Originally posted by karoly aczelalpha, beta, theta and delta.
Yeah thats cool.
I think that general well being has been proven through more beta conciousness.
I have no refrences for that right now🙁
I'm not saying your not going to have alpha conciousness, I'm just saying the daily BALANCE between the four different brain waves,(the other two are theta and omega(?) ), is askewed by "modern capitalist values ...[text shortened]... of human life. (Well perhaps not housing construction🙂 ...unless we build robots.. and... )
1. alpha is described as waking conciosness
2. beta is meditative/daydreamy
3. theta is hypnogogic (the state you go into when in deep trance, or upon awakenning. It is deeper than beta)
4.delta is sleep "conciousness"
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Unless you have some good evidence for these claims you have made:
I think that general well being has been proven through more beta conciousness.
I'm not saying your not going to have alpha conciousness, I'm just saying the daily BALANCE between the four different brain waves,(the other two are theta and omega(?) ), is askewed by "modern capitalist values" ...
I will take these claims as evidence of a pattern I have observed in the claims you make. Generally there is an inverse relationship between how fantastical they are and the quality of the evidence you produce. That is precisely the wrong way round.
In summary, you seem to have a central flaw in the procedure you have for finding out about the world: you're just not sceptical enough.
I reject the claim that there is something undesirable about being excited about music.
Originally posted by Lord Sharki haven't argued that a kettle whistling is good music. i only argued that if someone likes it, it is simply that: music. and that is helpful towards supporting my claim that indeed all people love some kind of music.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]and can you think of the possibility you are the one wrong,
Backatcha...
that maybe you are simply overthinking something subjective that changes from decade to decade and that people can't agree 100% on what it is?
I agreed a few posts ago that it is difficult, let's say now, impossible to draw a l ...[text shortened]... though is not about whether things are music or not. It is about whether things are any good.[/b]
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i haven't argued that a kettle whistling is good music. i only argued that if someone likes it, it is simply that: music. and that is helpful towards supporting my claim that indeed all people love some kind of music.
That's disarmingly honest of you. I think your definition of 'music' is so wide precisely because this is a way of protecting your claim 'all people love some kind of music', by making it unfalsifiable. Unfortunately it also makes your claim meaningless.
However, karoly made a meaningful claim, namely that 100% of people like music, where 'music' is defined in a way compatible with its use by competent speakers of English. That claim was false and karoly then came up with another, that 99% of people like music, which I did not address.
Originally posted by Lord SharkOk. Its not like I'm disagreeing with a lot of people. a lot of times I ask for clarification, like you. Hell, I'm even indulging the christians, without really being on their side of the fence.
Unless you have some good evidence for these claims you have made:
[b]I think that general well being has been proven through more beta conciousness.
I'm not saying your not going to have alpha conciousness, I'm just saying the daily BALANCE between the four different brain waves,(the other two are theta and omega(?) ), is askewed by "modern ...[text shortened]...
I reject the claim that there is something undesirable about being excited about music.
I just wanna know why you cant see a general point here? Ie, Having a clear mind slows it down. This can be shown in neurological tests. Links have been established between being "chilled out" and general well being. Whats the big deal? I'm not like trying to tell you that contact with E.T.'s is imminent and the world is about to end am I?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by karoly aczelOriginally posted by karoly aczel
Ok. Its not like I'm disagreeing with a lot of people. a lot of times I ask for clarification, like you. Hell, I'm even indulging the christians, without really being on their side of the fence.
I just wanna know why you cant see a general point here? Ie, Having a clear mind slows it down. This can be shown in neurological tests. Links have been esta ...[text shortened]... rying to tell you that contact with E.T.'s is imminent and the world is about to end am I?
I just wanna know why you cant see a general point here? Ie, Having a clear mind slows it down. This can be shown in neurological tests. Links have been established between being "chilled out" and general well being. Whats the big deal? I'm not like trying to tell you that contact with E.T.'s is imminent and the world is about to end am I?
I disagree that I can't see a general point. What I can't see is any basis for your ill defined and unevidenced claims about brain waves and their links with well being. You could remedy that by posting links to evidence from respected peer reviewed journals though.
Originally posted by Lord Shark..or you could just chill out and enjoy the benefits
Originally posted by karoly aczel
[b]I just wanna know why you cant see a general point here? Ie, Having a clear mind slows it down. This can be shown in neurological tests. Links have been established between being "chilled out" and general well being. Whats the big deal? I'm not like trying to tell you that contact with E.T.'s is imminent and th ...[text shortened]... uld remedy that by posting links to evidence from respected peer reviewed journals though.
