains to be rational. People who have somehow "escaped" this cognitive conditioning are seen as non-rational, outsiders, on the artistic fringe, etc.
> You have to realize that a lot of the things like Tarot cards, the I Ching, chance, etc. are simply "tools" to access the areas of the mind which are non-rational. I think John Cage understood this very well; hence the almost universal dislike of him & his methods by "normally wired" rational people.
> I think that, as well, the entire globe is becoming "rationalized," as technology increases and formerly "non-rational" mythological societies become more Westernized.


I essentially agree with this, just not really in relation to John Cage. I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a problem with John Cage's methods, rather the opposite, but the results I find uninspired therefore not really coming from the intuitive or right brain. Although I do enjoy some of his percussion music, outside of that I don't think he had much to say. The way he applied his methods strikes me as more gimmicky than inspirational.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> There is a subjective world behind the objective world, and the subjective world is best appreciated through the functioning of the right brain. It's been estimated by some brain researchers that only about 10% of the population have a fully functional right brain. The left brain is rational, logical, skeptical, but the right brain works through intuition, visualization, sensing, experiencing, and other remarkable brain functions that are not considered rational or that transcend the rational functioning of the mind. Bruno Walter apparently had a fully functional right brain mind that could sense the subjective forces of life that go beyond the visible objective realty, and yet he had a solid left brain too or he couldn't have conducted music. The idea is to have both brain hemispheres functioning at the appropriate times. Read Writing the Natural Way by Gabriele Rico for the research that's been done on both sides of the brain to better understand how the right brain can be stimulated and awakened, and it's never too late. It's essential for those who wish to understand the creative process, and everyone can be creative, or perhaps to better understand a man like Bruno Walter


For our discussion here, you're right, but this brain expert doesn't agree with right left brain ideas.

"...there is no overall function of a side. Areas, whether on a small or large scale, don't have functions. Functions are products of systems. Systems are made up of cells that are interconnected by synapses. Systems span the brain vertically and horizontally - they are not isolated in one hemisphere."

Joseph LeDoux is a University Professor and Henry and Lucy Moses Professor of Science, and Professor of Neural Science and Psycholgoy at NYU.He is also the director of the Emotional Brain Institute, a new collaboration between New York University and New York State at the Nathan Kline Institute. His work is focused on the brain mechanisms of emotion and memory.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> millionrainbows: "I think "transcendentalism" gets bad treatment, because most people are rationalists, as evidenced by this thread."


millionrainbows, I want to come and live with you in your world where most people are rationalists . In my world, only a small minority are such .


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

We


Luchesi said:


> For our discussion here, you're right, but this brain expert doesn't agree with right left brain ideas.
> 
> "...there is no overall function of a side. Areas, whether on a small or large scale, don't have functions. Functions are products of systems. Systems are made up of cells that are interconnected by synapses. Systems span the brain vertically and horizontally - they are not isolated in one hemisphere."
> 
> Joseph LeDoux is a University Professor and Henry and Lucy Moses Professor of Science, and Professor of Neural Science and Psycholgoy at NYU.He is also the director of the Emotional Brain Institute, a new collaboration between New York University and New York State at the Nathan Kline Institute. His work is focused on the brain mechanisms of emotion and memory.


Researchers often disagree, don't they? Of course, there's no overall functioning of one side of the brain over the other, but one brain hemisphere's function has been shown through scientific studies to predominate over the other depending on the context or need. The hemispheres communicate through the avenue of the corpus callosum. Writing a poem or music, any of the arts, is predominately a right brain function, at least in the beginning, then the inspired ideas are molded, shaped and put into the form with the logic of the left brain. So I don't agree with the researchers you've cited because of my own science resources and personal experience. There's more to the brain than the mechanism of the emotions and memory. Sounds highly specialized and limited. The studies of both sides of the brain have been researched on those people who have had brain injuries to one hemisphere and the functions of the other side could be isolated and studied. There are volumes of research on this. The function of each has been identified and determined, and yet they do not function entirely independent of each other under normal circumstances. Perhaps that's why the brain has two hemispheres, to begin with. Good luck with your sources, but I'd never start with them. While the idea that people are either left-brain or right-brain by nature is now considered a "myth," hemispheric brain specialization has solid research behind it.

