Evolutionary musicology?

Wasn't that actually attaching colors to sounds?

Scriabin & Kandinsky go!

Wasn't that actually attaching colors to sounds?

Scriabin & Kandinsky go!

Not necessarily.

Synesthesia is the act of mixing up sensory input. Taste colors? Hear sound? See smells? All the same basic disorder.

Not necessarily.

Synesthesia is the act of mixing up sensory input. Taste colors? Hear sound? See smells? All the same basic disorder.

Oh. I'm not familiar with the other versions, I guess.

Yes, yes. Sure you do. So does the hobo on the street who claims to be an estranged physicist the government blacklisted when he uncovered the truth of UFOs.

Logically fallacy of equivocation. You're misusing the definition of feel. You're taking highly subjective properties of the word and using them too loosely. Stop it, no one can understand you and it seriously hinders your argument.

Step one: spell supervenient correctly. You're grasping at wild straws here. Conscious experience? That's such a broad term as to necessitate further explanation.

You can't even tell us what you mean by "feel red." You claim to know what you're talking about, but no one here would believe you.

Except we do. A lot.

I don't think you're using the concept of dualism properly. Nothing you've said is necessarily dualistic in nature. You can't explain why "feeling red" is necessarily independent of the physical mechanics of thought and sensation. You claim they're separate, but you can't even form a coherent sentence explaining yourself.

SSC was entirely correct, threads like this open the doors to armchair (pseudo)intellectuals who think they know what they're talking about, but in reality they haven't got a damn clue.

yeah yeah, sure, no one, except dear mister, knows what he's talking about.

but i'll try to explain, maybe it will not work for you, but for myself.

firstly, what i was trying to say was that 'red' as a physical property and 'red' a a mental is of a different kind. though, they might turn out to be two sides of the same (natural) thing. what i mean by ''feel red' is what you and i probably feels when looks at red things (of course, there might be some degree of difference or even inverted spectrum, but the idea is simple). and - of course i cannot explain it to you from third person perspective, that's half of the point.

now, i'm not hardcore dualist and i don't think there are no laws that govern our physical and mental occurrences. except they might be very different from physical laws that govern our behaviour.

the point is that a reductive (physicalist) account of consciousness has not came up with plausible theory of consciousness (at least i do see it that way), and i believe there's plenty of room and a necessity to formulate a nonreductive account of consciousness (which is what i was arguing for).

ok, now i'm going to the street to be a hobo and try to convince some john galt that he lives eating government scraggy :D

?

What?

No, actually, nevermind.

yeah yeah, sure, no one, except dear mister, knows what he's talking about.

On this subject, two people have shown to be able to contribute large amounts to the discussion and another has shown the basic understanding of the subject. Yet another person has contributed large amounts of unintelligible text based largely on tangents that have little bearing on the topic. Guess which one you are.

but i'll try to explain, maybe it will not work for you, but for myself.

Stop right there. If you have any doubt that your explanation may only work for yourself you're failing miserably.

firstly, what i was trying to say was that 'red' as a physical property and 'red' a a mental is of a different kind.

Red as a mental?

though, they might turn out to be two sides of the same (natural) thing. what i mean by ''feel red' is what you and i probably feels when looks at red things (of course, there might be some degree of difference or even inverted spectrum, but the idea is simple).

Who says there exists a "feeling" of red when you look at it? I don't "feel" anything when I see red, I only see a color. There doesn't necessarily exist an emotional counterpart to a physical sensation.

now, i'm not hardcore dualist and i don't think there are no laws that govern our physical and mental occurrences. except they might be very different from physical laws that govern our behaviour.

the point is that a reductive (physicalist) account of consciousness has not came up with plausible theory of consciousness (at least i do see it that way), and i believe there's plenty of room and a necessity to formulate a nonreductive account of consciousness (which is what i was arguing for).

We know a good deal about the brain now and have a pretty good idea of what consciousness is. I saw a lecture given about this at a conference not too long ago wherein a researcher was discussing the possible cause of consciousness being a synergy between the oscillations of some particles across the brain. When you disrupt those with anesthesia, consciousness goes bye-bye. As the amount of knowledge about the brain grows, the ability to maintain a dualistic stance diminishes. Leave philosophy aside, this is purely about the science. Sometimes a reductive explanation is actually a good one, and this is one place where I see it being beneficial.

ok, now i'm going to the street to be a hobo and try to convince some john galt that he lives eating government scraggy :D

Eh, if you knew where my name came from, you'd know that's impossible. :D

Would you kindly....

;P

I saw a lecture given about this at a conference not too long ago wherein a researcher was discussing the possible cause of consciousness being a synergy between the oscillations of some particles across the brain. When you disrupt those with anesthesia, consciousness goes bye-bye. :D

i will not respond to other objections you made, because simply i don't have enough energy as for now (i will make another thread to discuss matters on philosophy of mind - just to let ssc go on with neuromusicology), but

i know about these oscillations, it's actually what francis crick and christof koch have hypothesized as a source of consciousness, to be more certain - it's 40-hertz oscillations. the simple (dualist) answer and question to this is - why these oscillations give rise to conscious experience? what is it that makes them do that? do you think anything like physical powers has to do something with ''it looks red''? to quote the same koch - ''the subjective state of seeing blue, of smelling rose - there seems to be a HUGE jump between materialistic level, of explaining molecules and neurons, and the subjective level.'' what these 40-hertz oscillations account for is that there is something (some chain of functional events) in our brain that let's the brain support conscious experience. it doesn't say that consciousness is (or is caused by) 40 hertz oscillations. because - if you make some specific neuron firings happen in a test tube they won't cause conscious experience.

ok, it seems i'v gone to far.if have enough faith in young composers, i will start topic on consciousness.

and for those who think it's already explained, believe me (and david chalmers, and colin mcginn and even dennet), it's far from it.

i know about these oscillations, it's actually what francis crick and christof koch have hypothesized as a source of consciousness, to be more certain - it's 40-hertz oscillations.

I've heard it cited as 111 hz - much of the conciousness-raising note "literature" is questionable...

BTW, that was the first link for 111 Hz Meditation on google, its not the link that I originally saw.

Don't you all know that the most magical frequency of all in 420hz and it's respective octaves?