Bear with me. Music has order- sense to it that normal "sounds don't have.The brain subconsciously percieves and ponders the order without the help of the conscious mind-when this happens, pleasure is created, like any other instance of the body or brain doing something by itself without conscious thought. Like laughter, in which the subconscious ponders something that is illogical (and creates pleasure) or sex, in which the body is doing something instinctive without the help of the conscious mind.......

I'm going to come back and read this thread sometime, but not tonight as it's already too late for me to be up.

I'm just going to throw this out, because I think about this stuff too.
OK, I study theory sometimes, and sometimes I just try to play.  Occasionally, when I'm getting deep into modes, and "target" notes, and "altered" notes, and playing "outside", and chord substitutions, and how to apply all that, and trying to "think" about music, I have an epiphany (OK, a recurring epiphany, since it happens whenever I get theoretical). 

And it goes like this: "Did the early blues guys know this stuff?"  The answer, of course, is always "no."   So then I ask, "why the hell is it important then?"  See, the blues moves me like nothing else, and all that music comes out of their soul, not their head.

Just my humble opinion,
sunburststrat

that's a very valid point!  some of the ledgends came out of nothing!

as entheon will surely say at some point in the near future, knowing this stuff can certainly help you improve upon existing methods, so it IS important in that light.

if you're looking to break though and do something compeletely new, then of course you can't read text books to find out how to do it.

i may have more thoughts on this later, but i've got to go home now   later everyone!

You can't possibly say that music comes "out of the soul, not the head". The soul one speaks of contains emotion, and emotion is really a manifestation of logical thought. Even if someone who is "mathematically correct and logical" does not write music as well as someone of the opposite traits, it does not refute the use of logic in music. Logic is the only operation in music, but there are different types of logic. The mathematically correct and logical one has high usage of left brain logic, which only determines individual pieces to its satisfaction, and looks at things in an analytical fashion. This is good to have, but some musical elements, such as the I - IV - V - I chord progression are totally against the left brain logic, as IV - V is not a valid chord change. Things like that rely on greater intuition and to realize that IV can be extended as IIm, and therefore makes some amount of sense, and the determination of the whole to realize that the V is necessary to resolve to the I. All of this is a new type of logic, that is entirely unguided by emotion.

Music comes out of the soul, not the head...

there...

I said it...

Impossible to say? I think not... certainly impassable for some of the more enslaved minds among us... but not impossible

as for this:

emotion is really a manifestation of logical thought

huh, that's interesting... then how come emotion has the ability to skew logical thought to the point where it doesn't work anymore? that doesn't seem like a logical thing for a logical thought to create... seems to me we've got a little Catch-22 here...

how come my emotions can be affected by the sun rise... how come my emotions can be affected by drugs... how come my emotions can be affected by religion... how come my emotions can be affected by the government... how come I can evoke and invoke my own emotions at will... how come my emotions can be affected by the perception of beauty... beauty is IMO not a logical computation process... how come the centers for emotional processing and the related hormone secretion in our brains are (from what i understand, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong but i beleive nicu has already covered this) rather distinct from and much older than the more recently developed intellectual cortexes... no math problem in the world has ever made me feel the intensity of emotion which has been brought about by love and hate... and I enjoy math

by the way XenoX where the f8ck do you get your information? by what system do you determine who's who and what's what in the world of music which allows you to claim that some of the most well known and most often used chord progressions constitue what you claim to be not a valid chord change...

allow me to *ahem* *ahem* *ahhchhaaaBULLshfhaheemit* *cough* *ahem*

ok XenoX lets see... the phrase "pulled it out of my arse" comes to mind... as does "totally arbitrary"

apparently you know your modes... apparently you've studied your theory... but where do you get your data, or how do you come up with your data regarding what is valid/not or right/not in the world of harmony and chord changes

if it sounds right, man... it's right... that's all there is to it... I use theory as a tool to help me compose faster by pointing out which things are similar or semi-closely related to what i'm playing vs/compared to what i want... or even to point out which things are different... simply to point out the ways in which things are related whether similar or different...

when you declare things "invalid" that essentially sort of declares them as off limits... so i say wtf? why do that? you're just restricting yourself... the only good i can forsee coming of that is less creative music...

in the world of music nothing is off limits...