Hemispheric Specialization and Creativity by Klaus D. Hoppe, M.D., Ph.D:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cab9/8cb8419feab56b2986e312b8cb6a0cc27545.pdf

Dr. Joseph Boden was also an effective proponent of the concepts of hemisphere specialization and wrote widely about consciousness as a neurobiological phenomenon, and a pdf can be downloaded about his research, if one is a researcher or academic scholar: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20089510_Creativity_and_the_Corpus_Callosum

Tony Buzan on how memory works:


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> most people are rationalists, as evidenced by this thread.


a) If it were true that most people are rationalists, would that be a problem?
b) The evidence from TC overall - and this thread is no exception - is that most people are not rationalists. The standard of argument would be much higher if they were!



Larkenfield said:


> It's been estimated by some brain researchers that only about 10% of the population have a fully functional right brain.


Has it? Could you point to some of the work of these brain researchers?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15619393


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I think "transcendentalism" gets bad treatment, because most people are rationalists, as evidenced by this thread. As an artist, I appreciate rational thinking, but I recognize the importance of intuition, non-thinking/just doing, and activities which lie outside the realm of rationality. It's sometimes called "the unconscious." I think a lot of the differences have to do with our early cognitive experience, and how this has "wired" most people's brains to be rational. People who have somehow "escaped" this cognitive conditioning are seen as non-rational, outsiders, on the artistic fringe, etc.
> You have to realize that a lot of the things like Tarot cards, the I Ching, chance, etc. are simply "tools" to access the areas of the mind which are non-rational. I think John Cage understood this very well; hence the almost universal dislike of him & his methods by "normally wired" rational people.
> I think that, as well, the entire globe is becoming "rationalized," as technology increases and formerly "non-rational" mythological societies become more Westernized.


You mention tools of divination, tools that people believed foretold the future, as tools for accessing the unconscious - which is a more rational account of what they might do. I suppose then that one should include the techniques of Freudian analysis - dreams and slips of the tongue etc - and the likes of Rorschach tests and even Myers-Briggs questionnaires in a list of such tools. And there are many many others. We don't need to go invoke shamanism and tea leaf reading.

One problem with unearthing our unconscious processes is that they are ours - they don't have any real meaning for others - so I agree with what you are saying as being about how we relate to music and how we detect (or fail to detect) the presence of "the other" in it.

I am less sure that it can explain the creative process itself. To be sure, composers must access (or channel?) material that is unconscious to them. But I think they have to do more than merely throw out their unprocessed unconscious thoughts. And those who - perhaps like Cage - seem to hold up a mirror to us so that we use their music to access our own unconscious processes must surely be doing more than that as well. Otherwise we could just play with the tools you mention or do Rorschach tests for our aesthetic pleasure, which would not work.

I think this applies even if you are a convinced Jungian with a belief in the collective unconscious and archetypes - to make art requires more than merely seeing what goes on in the backs of our minds.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, navel gazing. Have you ever had a long conversation with somebody who thinks like you? What did you guys talk about when it's impossible to put into words? Or do you have the words for us?


What I said should be palatable for even a hard-boiled rationalist.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

tdc said:


> I essentially agree with this, just not really in relation to John Cage. I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a problem with John Cage's methods, rather the opposite, but the results I find uninspired therefore not really coming from the intuitive or right brain. Although I do enjoy some of his percussion music, outside of that I don't think he had much to say. The way he applied his methods strikes me as more gimmicky than inspirational.


Cage would probably take your statement "I don't think he had much to say" as a compliment.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> millionrainbows, I want to come and live with you in your world where most people are rationalists . In my world, only a small minority are such .


