|
Post by jonbain on May 22, 2019 23:26:19 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective.
How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society?
The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby.
So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives?
And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical?
I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 1, 2019 15:18:35 GMT
Logic can be shown by example...but this example is still subject to an assumption. Assumptions are inevitable, like I assume you are not just a bot regurgitating words. But there is a radical difference between questioning assumptions for genuine reasonsand questioning points simply for the sake of filibuster and pedantic argumentativeness. False, because all arguments as proofs are assumptions in and of themselves as their nature of completeness relies on an inherent resonance with the subjective state of the observers. The argument as a proof is deemed complete if it fulfills some percieved internal incongruency within the observer's state of awareness. Take for example a simple mathematical statement presented to a child for the first time: 5+6=? This statement to a small child is fundamentally incomplete and means very little. Its completeness occurs when the relation of +5 and +6 result in a new relation of 11. The child may come about this connection by counting various objects ranging from dots to apples to a concept (which would be rare for a child in this example) such as years. Thus the proof is hinged fundamentally on a connector, which in this case is equals "=". +5 and +6 are one set of relations and so is 11. Both are localizations of a phenomenon where the addition of 5 and 6 may observe an active state of percievable seperate numbers being united and 11 observes a static solid state of the conclusion of them being added. However 5+6 requires the assumption of +5 and +6 from the beginning. 11 is also an assumption...strictly because it is "taken as is". In these respects we observe an assumption leading to a further assumption in such a manner where a connection of assumptions occurs with this connection being the proof. However this proof, which is 5+6=11 in this example, is still an assumption considering it is taken and observed strictly "as is". 5+6=11 must be further assumed through various other examples such as the methodology of counting being applied, the symbolic nature relative to the culture, etc. Thus even 5+6=11 is an incomplete proof relative to a regress to further proofs...ie assumptions. I can take 5 dots and add them to 6 dots and get 11...but it is still the same 1 dot from a seperate angle of awareness considering a dot is a dot is a dot. So it may be argued that what we are observing are 11 dots as 1 dot. Considering these 11 dots from a relative far position to the observer may appear as 1 dot, it may be implied that each dot up close is composed of further dots ad-infinitum so that we are actually observing multiple infinities. Thus even in the methodology of counting a simple statement such as 5+6=11 is both an assumption but also a process of definition. 5+6=11 as a process of definition in itself is just taken without thought and becomes formless in these respects considering the standard methodology of adding 5 and 6 does not take into account the above examples...or in simpler terms we observe 5+6=11 and not 5+6=(1∞,11∞). This process or the means in which we define or "cut out" reality takes on a formless role in these respects as it is grounded in a process of localizing certain key phenomenon or seperating them in such a manner where the act of seperation in and of itself is fundamentally without form (ie a cut in a tomato is strictly nothing in and of itself and can only be observed by the tomatoes as the tomatoes). Let me take the example further. Let us suggest that the gravity escapes the black-hole for reason X. In order for any such escape to occur, events need to unfold in time, but in the black-hole, time has stopped at the event-horizon, which means that all values of X fail as a basic point of logic. The gravity still cannot escape even if it could move at 1 million times light-speed. Time is a process of division as it observes a series of relations of parts. This particulation of phenomenon, ie light in this example you provide, is grounded in an approximation of 1 light source though a large degree of variation where light appears in multiple states relative to "blackness" or an isomorphic state of being relative to the light (but this isomorphism applies to all phenomenon as well). In simpler terms in all isomorphic states one state of the isomorphism acts as an individuator multiplying the other. So black as an isomorphism of white may result in "black" being a unified veil which causes percievably multiple points of white to appear and vice versa. One state of the isomorphism acts as an individuator for the other causing an inherent approximation of a seemingly unified object into multiple parts. The black hole acts as a point of inversion, quite literally, where multiple states of light are inverted to a more unified stream (the black hole "fills up" and shoots out a beam), thus the black hole quite literally is "time itself" where time has not so much "stopped" but is observed strictly as a pure assumptive state as in a simple point (ie the black hole) which is the grounding for all assumptions considering this same point nature of the black hole is the same fundamentally axiomatic grounding for all awareness under the dot itself. . Not enough for you yet? Uhh...not