playing a dominant with a major seventh seems to be "invalid" by your book and certainly is seen as unconventional if not invalid by The Book... i don't mean to speak for you, i can only infer, but it seems that based on some of the other much more simple items you have presented as invalid that this would easily qualify... there's no existing symbol for it... it's not in any way standard harmony, not expressable in standard terms... it contains 3 notes each a half-step apart... yet there's a place for it

if you don't beleive me look it up:

http://carl.ript.net/wp/index.php?p=9

i've heard it more than once... i play it myself sometimes... i love it

tritones were once a death sentence in the dark ages... haven't we come far enough to quit harboring predjudice within ourselves for what contitutes correct or valid musical harmony? just cuz we can't name it doesn't mean it's not valid... just cuz it doesn't follow the perfect mathematical rules that we'd like to beleive this universe is made of doesn't keep it from existing... lets expand our conciousness to form a place for every one of these musical structure concepts...

in that way our world grows only larger, richer and more fruitful... there is no limit

in the reverse method, the method of elimination, our universe grows only smaller and more restrictive, less interesting and more predictable... there is a limit to this method and we CAN reach it if we start to push the limits of this method (a natural tendency in most humans, to push the limits of things)...

well, the limit is zero and it is attainable - i've never known a human who wouldn't reach for some sort of goal... this method gives us a target... and a target is just begging to be hit ...

once we've denounced every musical structure as being invalid... there is no more music left...

what then?

first off...

the rules of music are meant to be broken.  thats the whole purpose behind music.  every different culture has different sets of rules and ideas behind their music and alter standard theory slightly to suit their own ideas of what music they prefer.  to say we must stay within certain limits is completely rediculous.  as entheon said, it would render all music from now on completely useless as it would all be the same and lack the main purpose behind music...creativity.  yea music is mainly a left brain activity, as i believe i stated in more detail in a previous post, and yes musicians have some more highly developed areas which help them along in the musical process.  but i also dont believe that is the "only" reason we process music.  its just a very important part of it.  in my opinion, from studying both music and psychology, its foolish not to say both the brain and "being" play important roles.  i know some refuse to really acknowledge the full purpose of brain functioning in music perception and appreciation, but thats opinion, and whats right to some  people is just right to some people.  but i really believe to say "only" one or "only" the other, is just rediculous.  i mean there are machines (which some people i understand dont find relevant), that can study brain activity, and pretty clearly show the brains response to music as well as pretty much every sensory response.  so obviously the brain plays a vital role in this process.

now, this part of my post im going to say is more of a question then anything else, so please regard it as just that.  a question, and not my attempt to "prove" anything or push my opinion of what occurs on anyone.

as ive said before, i completely agree with the idea of both the "soul" and the brain and its chemicals, and that we are made up of chemicals, or "meat" as weve been referring to.  but, were does this soul come in?  i mean we are born from sperm (strictly chemicals, i dont believe each sperm has its own soul or "being") and an egg, which is the same, just chemicals.  they meet, undergo several processes, cells multiply etc, etc. (the whole process in detail isnt really necessary in my point).  so basically, chemicals meet, combine, form new chemicals, and multiply, thus in the end creating the fetus, which as we all know become us.  so in this sense, its hard to argue that we come from strictly chemicals, and that the brain starts from strictly chemicals.  my question is, where does this "soul" or being come into action.  in my opinion, its nowhere in the process of birth.  i guess what im trying to say is, we are born as chemicals, and once we are born, we start to become "ourselves" or "individuals" by that whole nature vs. nurture deal, which is another endless argument for some that i dont think we need to get into.  so in a sense, doesnt this "soul" come from our perception in the world as it happens to us from birth.  and as "chemical beings", dont a lot of these senses since birth and how we precieve all of the senses play an important role in the formation of our "soul" or "individual".

now i understand you might not all agree with this, but my ultimate question is again, where does this "soul" come into affect or where does it come from?

i'll admit that i didn't quite follow the logic behind the two posts above me, but i certainly had the same thoughts as entheon when this was said:

XenoX - emotion is really a manifestation of logical thought

certainly some emotions can be triggered by (and be an apparent reflection of) logical thought patterns, but as i stuck my neck out and said, i believe in a particual portion of us that i called a soul.  this is where i believe our personality "dwells", if you will.  together with the idea that i hold to, that science is an emulating language for what really does exist, i can't possibly just bow down and accept the idea that all emotion comes from logic, as i believe that "logic" is another scientific word that we use to try to classify things that "make sense".

i'm not refuting the fact that logic exists, by any means.  i just want to express the idea that i can't believe something like "emotion is really a manifestation of logical thought" as a general blanket-statement.

qualify this statement if you wish, and i may change my outlook on what you have said.

but i can't accept that as is.