Are you sure about that? Being rational is not all it's cut-out to be. In any case, the net result of rationality is often insanity. H-bombs, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> You mention tools of divination, tools that people believed foretold the future, as tools for accessing the unconscious - which is a more rational account of what they might do.


I wish *Luchesi* could have appreciated that about my post.



Enthusiast said:


> I suppose then that one should include the techniques of Freudian analysis - dreams and slips of the tongue etc - and the likes of Rorschach tests and even Myers-Briggs questionnaires in a list of such tools. And there are many many others. We don't need to go invoke shamanism and tea leaf reading.


Why not tea leaves and divination? If you want to invoke the unconscious, I think you really have to throw the conscious mind and its rationalism aside. Aside from that, the I-Ching is an ancient, respected tradition.



Enthusiast said:


> One problem with unearthing our unconscious processes is that they are ours - they don't have any real meaning for others - so I agree with what you are saying as being about how we relate to music and how we detect (or fail to detect) the presence of "the other" in it.


It seems obvious that accessing one's unconscious would largely be a subjective pursuit. How do you 'objectify' a thing like experience or consciousness? It seems that I-Ching, Tarot, and the rest are a way of trying to 'put the inside outside' so one can examine it. Art and absrtact painting are like that, too.



Enthusiast said:


> I am less sure that it can explain the creative process itself. To be sure, composers must access (or channel?) material that is unconscious to them. But I think they have to do more than merely throw out their unprocessed unconscious thoughts. And those who - perhaps like Cage - seem to hold up a mirror to us so that we use their music to access our own unconscious processes must surely be doing more than that as well.


They think differently than most rational people, so their 'being' exudes this at all times in the art. Yes, they are doing more than meets the eye.



Enthusiast said:


> Otherwise we could just play with the tools you mention or do Rorschach tests for our aesthetic pleasure, which would not work.


Or get a set of these glasses. I've been wanting to try this.

​
*Color Therapy Glasses Set Colors Selected for Maximum Benefits....Wearing Can help reach Meditative blissful Enlightenment*






Enthusiast said:


> I think this applies even if you are a convinced Jungian with a belief in the collective unconscious and archetypes - to make art requires more than merely seeing what goes on in the backs of our minds.


Yes, it is more than believing in Jung's ideas or some notion of the unconscious; you've got to walk the walk. It has to do with the 'being' that one has become, in spite of how one was/is defined by others.

The "language of the soul" has been largely forgotten by the rational world. Of course, rationalists would scoff at this.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I wish *Luchesi* could have appreciated that about my post.
> 
> Why not tea leaves and divination? If you want to invoke the unconscious, I think you really have to throw the conscious mind and its rationalism aside. Aside from that, the I-Ching is an ancient, respected tradition.
> 
> ...


Is that you Jordan Peterson?


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> The "language of the soul" has been largely forgotten by the rational world. Of course, rationalists would scoff at this.


You do realise the world isn't divided into spiritualists and rationalists, right? Most people are neither; in fact a massive portion of the world is taken up by people who are so without the blessing of mother wit that they can't even express their spiritual essence! Poor souls (?).


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I think that, as well, the entire globe is becoming "rationalized," as technology increases and formerly "non-rational" mythological societies become more Westernized.


The modern world still has its irrational, unconscious mythologies. It's just it no longer express it in terms of spirit-stuff as you'd wish. Please tell me otherwise, but so far it seems in your eyes that everyone who doesn't study eastern philosophy and shuffle the tarot deck at least twice a week is a rationalist normie square who's lost touch with the core of his being. Never have I seen someone pass such simplistic judgement on such vast, imagined swathes of population. It's probably time to stop casting yourself as somehow more profoundly enlightened than this great big 'other' you've constructed of poor, valueless, directionless modern materialist folk (which apparently just means anyone who you think doesn't speak your 'language of the soul'). Cling to it if you want, but at least vary your reading a little and spread your intellect beyond Papa Jung.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> What I said should be palatable for even a hard-boiled rationalist.