really...no...so to continue on with the above: The dot is the universal axiom which is made evident under its formless/boundless nature when observed on its own terms or its form relative to other dots as "form" requires an inherent symmetry or replication of parts thus requiring a state of multiplicity...ie multiple dots result in forms with these multiple dots fundamentally being a replication of the dot as an inherent self-symmetry. The state of the black hole as spatial void is synonymous to the spiritual state of "ego" (which cause a separation of phenomenon where the individual seeks to rise above others causing "division") or the grounding for a simple point of division in awareness where one memory is separated from another by a "black veil" no different than a point being the cause of individuation of one line into many lines through the number line itself. The black hole takes on a nature of "finiteness" itself in its separative role of light where it may be observed as the condensation of dark matter into a simple point that effectively acts as a means of inverting light into states of one and many. It is a problem of measurement more than anything. Light appears in multiple states at the event horizon and inverts to a more unified state when the black hole "fills ups". It, like all metaphysics of space, is an inversion between the one and the many and in itself is nothing. The black hole is not different than a corner point on a roof that collects many rain drops and condenses them into one stream.How can the a black-hole spin if time stops at the event horizon? Simple the stoppage of time at the event horizon takes on a temporal aspect when compared to another event horizon. The event horizon is a point of inversion conducive, under the term "stoppage", to that of "formlessness". It takes on form relative to another state of formlessness. It is not different than a dot being formless until another formless state appears. The event horizion becomes a finite phenomenon relative to another event horizon and in these respects a comparison can begin to occur. The spin of the black hole is not so much the black hole spinning as the nature of one event horizon being compared to another. One timeless state divided results in time.The alleged black-hole that 'won' the 2017 Nobel prize was said to rotate at 0.6 light-speed. Not possible if time has stopped. More? That 'black-hole' was said to have formed from the merger of a binary pair of black-holes orbiting, each other, then merging. But black-holes that orbit each other have to have event horizons which are also in those orbits. If time stops for something, it cannot move; so such an object could not move at all. I make zero new observations, the assumptions of their observations simply fail due to their own internal logic. Do you think it matters that the highest awards are for blatant junk theory? More? Here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 1, 2019 21:12:06 GMT
Logic can be shown by example...but this example is still subject to an assumption. Assumptions are inevitable, like I assume you are not just a bot regurgitating words. But there is a radical difference between questioning assumptions for genuine reasonsand questioning points simply for the sake of filibuster and pedantic argumentativeness. Let me take the example further. Let us suggest that the gravity escapes the black-hole for reason X. In order for any such escape to occur, events need to unfold in time, but in the black-hole, time has stopped at the event-horizon, which means that all values of X fail as a basic point of logic. The gravity still cannot escape even if it could move at 1 million times light-speed. Not enough for you yet? How can the a black-hole spin if time stops at the event horizon? The alleged black-hole that 'won' the 2017 Nobel prize was said to rotate at 0.6 light-speed. Not possible if time has stopped. More? That 'black-hole' was said to have formed from the merger of a binary pair of black-holes orbiting, each other, then merging. But black-holes that orbit each other have to have event horizons which are also in those orbits. If time stops for something, it cannot move; so such an object could not move at all. I make zero new observations, the assumptions of their observations simply fail due to their own internal logic. Do you think it matters that the highest awards are for blatant junk theory? More? Here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm All Is LavaThe escaped gravity disproves Postclassical Physics. Yet you use one of its basic fallacies: that time is a dimension and can be accelerated or stopped. To relate this back to the topic, I can immediately see why your logic is superficial here, though I don't have to. We need to get back on track and throw out the authoritarian irrationalism of the Twentieth Century. A "Black Hole" is an impossible concentration of substance. It has to break out of this space (not space-time) continuum into a previous universe where all matter, energy, light, and even space came from. That universe is connected to ours at the interface and that's where our gravity takes place, outside of our range of perception. So this outbreak of gravity is an overfill or reflux back through the event horizon. It is a reverse of the characteristics of matter in our own universe, which as I stated, has gravity taking place in the previous universe. In conclusion, this recently discovered phenomenon is of matter being sucked into the other universe through the Black Hole's funneling and having its gravitational element appear in this universe.