the reason why i can't accept this is that everyone who seems to come to me with the thought that science and logic are the governing themes of life, the universe, and emotion... these people all take such an objective outlook on existance, i think.

science in it's current application in society is far too objective for my taste.  i can use it and attempt to have it emulate what i am actually percieving, but "understanding" is something that is far more subjective, rather than objective.  it's different for everybody. yes, it's a series of connections made by the person's brain and whatever, but there's more to it than the "meat", the human body, just processing electrons.  that's where i think the soul comes in.  but i don't want to rehash the whole thing and distract from the current points at hand.

anyway, this leads me to second the motion that entheon just made.  we can't just simply sign a waver to the idea that emotion does not "guide" the mechanics of music, because music itself is subjective by it's very application in human beings!

emotion may not have necesarily played a part in your basic assembly of the chord progression, but certainly it played a part in the original concept that made you begin the assembly.

and how is it that a person can perfectly assemble the chord progressions (such as one that you have demontrated in your post) and then expect that every person among your audience was intrigued by it?  people like music.  some people don't like the same kind of music.  is there a logical explanation for that?  i'd love to see some science report done on a person who DIDN'T like the music, and to see what freakin chemical the brain has an apparent "imblanace" of that caused their dislike.

music is more than just the assembly thereof.  "music" is the dream, the making, the performance, and the perception.  ... and consequently, i cannot bring myself to accept the idea that all of is "entirely unguided by emotion."

don't smack a label on what "music" is, because everybody you talk to will have a different idea, and thus your label will be "invalid" to them, just as our you tried to demonstrate that the emotional view of music is invalid.

don't be so scientific and logical about it.  i don't have a clue about a single chord progression.  i understand the ideas and theories behind them, but i don't sit down and think about a chord progression.  i search for the sound that is most in tune with what my emotion is.

i'm not interested in demonstrating my ability to make a I - IV - V - I progression.  i'm a bit more interested in trying to convey my emotion.  i'm not saying that's the way it is for everybody, but that's my take on it.  i have a very "stream of consciousness" voice in my music.  i don't give a flying rip what chord progression it uses, so long as it's doing it's job from my standpoint.

perhaps "it's job" means something different to you, in which case, i stand in respect for that view point.  but i still wish to say that even the assembly of the music is guided by emotion.




k, now i wanna say something about nicu24's post...

as you said, there's not much room for arguement about the fact that we come into existance by the way of chemicals.

i view ourselves in a way that is rather simplistic, and like every analogy, it has it's techinical problems, but i wish to share it anyway as a way of percieving what you have asked.

i would think of our bodies, the "meat," as something that is being crafted from the begining of our being concieved.  i htink of it like a car or an aircraft.  now, obviously, the airplain has no life in it whatsoever anyway, and would be capable of nothing even after assembly if it weren't for the person that pilots the machine.

i think our bodies are fairly similar.  i think that our bodies are the vessels in which our spirits pilot, in a sense.  without our spirits, the body would not function, because it has no pilots.  it's still capable of perception of data, but it has no interpreter on the inside to make up it's mind, so to speak.  without a pilot, an airplane has all of it's intruments still in tact.  it's certainly not broken... all of the stuff still works, but without the pilot, nothing happens.  again, this is the way i think of our body / spirit connection

as for when such a partnership truely begins... nobody can just lay it down on the table and say "hey this is how it is."  it's my beliefe though that the spirit becomes part of the body shortly before the actual birth process.  when exactly??  i cannot say, because i was too young to remember it first hand   but since (as i explained in a previous post) i think that our existance is more dimensional than just the 3 basics taht we tend to percieve with our eyes, a spirit could come and pair itself with our body at any time since it wouldn't really need a cleared area in order just push itself into the body

anyway, that's my thought.  i'm not sure if that exactly hits it on the head for you, in terms of my opinion, but hey. i tried.

huh, that's interesting... then how come emotion has the ability to skew logical thought to the point where it doesn't work anymore? that doesn't seem like a logical thing for a logical thought to create... seems to me we've got a little Catch-22 here...

I'm going to assume you didn't look up the definition of logic, because if you had, it would have surely ruined a whole half of your argument. I quickly googled a definition, and found one I liked:

"Logic is the the process whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones."

Logic can contradict itself. Take two ENTIRELY logical pieces of work, classical physics and quantum physics. Both follow extremely concise logic, but are contradictory in many points. So, we take both of these theories and utilize them where needed. Similarly, extreme hate for broccoli can overcome the urge to eat healthy. Both have true logical arguments: I hate broccoli because it tastes bad, and shall not eat it hence, or, I love broccoli because it keeps me healthier, and shall eat it hence. Your logic is action, my logic can be either action or passion. Your logic isn't what I had explained my ideas around.

