TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Hearing quality and musical taste [this be sereyus thred]
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN It wouldn't be surprising if this mechanism was a physiological long-term change of the chronic effects of attentional processes or perceptual segregation. Check this abstract, it could be of some relevance.

Thanks for the link - it looks like that study came out just before the big breakthrough studies on efferent pathways, so it's likely that hearing scientists would currently explain those results away as an efferent reflex effect, i.e. what you said, a physiological long-term change in processing resulting from experience. However, I am totally with you in that dynamic top-down processing probably plays a much bigger role in perception than changes in cochlear tuning. For the sake of the argument, I conveniently omitted the fact that while I am doing my degree in hearing science, my advisor is a cognitive psychology guy, so I am personally specializing in attentional effects on hearing perception, lol. I think a great majority of hearing scientists get so caught up in the brainstem and reflexive neural activity that they completely ignore the effects of cognition.

P.S. We here at the University of West Suburban Church of Christ Kansas City endorse only the scientifically sound "Intelligent Design" theory.

great thread

quote:

Originally posted by neatski P.S. We here at the University of West Suburban Church of Christ Kansas City endorse only the scientifically sound "Intelligent Design" theory.

lmao....Im such a nerd, I love science jokes

quote:

Originally posted by habman6 lmao....Im such a nerd, I love science jokes

April fool's?

do you blame my being 50% deaf in one ear on playing music you dont enjoy

quote:

Originally posted by smellyblack do you blame my being 50% deaf in one ear on playing music you dont enjoy

Hey freak...i enjoy your music man...i sometimes listen before i go out on a saturday night...in the toilet as well...

quote:

Originally posted by neatski P.S. We here at the University of West Suburban Church of Christ Kansas City endorse only the scientifically sound "Intelligent Design" theory.

To throw a bit more fun in this thread (it was april 1st after all)
this has reminded me of that video.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Maybe you should bust out a sob story for every occasion. I'm not debating over someone's father, especially since doing so requires massive guesswork on my part.

lol, that wasn't a sob story, it's the common result of having a stroke, and invites discussion as to the necessity of that 'chunk of grey matter' you want me to remove by myself, and by implication discussion of the the physical existence of the so-called 'soul'. there's nothing personal about that, i just happen to be familiar with it because it happened to my father.

why are you so angry on the internet? your attitude adds very little to any discussion. i've read good posts from you as well, but as i said in the past, you seem to have a fetish for attacking me personally.

You realise a stroke can affect a person in a vast number of ways, to varying extents on different parts of their cognition, and I don't have slightest fucking clue about your father's medical history? A stroke can cause a coma and/or death, and in that case invoking it as proof of a soul is utterly redundant.

I knew someone once who'd had a stroke and had severe learning problems as a result, not to mention partial disability. His "training" was most certainly impaired, and so apparently his soul could not reach maturity through this infliction. Posting "I know someone who had a stroke and he was fine" proves nothing one way or another, regardless of how personal or intimate that anecdote is.

Physical damage to the right parts of the brain can incapacitate or impair certain senses. Cut the right bits out and you won't be able to think certain things properly. Or let's look at it another way: a training in music, language or any of life requires certain senses. Even if you want to invoke the mysteries of the brain, you're still dependent on the physical organs of the eyes, the ears and so on.

Show me a single thought divorced from the corporeal vessel. You can't, where as I can show the requirement of thoughts on the material. Occam's Razor, for me, says the conclusion drawn from observed evidence is simpler than one that requires inductive reasoning from without, reasoning that must battle it out with a near-infinite multitude of contrary strains of inductive reasoning, all clinging to that one link to plausibility: "You can't disprove me" but none with any tighter grip on reality than the next.

quote:

why are you so angry on the internet? your attitude adds very little to any discussion. i've read good posts from you as well, but as i said in the past, you seem to have a fetish for attacking me personally.