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 3, 2019 15:19:38 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective. How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society? The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby. So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives? And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical? I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome. The biggest problem with how people think is that they tend to not really bother. 90% of new ideas are passed across the belief system, whilst the other 10% remain in doubt. Seldom do people apprehend new ideas with reason and/or compare them with what is in fact evident. Where evidence is sought many will just resort to collecting confirmatory evidence that most matches their pre-existing beliefs. And these days the Internet is capable of furnishing just about any crackpot theory with confirmation. People are lazy and like to be safe. This is why the most ridiculous religious ideas have survived for thousands of years. I'm puzzled, though, what you think the word "logic" actually means. Music is not at all about logic. There is no absolute reason why euphonics works. Logic has to ignore culturation, but harmony and euphony tends to be different across time and culture. I can't imagine what a musical syllogism would sound like.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 3, 2019 18:41:46 GMT
Assumptions are inevitable, like I assume you are not just a bot regurgitating words. But there is a radical difference between questioning assumptions for genuine reasonsand questioning points simply for the sake of filibuster and pedantic argumentativeness. Let me take the example further. Let us suggest that the gravity escapes the black-hole for reason X. In order for any such escape to occur, events need to unfold in time, but in the black-hole, time has stopped at the event-horizon, which means that all values of X fail as a basic point of logic. The gravity still cannot escape even if it could move at 1 million times light-speed. Not enough for you yet? How can the a black-hole spin if time stops at the event horizon? The alleged black-hole that 'won' the 2017 Nobel prize was said to rotate at 0.6 light-speed. Not possible if time has stopped. More? That 'black-hole' was said to have formed from the merger of a binary pair of black-holes orbiting, each other, then merging. But black-holes that orbit each other have to have event horizons which are also in those orbits. If time stops for something, it cannot move; so such an object could not move at all. I make zero new observations, the assumptions of their observations simply fail due to their own internal logic. Do you think it matters that the highest awards are for blatant junk theory? More? Here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm All Is LavaThe escaped gravity disproves Postclassical Physics. Yet you use one of its basic fallacies: that time is a dimension and can be accelerated or stopped. To relate this back to the topic, I can immediately see why your logic is superficial here, though I don't have to. We need to get back on track and throw out the authoritarian irrationalism of the Twentieth Century. A "Black Hole" is an impossible concentration of substance. It has to break out of this space (not space-time) continuum into a previous universe where all matter, energy, light, and even space came from. That universe is connected to ours at the interface and that's where our gravity takes place, outside of our range of perception. So this outbreak of gravity is an overfill or reflux back through the event horizon. It is a reverse of the characteristics of matter in our own universe, which as I stated, has gravity taking place in the previous universe. In conclusion, this recently discovered phenomenon is of matter being sucked into the other universe through the Black Hole's funneling and having its gravitational element appear in this universe. I only use the stopping of time, to show that it is inconsistent with its own thesis. I do not take the stopping of time as true. If time is stopped - as they claim - then the gravity could not escape. Thus their entire paradigm collapses.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 3, 2019 18:53:25 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective. How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society? The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby. So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives? And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical? I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome. The biggest problem with how people think is that they tend to not really bother. 