And don't argue me about "action" vs. "passion". Look it up if you don't know.


by the way XenoX where the f8ck do you get your information? by what system do you determine who's who and what's what in the world of music which allows you to claim that some of the most well known and most often used chord progressions constitue what you claim to be not a valid chord change...

By valid chord change, I was referring to the left brain's point of view, so to speak.  As I had said earlier, "Things like that rely on greater intuition and to realize that IV can be extended as IIm, and therefore makes some amount of sense, and the determination of the whole to realize that the V is necessary to resolve to the I.". There is logic behind that chord progression, but logic which requires an insight to the reason behind following different logic.

playing a dominant with a major seventh seems to be "invalid" by your book and certainly is seen as unconventional if not invalid by The Book... i don't mean to speak for you, i can only infer, but it seems that based on some of the other much more simple items you have presented as invalid that this would easily qualify... there's no existing symbol for it... it's not in any way standard harmony, not expressable in standard terms... it contains 3 notes each a half-step apart... yet there's a place for it

I've got to say, what you just showed me is really cool. It's a very interesting *coughlogicalcough* look at the validity of the three semitone chord. But you present it in a way which is flawed, as one, my definition of a true musical scale is only a guiding principle, which can be relaxed to allow other things which do not fall by the principle, and is not a strict law as you made it out to be. See it as an instruction guide to building a house. Obviously, there's going to be things not covered in the guide. There might be a small hole where the living room should be, but you can stray from the ideals in the guide. Move the living room to the back of the house instead of the front, or fill up the hole by adding a cellar. Flexibility is key. Two, I'll quote the article in saying"To sum that up, we may not be hearing dom7+maj7, but instead a minor chord + a bVI7 chord.". You said the harmony could not be expressed in standard musical terms, but it just was. I'll admit that I did not think of this possibility in my theory of musical scales, but I'll conclude that my theory was not a law, and that we're not even speaking of scales but of chords. Ultimately, you mistook my ideas for laws, and that was a bad assumption to make. Remember that little ditty about the word "assume"? I think you do.


I'm going to skip over repeating arguments for further posts.


as entheon said, it would render all music from now on completely useless as it would all be the same and lack the main purpose behind music...creativity.

Alone, by the most simple of musical rules that exist, the number of possibilities are endless. Even the most basic of rules will yield many possibilities. Think of how many songs were composed long enough ago that classical music rules were still strict. Their chord progressions were varied, and that doesn't even delve into how many time signatures, key signatures, tempos, motifs, and such there were. I'm not even suggesting that my rules be followed completely, in fact quite the opposite, and the possibilities under even my PARTIAL set of rules are almost innumerable.


now i understand you might not all agree with this, but my ultimate question is again, where does this "soul" come into affect or where does it come from?

After reading your statements before this question, I was impressed at your analysis at chemical being and soul. However, I am tempted to disagree entirely with the existence of soul at all. I am not speaking of the fictitious recognized in blues, when one musician would say to another, "play it with more soul". That soul, and maybe even the one you acknowledge, are really the shifting of the musical incorporation of the brain to the right, playing from experience, without the almost imperceptable tendency to hesitate and play without the perfect feel accomplished otherwise. I do not believe in souls, rather that what most believe as a soul is really just a ever growing contemplation of experience, as any two things that occur within reasonable margin, or within reasonable importance, form a link within the vast bundles of neurons, and whenever one is thought of, the other is activated, which may or may not lead to different actions on part of the body.

Also, if you believe in souls, then does a soul carry memory? If you agree, then what about people in car accidents that lose long term memory, or people with amnesia? Did whatever affect them cause them to lose part of their souls? Does a soul carry sensory perception? If you agree, then what about people who are blind, or deaf? Are they missing parts of their souls? If you agree to all the questions I could ask, then what is a soul? Nothingness? That is why I don't believe in souls.


i believe in a particual portion of us that i called a soul.  this is where i believe our personality "dwells", if you will.

Personality is logical, in it's own way. I have a really bad habit of saying "I'll be honest..." before saying something of typical importance. This stems from when I first thought of saying that, and a friend of mine said, "That sounded quite stupid". I annoyed him for a while by repeating that before every sentence. Then it stuck. It's now part of my personality due to correct logical function. I also have a tendency of getting angry over liberal/conservative political matters. I have a logical reason for that too, that most people are too ignorant to even argue about them, or at least to acknowledge a point. All of this constitutes my personality, none of it soul.

i believe that "logic" is another scientific word that we use to try to classify things that "make sense".

