Just to lighten it up abit this brought to mind an Omni speculation on the future of humans say 25 million years from now. According to this piece,Earth has returned to Gaia and humans have moved into an unusual state of existance. We have returned to the trees where we once were but now an entirely different creature. The author imagines us sloth like beings , hanging from the trees sipping dew from leaves,basically a life support system for a more or less compleatly phychic brain. We are now celetial/cerebreal life forms with our entire society now on the phychic plane. Our physical furry large tribble like forms will only be dimmly aware of each other at that point but still exibit instictive reatciion to irritation/stimulus and the most basic abillity to feed and flee.So there still is in a sense still a fragile mortality yet also this total phycho/spiritual reality. In this description the brain is still aproximatly the same displacement it is now. Wierd

Steering clear from Goat's and Yanko's debate...

And finally: most people who want to make music that was absolutely uninfluenced by anything tend to make crap, so there

But even the shit music is influenced. Maybe not by music, but what about money, fame and chicks?

My point is hardware has nothing to do with this issue. Hardware is irrelevant. The brain=hardware analogy doesn't hold. It is a bad exercise in thoughts.

so you say neurology has no place whatsoever in a psychology discussion?

No, I'm not saying that. Non-pathological neurology studies neural networks that form the platform of our consciousness. But that is it. Yes it's true: no neurons, no thoughts, thoughts do happen via neurons, but their quality is beyond neurons. All they do is light up on the screen when a thought occurs. But what meaning this thought bears for the person who thought it - that is totally beyond neurology. So counting thoughts in the context of neurology is non-sense. While there is a finite number of neuron firing patterns (humongous, but finite), this finitude does not translate into finitude of thoughts. Your connection here is not justified, that's all I'm saying. Thoughts are not subject to numbers. After all, a specific firing pattern could after all be exactly repeated or reproduced, but the resulting thought wouldn't be the same. Thoughts do not repeat. The second "repeated" thought would inevitably be reflected differently.

[djskrimp]

I want to go to school where you guys went to school...holy crap in a CAN is this some interesting stuff.

Ah it really is impossible for music to be created in general. I just think about how humans have been influenced through sound itself so...in my opinion it is not a possibility, but that is just my opinion.

My point is hardware has nothing to do with this issue. Hardware is irrelevant. The brain=hardware analogy doesn't hold. It is a bad exercise in thoughts.

so you say neurology has no place whatsoever in a psychology discussion?

No, I'm not saying that. Non-pathological neurology studies neural networks that form the platform of our consciousness. But that is it. Yes it's true: no neurons, no thoughts, thoughts do happen via neurons, but their quality is beyond neurons. All they do is light up on the screen when a thought occurs. But what meaning this thought bears for the person who thought it - that is totally beyond neurology. So counting thoughts in the context of neurology is non-sense. While there is a finite number of neuron firing patterns (humongous, but finite), this finitude does not translate into finitude of thoughts. Your connection here is not justified, that's all I'm saying. Thoughts are not subject to numbers. After all, a specific firing pattern could after all be exactly repeated or reproduced, but the resulting thought wouldn't be the same. Thoughts do not repeat. The second "repeated" thought would inevitably be reflected differently.

as i said, i totally get your point there, but i still think that we're bound by phisicality *IF* consciousness is a purely physical "phenomenon". If there's any form of "metaphisicality" involved (which i actually think there is!), you can expand thought to infiniteness.

Funny thing is: i actually tend to have the same point of view as you, but analysing it in a "cold and mathematical" manner, i just HAVE to play by the physical rules when i strip it down to what i said.

Now saying what I, personally, believe is this: we are bound by physical means, BUT, we're able to transcend them, somehow. Don't ask me how, but there is some way, call it Nirvana, death, whatever you like. But, if i am wrong and there's no metaphisicality involved (which isn't really provable as much as saying there is such thing), it's all fancy games created by neural nets, and that's it.

When you say "it's totally beyond neurology" i'd say "it's totally beyond neurology TODAY", because it's an evolving field. Cool thing is that today, neurology is more and more capable of getting close to psychiatry and psychology, just check the ammount of Freud's ideas that are being proved by neurological means.

Another cool thing is this: there's this one guy who is a pope of AI that wrote a book talking about emulating consciousness, called "impossible machines". It's a far out idea, but so was robotics back in the day

When we think of thoughts as something "made by who made it, therefore not accountable for", we're adding the concept of consciousness, and THAT one, that one wasn't explained by any area yet (neurology, psychology, philosophy or any other that dedicated some time to it). So i say even though what science and our personal ideas presents to us nowadays, there's no way of saying "it is this, and that's it".