Palatable? How can we understand when you talk in metaphors? I guess you just expect people to understand what you mean.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> Palatable? How can we understand when you talk in metaphors? I guess you just expect people to understand what you mean.


I had trouble with this thread topic until I thought about it rationally. I started with the meaning of "transcendental". A bit of checking showed that it's actually a contraction of two words meaning "going above or beyond the teeth". And that clarified things wonderfully!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I had trouble with this thread topic until I thought about it rationally. I started with the meaning of "transcendental". A bit of checking showed that it's actually a contraction of two words meaning "going above or beyond the teeth". And that clarified things wonderfully!


Do we remind you of chimps squawking at each other excitedly? I wouldn't blame you at all for visualizing us that way.

The discussion groups are different but the posts and the replies always seem to circle around and form the same shape? As James Taylor said it's just a lovely ride.






You remember the fun I had with Otter.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"The function of music is to release us from the tyranny of conscious thought.” —Sir Thomas Beecham

Perhaps another example of the transcendental power of music, because what it transcends goes beyond the compulsive and repetitive activities of conscious thinking, thinking, thinking...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Music may have some connection with a supposed spiritual world, but I live my life not believing so, but open to the possibility that it might.

It's similar to my stance on God, I don't live my life believing in God, but am open to the possibility that he/she/it/they may exist.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> most people are *rationalists*, as evidenced by this thread. As an artist, I appreciate *rational* thinking, but I recognize the importance of intuition, non-thinking/just doing, and activities which lie outside the realm of *rationality*. It's sometimes called "the unconscious." I think a lot of the differences have to do with our early cognitive experience, and how this has "wired" most people's brains to be *rational*. People who have somehow "escaped" this cognitive conditioning are seen as *non-rational*, outsiders, on the artistic fringe, etc.
> You have to realize that a lot of the things like Tarot cards, the I Ching, chance, etc. are simply "tools" to access the areas of the mind which are non-rational. I think John Cage understood this very well; hence the almost universal dislike of him & his methods by "normally wired" *rational *people.
> I think that, as well, the entire globe is becoming "*rationalized*," as technology increases and formerly "*non-rational*" mythological societies become more Westernized.





millionrainbows said:


> What I said should be palatable for even a hard-boiled *rationalist*.





millionrainbows said:


> Are you sure about that? Being *rational *is not all it's cut-out to be. In any case, the net result of rationality is often insanity. H-bombs, etc.





millionrainbows said:


> I think you really have to throw the conscious mind and its *rationalism *aside. Aside from that, the I-Ching is an ancient, respected tradition.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


I suppose it makes a change from obsessing about atheism.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I suppose it makes a change from obsessing about atheism.


Alas. It amounts to more or less the same thing.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Or get a set of these glasses. I've been wanting to try this.
> 
> ​
> *Color Therapy Glasses Set Colors Selected for Maximum Benefits....Wearing Can help reach Meditative blissful Enlightenment*


Amazon review:

_Maybe some customers received a better batch than me, but all my glasses arrived defective. You can tell the quality of these glasses is lacking. While wearing them the plastic is ripply and distorts my vision. It makes me and anyone else who has tried them feel nauseous, which is the opposite effect of what I was hoping for. Look at the pictures I attached, can you imagine trying to look at that all day?_

I think we've found a bl**dy rationalist.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Many think that literature is more transcendental than music, but I disagree, music must have come first and been the inspiration for written languages. How many great philosophers and writters of mankind love music? Martin Luther, Schopenhauer, Roman Rolland, Napoleon etc. I would say, both music and literature are equally important and I have an issue with modernist music, but not with modernist literature. So yea, music is more transcendental than literature, since the classical theory of music is more enduring, and the progressivist modification fails it.