Originally posted by Lord Sharkyou keep saying that music is only what most people think it is. but you forget that music is art and new conventional art appears every day. how do we perceive art? why is a picasso painting of ugly deformed people art in the same way michelangelo's truly esthetic sixtine chapel is art? or rembrandts portraits? or ashley pollock's "shaking cans of paint at canvas" paintings?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]i haven't argued that a kettle whistling is good music. i only argued that if someone likes it, it is simply that: music. and that is helpful towards supporting my claim that indeed all people love some kind of music.
That's disarmingly honest of you. I think your definition of 'music' is so wide precisely bec ...[text shortened]... aroly then came up with another, that 99% of people like music, which I did not address.[/b]
if random strokes of brush can be called art, or ofili's excrements(this is ridiculous, i can say excrements but sh|t is considered offensive) on canvas is art, why can't 3 trash cans bangin be called music and art?
i see now that this is not a barrier of english, it is a barrier of how and what you perceive as art.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think we are talking past each other.
you keep saying that music is only what most people think it is. but you forget that music is art and new conventional art appears every day. how do we perceive art? why is a picasso painting of ugly deformed people art in the same way michelangelo's truly esthetic sixtine chapel is art? or rembrandts portraits? or ashley pollock's "shaking cans of paint at ...[text shortened]... hat this is not a barrier of english, it is a barrier of how and what you perceive as art.
There is that famous definition of art which says that art is whatever it is an artist produces 🙂
This is partly a wry comment on how difficult it is to pin down precisely what art is.
So I think I understand what you are saying, it is difficult to draw the line between art and non art.
But all of the examples you have given, from Picasso to Pollock (I thought you meant Jackson) and '3 trash cans bangin' are all art.
I see no reason why '3 trash cans bangin' cannot be music.
They all have something in common though which is that somebody intends these things to be seen as, and/or presents them as art. This is even true of objet trouvé.
Even given the widest possible definition of music that still can be used to pick out sounds that are music from those that are not, your claim is either unfalsifiable or false. So I doubt we can make further progress.
Originally posted by Lord Sharkdon't know why i baptized him ashley. was probably confused. yes, its jackson.
I think we are talking past each other.
There is that famous definition of art which says that art is whatever it is an artist produces 🙂
This is partly a wry comment on how difficult it is to pin down precisely what art is.
So I think I understand what you are saying, it is difficult to draw the line between art and non art.
But all of the e ...[text shortened]... e not, your claim is either unfalsifiable or false. So I doubt we can make further progress.
"Even given the widest possible definition of music that still can be used to pick out sounds that are music from those that are not, your claim is either unfalsifiable or false."
i agree with the unfalsifiable part. not with the false part.
my point also. karoly started a thread without explaining exactly what music he means. i supported the idea that his claim is too general and doesn't actually mean anything because music might be anything resulting in 2 individuals from that affirmation liking 2 different things.
making general affirmations doesn't communicate something meaningful. or something that isn't general knowledge. like me saying everyone likes food without saying what food or if iv food counts or if mcdonalds plastic meat counts.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe issue I have is this, karoly made a claim which I said was false. Karoly then made a different claim. There is no evidence from our dialogue that we were using definitions of 'music' that were so different as to make communication between us ineffective. So far, so good.
don't know why i baptized him ashley. was probably confused. yes, its jackson.
"Even given the widest possible definition of music that still can be used to pick out sounds that are music from those that are not, your claim is either unfalsifiable or false."
i agree with the unfalsifiable part. not with the false part.
my point also. karoly star ...[text shortened]... es food without saying what food or if iv food counts or if mcdonalds plastic meat counts.
Then you come along and say that the term 'music' is so wide that it is true that everybody likes music. But that's just not a very interesting claim because it just defines music to be whatever sounds somebody likes. This makes your claim trivially true but at the cost of using 'music' in a way which no competent speakers would.
In other words, if Jones has severe amusia and dislikes any instance of what anybody has ever called music to date, you can come along and declare that because Jones likes the sound of a kettle due to the fact that she is looking forward to a nice cup of tea, then it is music to her.
'The sound of that kettle is music to my ears' she might say.
Well, yes but it isn't very interesting to me I'm afraid.
Originally posted by Lord Sharkexactly what i said. i had an issue to a statement so general it communicates nothing out of the ordinary.
The issue I have is this, karoly made a claim which I said was false. Karoly then made a different claim. There is no evidence from our dialogue that we were using definitions of 'music' that were so different as to make communication between us ineffective. So far, so good.
Then you come along and say that the term 'music' is so wide that it is true t ...[text shortened]... my ears' she might say.
Well, yes but it isn't very interesting to me I'm afraid.
the fact that karoly changed his statement is of little consequence i was actually arguing for his original claim that basically that is true, but not important as he didn't supply a definition for music which led towards the fact that anything can be music which has no real value in a debate since its not falsifiable and can correspond to anything.
good talk