If I'm going to be angry somewhere, the Internet is a much better place to do it than anywhere else. I'm not one for repressing irritation when it occurs.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Show me a single thought divorced from the corporeal vessel. You can't, where as I can show the requirement of thoughts on the material. Occam's Razor, for me, says the conclusion drawn from observed evidence is simpler than one that requires inductive reasoning from without, reasoning that must battle it out with a near-infinite multitude of contrary strains of inductive reasoning, all clinging to that one link to plausibility: "You can't disprove me" but none with any tighter grip on reality than the next.

i think that's a fair interpretation of ockhams razor.

but the problem is, 'observed evidence' tends to avoid the underlying cause of the phenomenon.

i don't think this is a terrible way to think, and as i've written in this thread, i support the scientific method as one way to ascertain the truth of something. however, I think there are other ways to ascertain truth that are just as important.

ultimately, as objective as you'd like to be, you have to realize that every observation you make, every waking moment is subject to your own consciousness, and any claim of true objectivity or conclusive evidence is completely dependent upon that consciousness, which is outside and greater than anything you can measure.

so i guess in 'retort' i will say, 'show me a single brain that exists outside its own consciousness'


really, I am a proponent of science, and I think its ultimate goal is to discover the nature of the spirit and its relationship to dimensional materiality. I think the destiny of science is to reveal to man how to manipulate 'matter' with his mind. I think that in some cases it doesn't hurt to challenge the fundamentals of what one 'knows' in order to approach a problem from another perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec so i guess in 'retort' i will say, 'show me a single brain that exists outside its own consciousness'

very cheeky, but that is still subject to our consciousness, since we are looking at it.


interestingly enough, i got to hold a human brain in my hands when i was 10 years old, when i toured a neurobiological institute - definitely an interesting experience.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec very cheeky, but that is still subject to our consciousness, since we are looking at it.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec so i guess in 'retort' i will say, 'show me a single brain that exists outside its own consciousness'

quote:

Originally posted by habman6 lmao....Im such a nerd, I love science jokes

Jokes? I take creationism, er, Intelligent Design, very seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec interestingly enough, i got to hold a human brain in my hands when i was 10 years old, when i toured a neurobiological institute - definitely an interesting experience.

I got to hold a few dissected human ones in my senior year of undergrad... weren't you struck by how much smaller they were than you expected? I guess I always pictures brains as huge.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J

what, do you want a pat on the back?

i'll re-word it for you:

'show me a brain that exists outside of any consciousness'

quote:

Originally posted by neatski Jokes? I take creationism, er, Intelligent Design, very seriously.

Haha sorry bro, my mistake. ID is definitely not for IDiots.

quote:

I got to hold a few dissected human ones in my senior year of undergrad... weren't you struck by how much smaller they were than you expected? I guess I always pictures brains as huge.

We dissected some in my neuroanatomy class...I thought they were pretty big.

quote:

Originally posted by neatski I got to hold a few dissected human ones in my senior year of undergrad... weren't you struck by how much smaller they were than you expected? I guess I always pictures brains as huge.

guess they didn't tell you they were from children

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec what, do you want a pat on the back?

For pointing out prepositional elements that alter the semantics of your sentence? Should I assume you remove every problematic piece of a statement I reply to?

Or is your argument essentially a glorified "If a tree falls in the woods..." sentiment?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J For pointing out prepositional elements that alter the semantics of your sentence? Should I assume you remove every problematic piece of a statement I reply to? Or is your argument essentially a glorified "If a tree falls in the woods..." sentiment?

No, I wrote the reply quickly and changed words around without reading it well enough. But this is pointless, I didn't mean to say that, and I pointed out the mistake. Now let's move on and look at what i meant to write. You shouldn't assume I remove such things, lol. Apply Occam's Razor to this situation too.

It's not a glorified "if a tree falls in the woods sentiment". But if you want to think in those terms, I could say "If a tree falls in the woods, and you're not around to hear it, it does still make a noise, simply because you can imagine it. " Consciousness is all-pervasive.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec No, I wrote the reply quickly and changed words around without reading it well enough. But this is pointless, I didn't mean to say that, and I pointed out the mistake. Now let's move on and look at what i meant to write. You shouldn't assume I remove such things, lol. Apply Occam's Razor to this situation too. It's not a glorified "if a tree falls in the woods sentiment". But if you want to think in those terms, I could say "If a tree falls in the woods, and you're not around to hear it, it does still make a noise, simply because you can imagine it. " Consciousness is all-pervasive.

By saying consciousness is all-pervasive, are you implying that it is some form of objective reality? I may be off the mark, but let me know if this is correct thus far:

nefardec = consciousness exists immaterially
system-j = consciousness is simply a manifestation of material phenomena

Are my coles notes correct?

quote:

It's not a glorified "if a tree falls in the woods sentiment". But if you want to think in those terms, I could say "If a tree falls in the woods, and you're not around to hear it, it does still make a noise, simply because you can imagine it. " Consciousness is all-pervasive.