90% of new ideas are passed across the belief system, whilst the other 10% remain in doubt. Seldom do people apprehend new ideas with reason and/or compare them with what is in fact evident. Where evidence is sought many will just resort to collecting confirmatory evidence that most matches their pre-existing beliefs. And these days the Internet is capable of furnishing just about any crackpot theory with confirmation. People are lazy and like to be safe. This is why the most ridiculous religious ideas have survived for thousands of years. I'm puzzled, though, what you think the word "logic" actually means. Music is not at all about logic. There is no absolute reason why euphonics works. Logic has to ignore culturation, but harmony and euphony tends to be different across time and culture. I can't imagine what a musical syllogism would sound like. I agree with most of what you say at the beginning. But do you think that the internet has the monopoly on bad ideas, and that what people watched on TV back in the day was of better quality? And in the days before TV, then books were of higher quality than TV? I do not think the medium of communication matters at all. The logic of music is on many levels, but the easiest example is beat. If music is out of beat, people find it unpleasant because it does not follow a predictable pattern. Staying in tune requires a more technical explanation, but in its simplest form - if you pick 3 notes like A,G & D, of any octave, then its impossible to make a dissonant sound. (So long as you stay in beat) If you then observe the wave-forms these notes make when combining them, you will easily see how simple and logical those wave-forms are. Of course the best melodies are more complex than this. It would be impossible to describe every detail, and yes there can be artistic use of dissonance to emphasize confusion or sadness. But as can be seen in this thread, when popular ideas are clearly disproved, the knee-jerk reaction is to just throw words around aimlessly in defense of pop-culture.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 3, 2019 22:25:33 GMT
Assumptions are inevitable, like I assume you are not just a bot regurgitating words. But there is a radical difference between questioning assumptions for genuine reasonsand questioning points simply for the sake of filibuster and pedantic argumentativeness. False, because all arguments as proofs are assumptions in and of themselves as their nature of completeness relies on an inherent resonance with the subjective state of the observers. The argument as a proof is deemed complete if it fulfills some percieved internal incongruency within the observer's state of awareness. Take for example a simple mathematical statement presented to a child for the first time: 5+6=? This statement to a small child is fundamentally incomplete and means very little. Its completeness occurs when the relation of +5 and +6 result in a new relation of 11. The child may come about this connection by counting various objects ranging from dots to apples to a concept (which would be rare for a child in this example) such as years. Thus the proof is hinged fundamentally on a connector, which in this case is equals "=". +5 and +6 are one set of relations and so is 11. Both are localizations of a phenomenon where the addition of 5 and 6 may observe an active state of percievable seperate numbers being united and 11 observes a static solid state of the conclusion of them being added. However 5+6 requires the assumption of +5 and +6 from the beginning. 11 is also an assumption...strictly because it is "taken as is". In these respects we observe an assumption leading to a further assumption in such a manner where a connection of assumptions occurs with this connection being the proof. However this proof, which is 5+6=11 in this example, is still an assumption considering it is taken and observed strictly "as is". 5+6=11 must be further assumed through various other examples such as the methodology of counting being applied, the symbolic nature relative to the culture, etc. Thus even 5+6=11 is an incomplete proof relative to a regress to further proofs...ie assumptions. I can take 5 dots and add them to 6 dots and get 11...but it is still the same 1 dot from a seperate angle of awareness considering a dot is a dot is a dot. So it may be argued that what we are observing are 11 dots as 1 dot. Considering these 11 dots from a relative far position to the observer may appear as 1 dot, it may be implied that each dot up close is composed of further dots ad-infinitum so that we are actually observing multiple infinities. Thus even in the methodology of counting a simple statement such as 5+6=11 is both an assumption but also a process of definition. 5+6=11 as a process of definition in itself is just taken without thought and becomes formless in these respects considering the standard methodology of adding 5 and 6 does not take into account the above examples...or in simpler terms we observe 5+6=11 and not 5+6=(1∞,11∞). This process or the means in which we define or "cut out" reality takes on a formless role in these respects as it is grounded in a process of localizing certain key phenomenon or seperating them in such a manner where the act of seperation in and of itself is fundamentally without form (ie a cut in a tomato is strictly nothing in and of itself and can only be observed by the tomatoes as the tomatoes). Let me take the example further. Let us suggest that the gravity escapes the black-hole for reason X. In order for any such escape to occur, events need to unfold in time, but in the black-hole, time has stopped at the event-horizon, which means that all values of X fail as a basic point of logic. The gravity still cannot escape even if it could move at 1 million times light-speed. Time is a process of division as it observes a series of relations of parts. This particulation of phenomenon, ie light in this example you provide, is grounded in an approximation of 1 light source though a large degree of variation where light appears in multiple states relative to "blackness" or an isomorphic state of being relative