The only issue with modern literature I can imagine is to use AI as writer or assistant in writing or proofreading. As long as the man writes the book and proof-read all with raw human effort, by either pen or typing will be fine. I just will not accept anything robot writes in place of human as a piece of literature, no matter how good it may be. This is just a result of mathematical statistics.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

And we now already have robot composers now, I guess more songs or musical pieces than you can imagine are actually written by robots. What a tragedy. It is not important how good the piece sells or sounds, it matters that the raw human effort is fully put into the piece, not something collective engineering work. The same situation for literature, I do not want to follow latest writers anymore unless someone guarantee they will not use robot to help them complete the story.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I'm atheist, rationalist, materialist, science minded, the whole package. That being said, I believe music can be transcendental and transport you to a higher world of mystery, wonder and beauty. Not because I believe it's actually there, but because it's damn good music.

It is wonderful to experience (the illusion of) the supernatural, call it spirituality if you will. Of course it is. 

But what is also amazing is what science tells us about the universe, life and our planet. The picture that emerges from all of that is so endlessly more beautiful, intricate and inspiring than any man-made stories of religion and creation. And there is still a very mysterious side to it as well: all the things we do not understand and may never fully understand. 
In fact, I understand very little of it myself. But having a rudimentary understanding and catching just a glimpse of how the universe works, how space, galaxies, stars, the solar system, earth and eventually life formed... according to modern science... well, when you've had that experience, there's no need to believe in the supernatural anymore, because the real mysteries are out there in the natural, material world.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Music springs from and is replenished by a hidden source which lies outside the world or reality. Music ever spoke to me of a mysterious world beyond, which moved my heart deeply and eloquently intimated its transcendental nature.

The domain of rhythm extends from the spiritual to the carnal.

Our music, whose eternal being is forever bound up in its temporal sounds, is not merely an art, enriching beyond measure our cultural life, but also a message from higher worlds, raising and urging us on by its reminders of our own eternal origins.

The works of the creative spirit last, they are essentially imperishable, while the world-stirring historical activities of even the most eminent men are circumscribed by time.

Bruno Walter


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

DeepR said:


> I'm atheist, rationalist, materialist, science minded, the whole package. That being said, I believe music can be transcendental and transport you to a higher world of mystery, wonder and beauty. Not because I believe it's actually there, but because it's damn good music.
> 
> It is wonderful to experience (the illusion of) the supernatural, call it spirituality if you will. Of course it is.
> 
> ...


What I don't get is how one can acknowledge there is so much about this existence they don't understand, yet still claim to be an atheist. Agnosticism I can understand, the rejection of religion I can understand, but atheism, no.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

tdc said:


> What I don't get is how one can acknowledge there is so much about this existence they don't understand, yet still claim to be an atheist. Agnosticism I can understand, the rejection of religion I can understand, but atheism, no.


What are your views on astrology? Tea leaf reading?


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2018)

tdc said:


> What I don't get is how one can acknowledge there is so much about this existence they don't understand, yet still claim to be an atheist. Agnosticism I can understand, the rejection of religion I can understand, but atheism, no.


Why would the fact that we cannot explain everything about our existence lead us to conclude that the explanation must be a "transcendental" one?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Why would the fact that we cannot explain everything about our existence lead us to conclude that the explanation* must be* a "transcendental" one?


Who said it must be? I don't see how your question is relevant to my comment.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> What are your views on astrology? Tea leaf reading?


My view on astrology is that I wish I understood it better, its something I'd like to do more research on. Tea leaf reading I had not heard of until coming across the concept recently on these forums.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

tdc said:


> What I don't get is how one can acknowledge there is so much about this existence they don't understand, yet still claim to be an atheist. Agnosticism I can understand, the rejection of religion I can understand, but atheism, no.


Realizing there is much we don't understand, doesn't have to make me a believer. It's simply a conviction based on all sorts of arguments against the existence of a deity.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please refrain from purely religious comments. Get back to music.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2018)

tdc said:


> Who said it must be? I don't see how your question is relevant to my comment.


Sorry. Posting in a hurry before going to bed.

You said,



> What I don't get is how one can acknowledge there is so much about this existence they don't understand, yet still claim to be an atheist.


My question is really...why? What don't you get?


----------