That's why i completely support your point of view AND the "stripped down mathematical" one... at the same time

but when you throw in the consciousness deal and the fact that "if a thought is made 2 times, it isn't the same", then i'm forced to completely agree, even mathematically, that the number of possibilities is SO bloated up (for it being kind of a "recursive function" kind of thing), that it tends to infinite. But then, if you think about it, when you add consciousness to the deal, you get more realistic than on the model. So "recurring" the same thought over and over again, like, that exact little piece of string, just to create the bloated up result, isn't really a realistic scenario, is it?


anyway, i can be totally wrong, but i'm still loving it. Can i give you a manhug now, goat?

Hmmmm, not consciousness, you need a speaking subject of language. Then there's this thing called "objet petit a" which ... meh, yeah let's hug instead.

Hmmmm, not consciousness, you need a speaking subject of language. Then there's this thing called "objet petit a" which ... meh, yeah let's hug instead.

*Hugs Goat*

Modern nerological science is still a nearly wild frontier with very few advanced ideas proven to the satisfaction of all. That's what I love about these times, everything we think we know is being tossed to the wind. This is a good time to be the empty vessle for ironically, as the age of information implodes on itself, all these hard sciences will merge and these comparisons will be meaningless. .Right now we can't even agree on the theory of everything.And there are still people who don't think Devin is an outstanding musical prodogy.

There are rules that are agreed upon and there's knowledge in the Real. Science should be interested in knowledge in the Real. But you have the human ego and imagination, which are unstable to say the least. Those two decide on usage of scientific facts discovered. The ethics of it all is as strong as the weakest link, which means it's non-existent. Only so much people can say "no" to things, then inevitably there will be one who will say "yes, why not."
The ego is also responsible for the "what if" ideas, which are judged on the merits of rhetorical skills of the proponent and not on the knowledge in the Real. Grounding human psyche in the neural nets of the brain basing it on computer models is one of those "what if" ideas. I can't stand those. Those should be a waste of time but are not because "it's useful." What the fuck is that? That's not science, that's politics. Can those two be separated? No. Goddamn it.

I get passionate sometimes. Keep those hugs coming.

The hug thing just reminded me of a concert review where Devy got the mosh pit to start mosh -hugging.That must have been hil-fraking-larious! Only the Dev.

I believe that's quite possibly to make music without any "musical" influences, but influences in general, that's impossible.
The word "music" is derived from the root word "muse" or the ancient bringers of inspiration. It has long been debated especially in the beginning of western music, (i.e. Gregorian chants) that God or some other divine or semidivine being directly "inspired (through breath)" the creation of music. In other words, in any sense of the word "inspire", it is impossible to make music without either being inspired by something in nature or supernature.

There are rules that are agreed upon and there's knowledge in the Real. Science should be interested in knowledge in the Real. But you have the human ego and imagination, which are unstable to say the least. Those two decide on usage of scientific facts discovered. The ethics of it all is as strong as the weakest link, which means it's non-existent. Only so much people can say "no" to things, then inevitably there will be one who will say "yes, why not."
The ego is also responsible for the "what if" ideas, which are judged on the merits of rhetorical skills of the proponent and not on the knowledge in the Real. Grounding human psyche in the neural nets of the brain basing it on computer models is one of those "what if" ideas. I can't stand those. Those should be a waste of time but are not because "it's useful." What the fuck is that? That's not science, that's politics. Can those two be separated? No. Goddamn it.

I get passionate sometimes. Keep those hugs coming.

A-HA!
*now* you COMPLETELY made your point visible to me, and now i see that it's almost impossible for you to accept my points as i accept yours.

I'm on a forwards field man, "what if" is what i do for a living

I wouldn't go as far as saying I can't accept your points, it's just like ... being a monkey and having three redundant asses, like ... meh. I can accept four asses, but ... meh. "What if" is a nice game to play, but with consequences that are not thought through. And to clarify, I don't have a problem with the "what if" part, that one is free for all, the "yes, OK, go ahead" is the one that gives me the chills. Who and why says that? Brrrrr.

I wouldn't go as far as saying I can't accept your points, it's just like ... being a monkey and having three redundant asses, like ... meh. I can accept four asses, but ... meh. "What if" is a nice game to play, but with consequences that are not thought through. And to clarify, I don't have a problem with the "what if" part, that one is free for all, the "yes, OK, go ahead" is the one that gives me the chills. Who and why says that? Brrrrr.

and now you made your points dark again


AKA:
what you say?