to the light (but this isomorphism applies to all phenomenon as well). In simpler terms in all isomorphic states one state of the isomorphism acts as an individuator multiplying the other. So black as an isomorphism of white may result in "black" being a unified veil which causes percievably multiple points of white to appear and vice versa. One state of the isomorphism acts as an individuator for the other causing an inherent approximation of a seemingly unified object into multiple parts. The black hole acts as a point of inversion, quite literally, where multiple states of light are inverted to a more unified stream (the black hole "fills up" and shoots out a beam), thus the black hole quite literally is "time itself" where time has not so much "stopped" but is observed strictly as a pure assumptive state as in a simple point (ie the black hole) which is the grounding for all assumptions considering this same point nature of the black hole is the same fundamentally axiomatic grounding for all awareness under the dot itself. . Not enough for you yet? Uhh...not really...no...so to continue on with the above: The dot is the universal axiom which is made evident under its formless/boundless nature when observed on its own terms or its form relative to other dots as "form" requires an inherent symmetry or replication of parts thus requiring a state of multiplicity...ie multiple dots result in forms with these multiple dots fundamentally being a replication of the dot as an inherent self-symmetry. The state of the black hole as spatial void is synonymous to the spiritual state of "ego" (which cause a separation of phenomenon where the individual seeks to rise above others causing "division") or the grounding for a simple point of division in awareness where one memory is separated from another by a "black veil" no different than a point being the cause of individuation of one line into many lines through the number line itself. The black hole takes on a nature of "finiteness" itself in its separative role of light where it may be observed as the condensation of dark matter into a simple point that effectively acts as a means of inverting light into states of one and many. It is a problem of measurement more than anything. Light appears in multiple states at the event horizon and inverts to a more unified state when the black hole "fills ups". It, like all metaphysics of space, is an inversion between the one and the many and in itself is nothing. The black hole is not different than a corner point on a roof that collects many rain drops and condenses them into one stream.How can the a black-hole spin if time stops at the event horizon? Simple the stoppage of time at the event horizon takes on a temporal aspect when compared to another event horizon. The event horizon is a point of inversion conducive, under the term "stoppage", to that of "formlessness". It takes on form relative to another state of formlessness. It is not different than a dot being formless until another formless state appears. The event horizion becomes a finite phenomenon relative to another event horizon and in these respects a comparison can begin to occur. The spin of the black hole is not so much the black hole spinning as the nature of one event horizon being compared to another. One timeless state divided results in time.The alleged black-hole that 'won' the 2017 Nobel prize was said to rotate at 0.6 light-speed. Not possible if time has stopped. More? That 'black-hole' was said to have formed from the merger of a binary pair of black-holes orbiting, each other, then merging. But black-holes that orbit each other have to have event horizons which are also in those orbits. If time stops for something, it cannot move; so such an object could not move at all. I make zero new observations, the assumptions of their observations simply fail due to their own internal logic. Do you think it matters that the highest awards are for blatant junk theory? More? Here: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/proof/proof-against-relativity.htm No. You're just illogical. I suggest you take a course in computer programming. Start by making educational computer games. Once you have been through that rigorous process, you will realize that you cannot spew elephant dung at a processor in the same way that you can type it into a word-processor. ;-j
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 4, 2019 21:30:26 GMT
No. You're just illogical. I suggest you take a course in computer programming. Start by making educational computer games. Once you have been through that rigorous process, you will realize that you cannot spew elephant dung at a processor in the same way that you can type it into a word-processor. ;-j False, computer programming is an assumed axiomated base for what it means to be "logical". ROFL!!! You really believe you can put reality in a box? That is just pure ego. Education is strictly a replication of axioms where the students just repeat the same patterns provided by the teacher. Computing is subject to outside frameworks (ie electrical flow, power surges, material being used, etc.) that effectively set the base grounds for whether a computer works or not. In simpler terms a simple power surge can cause a brief miscalculation and "computing" as a base foundation for "logic" is subject to outside variables that determine whether the system itself (the computer in this case) is logical or not.