Again, it's observed evidence vs inductive reasoning. You could invoke a "brain in a vat" thought experiment or some ontological/solipsistic idea that nothing exists if we don't perceive it, but that again is a hypothetical framework to what we observe with no evidence for it. I believe in reality outside our perceptions of it. Do you approach reality as if your imagination is as real as anything you touch? Do you approach it as though not thinking of something is it not existing? If you imagine a dinosaur rampaging down the street do you refuse to go out into that street from fear? If you picture it stepping on your car do you phone the insurance company?

If you want to disregard your senses because of a possibility activated only by a lack of disprovability then do so. For me, a brain on a table is a brain outside of consciousness. Even if we never see it, it's there. The microbes slowly eating it will attest to that.

quote:

Originally posted by habman6 By saying consciousness is all-pervasive, are you implying that it is some form of objective reality? I may be off the mark, but let me know if this is correct thus far: nefardec = consciousness exists immaterially system-j = consciousness is simply a manifestation of material phenomena Are my coles notes correct?

nefardec = material is an instance of consciousness

i do imply some form of objective reality. this is why i said before that system-j's everything is made of matter position is not that different than mine. one is the chicken, one is the egg

quote:

Again, it's observed evidence vs inductive reasoning. You could invoke a "brain in a vat" thought experiment or some ontological/solipsistic idea that nothing exists if we don't perceive it, but that again is a hypothetical framework to what we observe with no evidence for it. I believe in reality outside our perceptions of it. Do you approach reality as if your imagination is as real as anything you touch? Do you approach it as though not thinking of something is it not existing? If you imagine a dinosaur rampaging down the street do you refuse to go out into that street from fear? If you picture it stepping on your car do you phone the insurance company?

Modern science is just a hypothetical framework as well. The only difference is that Science just has more frames, it is the most complex illusion humanity has come up with yet, but still just the latest in a series of hypothetical frameworks.

I also believe in reality outside our perceptions of it. Except I believe that this reality is the unconscious/subconscious.

I do approach reality as if my imagination is as real as anything I touch. You should as well, if you believe that thoughts are matter.

I don't have a fear of dinosaurs, but I can think plenty of instances in my life where I have been afraid of something. All fear is imaginary.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Modern science is just a hypothetical framework as well. The only difference is that Science just has more frames, it is the most complex illusion humanity has come up with yet, but still just the latest in a series of hypothetical frameworks.

I hear this a lot. But even the most vaguely understand theory such as quantum manages to provide the workings of a vast array of technology. It can reaffirm itself in the material world. Nobody ever made a computer out of phlogiston.

quote:

I don't have a fear of dinosaurs, but I can think plenty of instances in my life where I have been afraid of something. All fear is imaginary.

But the things we fear aren't always.

smellyblack = chicken and lolling at system.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I hear this a lot. But even the most vaguely understand theory such as quantum manages to provide the workings of a vast array of technology. It can reaffirm itself in the material world. Nobody ever made a computer out of phlogiston.

i agree that it is extremely convincing and convenient. and i think that as a hypothetical framework it can lead to great things. like i said before, I do believe in science, but i just consider it to be one way of explaining things. It has a lot of language to build from. I tend to see science as the 'brute force' method, and intuition as the advanced method, but this is my personal bias.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But the things we fear aren't always.

but fear isn't. that's the important part. the things we fear are just things, right?

i know what you are saying, and unfortunately we are still living in a collective consciousness where dinosaurs CAN really eat us. Like I said, i think as a whole, human destiny is to transcend such things and live purely in the mind, which could eliminate such things.

I personally don't have the ability or consciousness to avoid being eaten by a dinosaur anymore than you have the ability to pluck out a thought from the brain. We're just not that advanced yet.



One additional note of interest - I once read a book which discussed the evolution of the human brain, with particular interest in the evolution of human consciousness. The hypothesis put forth in this book was that at some point in time, humans were more automatic creatures just eating and shitting, then at some point in time, consciousness began to evolve in the human, even as late as the bronze age of homer. The book suggests that people of this time would understand this ego or inner monologue as the voice of god, and that our consciousness has been evolving rapidly ever since. It also equates language and consciousness.

Now you could read this as in support of a material consciousness, that the evolution of consciousness was a purely material process like the evolution of the forward-facing eye, emotions, etc.

This seems true with a limited view of what consciousness is, as I hinted at, I believe it is all-pervasive and that the human brain doesn't as much develop consciousness within its organ, but rather harnesses it like an eardrum might harness pressure changes.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.