A processor is grounded in a basic circular reasoning where a variable "put in" (input), new variables come from it (output), where these variable outputs are strictly variations of the first variable. These new variables are eventually cycled back in thus necessitating computing as a process of looping the same variable through constant variations.
It does not take into account the actual variables being put in, or rather the different variations of the 1 variation of "existence" itself, and as such all base computing is subject to base "assumptions" which in and of themselves are illogical based upon the standard understanding of logic as this "assumptive" base effectively negates modern logic and subjects it fundamentally to universal axioms of point space (the simple dot/boundless field) that set the grounding for consciousness due to there pure "being" or "self-evident" nature.
Space is the universal axiom as evidenced by point space...it cannot be denied or affirmed without using itself.
Add the simple fact, using a computer search engine, the computer is left empirically with making "mistakes" (thus a paradox occurs as I used a computer to show the computer makes mistakes): www.quora.com/Do-computers-make-mistakes
But you claim to be a mystic...you should already know this .
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 7, 2019 17:38:40 GMT
The biggest problem with how people think is that they tend to not really bother. 90% of new ideas are passed across the belief system, whilst the other 10% remain in doubt. Seldom do people apprehend new ideas with reason and/or compare them with what is in fact evident. Where evidence is sought many will just resort to collecting confirmatory evidence that most matches their pre-existing beliefs. And these days the Internet is capable of furnishing just about any crackpot theory with confirmation. People are lazy and like to be safe. This is why the most ridiculous religious ideas have survived for thousands of years. I'm puzzled, though, what you think the word "logic" actually means. Music is not at all about logic. There is no absolute reason why euphonics works. Logic has to ignore culturation, but harmony and euphony tends to be different across time and culture. I can't imagine what a musical syllogism would sound like. I agree with most of what you say at the beginning. But do you think that the internet has the monopoly on bad ideas, and that what people watched on TV back in the day was of better quality? And in the days before TV, then books were of higher quality than TV? I do not think the medium of communication matters at all. The logic of music is on many levels, but the easiest example is beat. If music is out of beat, people find it unpleasant because it does not follow a predictable pattern. Staying in tune requires a more technical explanation, but in its simplest form - if you pick 3 notes like A,G & D, of any octave, then its impossible to make a dissonant sound. (So long as you stay in beat) If you then observe the wave-forms these notes make when combining them, you will easily see how simple and logical those wave-forms are. Of course the best melodies are more complex than this. It would be impossible to describe every detail, and yes there can be artistic use of dissonance to emphasize confusion or sadness. But as can be seen in this thread, when popular ideas are clearly disproved, the knee-jerk reaction is to just throw words around aimlessly in defense of pop-culture. There is no doubt that ideas that were bad in the past had a harder time to get traction and be noticed. You missed the point entirely. If you had a stupid idea, like "music is logical" in the past you would get a s, by anyone who had taken the trouble to learn the definition, and or were in the habit of using formal logic. You'd have been forced to learn what the word means, and dropped the idea. You'd never have had the chance to get my ear for example- a person from an entirely different country and different educational experience. Now your false meme is spreading like a disease. MUSIC has nothing to do with logic. You can bang on about 4/4 time and chords, but logic is absent. You make my point for me.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 7, 2019 17:50:06 GMT
So why are people illogical? You can demonstrate something as true/false, and folks can seem to see the truth, and then you talk to them later and they just revert back to the false perspective. How is it that so many bad ideas perpetuate in society? The problem seems to center around free will, in that if we were not free to be contrary, free to be ignorant, we would all know everything instantly, and the universe would lose its aesthetic texture. We would have lost individuality thereby. So is it reasonable to suggest that illogical thoughts generate aesthetics and creative narratives? And yet, musically, it is logically correct sounds that give us the pleasant harmonies. Or am I just being too logical? I have to admit being a bit unsure of this, so any thoughts are welcome. The biggest problem with how people think is that they tend to not really bother. 90% of new ideas are passed across the belief system, whilst the other 10% remain in doubt. Seldom do people apprehend new ideas with reason and/or compare them with what is in fact evident. Where evidence is sought many will just resort to collecting confirmatory evidence that most matches their pre-existing beliefs. And these days the Internet is capable of furnishing just about any crackpot theory with confirmation. People are lazy and like to be safe. This is why the most ridiculous religious ideas have survived for thousands of years. I'm puzzled, though, what you think the word "logic" actually means. Music is not at all about logic. There is no absolute reason why euphonics works. Logic has to ignore culturation, but harmony and euphony tends to be different across time and culture. I can't imagine what a musical syllogism would sound like. Logic Sold to the Highest BidderThe most destructive ideas are not "crackpot" (which are planted in order to make independent thinking look bad). The established irrationalities such as the Constitution, inheritance, equity, and unpaid education are drummed in to the ruling class's subjects so relentlessly that they are made to seem to be self-evident truths.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 7, 2019 17:53:29 GMT
People are also just influenced by others and maybe just believing whatever their culture, tribe, group believes whether it's wrong or right. It's just a way to fit in or it's a "logic" that was passed down forever and they have convinced themselves that it's true.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 7, 2019 19:12:40 GMT
1) Logic is a tool. We shouldn't use wrenches while cooking. 2) Logic will not be an authority for everyone, even if 100% know that it is true. 2.1) Prime religions had been ruling the place of minds as the central dogma, but its influence came to zero; 2.2) There are some different logic systems. 3) Some have rotten souls.
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 10, 2019 18:41:02 GMT
The biggest problem with how people think is that they tend to not really bother. 90% of new ideas are passed across the belief system, whilst the other 10% remain in doubt. Seldom do people apprehend new ideas with reason and/or compare them with what is in fact evident. Where evidence is sought many will just resort to collecting confirmatory evidence that most matches their pre-existing beliefs. And these days the Internet is capable of furnishing just about any crackpot theory with confirmation. People are lazy and like to be safe. This is why the most ridiculous religious ideas have survived for thousands of years. I'm puzzled, though, what you think the word "logic" actually means. Music is not at all about logic. There is no absolute reason why euphonics works. Logic has to ignore culturation, but harmony and euphony tends to be different across time and culture. I can't imagine what a musical syllogism would sound like. Logic Sold to the Highest BidderThe most destructive ideas are not "crackpot" (which are planted in order to make independent thinking look bad). The established irrationalities such as the Constitution, inheritance, equity, and unpaid education are drummed in to the ruling class's subjects so relentlessly that they are made to seem to be self-evident truths. What is irrational about "unpaid education", by which I assume you mean free education? What you laughingly call the "ruling class' subjects" are the very people who most benefit from free education and are those who most fought to have it become a reality since it has been one of the few ways they have been able to improve themselves. Not sure why are you bleating on about the constitution, and not sure what you mean by equity, but inheritance has been around for thousands of years and is essentially the only way a person can pass their wealth to their progeny rather than the government taking it.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 10, 2019 23:12:39 GMT
Logic Sold to the Highest BidderThe most destructive ideas are not "crackpot" (which are planted in order to make independent thinking look bad). The established irrationalities such as the Constitution, inheritance, equity, and unpaid education are drummed in to the ruling class's subjects so relentlessly that they are made to seem to be self-evident truths. What is irrational about "unpaid education", by which I assume you mean free education? What you laughingly call the "ruling class' subjects" are the very people who most benefit from free education and are those who most fought to have it become a reality since it has been one of the few ways they have been able to improve themselves. inheritance is essentially the only way a person people can pass their wealth to their progeny rather than the government taking it. College Is for Coolies. No Wonder We're Letting China Take Us OverYou have really been brainwashed into spouting illogical propaganda if you try to make us believe that not paying tuition is the same as earning a student salary. That begs the question by assuming that we have to buy our jobs. By that slavish delusion, it follows that our pay is in the form of not having to pay. Students who tell themselves that are teenagers who are afraid to grow up. Graduating is nothing to be proud of; those who are allowed to become rich off that brown-nosing prove they are ashamed of it, or they wouldn't want to save their sons from such a childish, depressing, and insulting experience by giving them an allowance equivalent to having a full-time job. You also assume that those who hire these college slaveboys have the right to demand that we sacrifice for them so they can freeload off our training. That violates all preached Conservative principles, only following what benefits their parasitism and never what prevents them from being parasites. It is no different from the Communists' Five-Year Plans. Guillotine-fodder plutocrats also prove they don't believe in what they preach to the rest of us, because they don't tell their sons to "work their way through college" and live like slackers on part-time low-wage jobs. These liars know perfectly well that the lifestyle that comes from a high allowance gives their spoiled brats an overwhelming psychological advantage over the Unfortunate-Son students. So the university, as it is presently structured, is an obsolete aristocratic institution that deserved to be guillotined long ago. Students may save some of their self-respect if they mercilessly harass and insult the Preppy students and drive them to drop out. As it is, because the other students are just bootlickers and don't matter, college is essentially a way for your Daddy to buy you a job. Since the Daddies of the affluenza-diseased also own the media, they cover up the effect this has on our decaying economy by putting inferior people in superior positions, with the unentitled Diploma Dumbo yes-men contributing to the crash as they beg and crawl their way up to middle management, walking tall by walking all over people. A manly nation, devoid of economic sissies, would demand that leftover wealth go back to the people who contributed to making it, not to heirs who did nothing to earn it. It would substitute for income tax, so you let the fatcat out of the bag by admitting that your cult of Preppyloving economic bullies would rather tax the living than the dead. You also think the dead have the right to pick winners and losers in the next generation, elevating their sons (and recently, their daughters, which is the only goal of Feminism) and boytoys from the unentitled class. They and their fanboys are exactly the clique that Americans emigrated here to escape from, so we are going down by allowing Birth-Class Supremacy to sprout and spread here until we suffocate under its underbrush. Richkids block our way and must be pushed into the gutter where their degenerate dominance always makes their countries slowly slide into. If they have a future, the rest of America doesn't.
|
|
sculptor
Full Member
Posts: 121
Likes: 20
Meta-Ethnicity: Homonid
Ethnicity: Sapiens Sapiens
Country: United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Region: South
Location: Brighton
Ancestry: Homo Sapiens
Taxonomy: Mammalian
mtDNA: From mt EVE
Politics: Left
Religion: None
Relationship Status: MYOB
Hero: My Grandmother
Age: too old
Philosophy: Always
|
Post by sculptor on Jun 11, 2019 16:41:01 GMT
What is irrational about "unpaid education", by which I assume you mean free education? What you laughingly call the "ruling class' subjects" are the very people who most benefit from free education and are those who most fought to have it become a reality since it has been one of the few ways they have been able to improve themselves. inheritance is essentially the only way a person people can pass their wealth to their progeny rather than the government taking it. College Is for Coolies. No Wonder We're Letting China Take Us OverYou have really been brainwashed into spouting illogical propaganda if you try to make us believe that not paying tuition is the same as earning a student salary. ... That is as far as I bothered to read. God help you!
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 11, 2019 22:35:33 GMT
1) Logic is a tool. We shouldn't use wrenches while cooking. 2) Logic will not be an authority for everyone, even if 100% know that it is true. 2.1) Prime religions had been ruling the place of minds as the central dogma, but its influence came to zero; 2.2) There are some different logic systems. 3) Some have rotten souls. And tools are merely extensions of the observer, not things in and of themselves. Logic is strictly definition by nature where "being" itself exists through a process of definition.
|
|