Things make sense in the strangest of ways. For example, can you explain the photoelectric effect? I barely can. Our common sense tells us it is implausible, but logic makes it work through abstract and difficult principles. Almost anything can be said to be logical in this way, even emotion.

science in it's current application in society is far too objective for my taste.

Isn't that what science is supposed to be? Without objectiveness, Newton would have never pondered the apple falling from the tree. He would have thought that it was meant to happen, and gravity may have never been discovered.

i can use it and attempt to have it emulate what i am actually percieving, but "understanding" is something that is far more subjective, rather than objective.

Understanding is finally ascertaining the knowledge of the logic used behind a situation. You may see the formula c=pi*2r and say, "that makes no sense". But looking closer, you see that 2r is really the diameter, and that pi is really the amount of times the diameter fits around the circumference. This is understanding based on logic. Some understanding requires deeper logic, like music. You may not even conciously understand it, but somewhere in the recesses of your mind, your brain uses logic to decipher it. Subjectiveness is complicated logic.


anyway, this leads me to second the motion that entheon just made.  we can't just simply sign a waver to the idea that emotion does not "guide" the mechanics of music, because music itself is subjective by it's very application in human beings!

Emotion does not guide music because music relationships are mathematical in form. The information for musical understanding is drawn from the neurons, not from emotion. Emotion is just the consequence of certain neurons firing. Happiness does not cause you to hit an F, an A, and a C. This principle is guided by the left brain neurons deciding that these notes would fit mathematically. This may stem from the same neurons emotion does, but it is not emotion.

emotion may not have necesarily played a part in your basic assembly of the chord progression, but certainly it played a part in the original concept that made you begin the assembly.

Of course. But whether or not you choose to make a sad song or a happy song due to emotion does not guide whether you decide to do a descending bass line theme or a typical circle pattern one.

and how is it that a person can perfectly assemble the chord progressions (such as one that you have demontrated in your post) and then expect that every person among your audience was intrigued by it?

Logic differs from person to person. I may like it more or less, but it still remains that our mind makes sense of it.

Continued from previous post...


I actually don't like that chord progression at all. It's too simple. I've heard it to many times. My neurons are tired of that. In fact, I really don't like too many simple chord progressions. I like Thelonious Monk. He uses progressions that are new to me, and are harder to compute. However, I still recognize the dissonance, harmony, and resolution of the I - IV - V - I chord progression.

i'd love to see some science report done on a person who DIDN'T like the music, and to see what freakin chemical the brain has an apparent "imblanace" of that caused their dislike.


Ooh, sarcasm.

music is more than just the assembly thereof.  "music" is the dream, the making, the performance, and the perception.

The dream, the making, the performance, and the perception all are logical. Each one has nearly predictable consequences as to whether it goes to the fourth, or the third. But this is uncharacterized by emotion.

don't smack a label on what "music" is, because everybody you talk to will have a different idea, and thus your label will be "invalid" to them, just as our you tried to demonstrate that the emotional view of music is invalid.

That's like saying you can't smack a label on soft drinks in general because some people don't think some are sweet enough, or because they don't like them. Of course music will forever defy definition, but isn't that what this thread is about, defining music, coming up with a base pattern, a philosophy of music? Does your statement mean I'm free to say your view is invalid? I think it is, but does that make it not so? If not, then why not for mine?

don't be so scientific and logical about it.  i don't have a clue about a single chord progression.  i understand the ideas and theories behind them, but i don't sit down and think about a chord progression.  i search for the sound that is most in tune with what my emotion is.

That's not true. Your logic stems from your sound that is most in tune with what you feel like it should be. Really, what you feel like it should be is your subconscious deciding, "should it be a happy step? or a sad step? maybe we should make it complex, and complicated, like jazz... or maybe a steady, but interesting flatted fifth substitute. For the sound i hear in my head, the correct answer is sad step, let's do that...".

perhaps "it's job" means something different to you, in which case, i stand in respect for that view point.  but i still wish to say that even the assembly of the music is guided by emotion.

I think our conversation is inherently inaccurate, as I think that when you have an emotion, and want to write a song about it, you have precharacterized emotions for set songs. You may think "Hey Jude" is sad, so you drag a little of those chord progressions into your head, and ponder them. But whether or not those chords alone are sad or not for you don't matter. I can think of five songs that I feel are "sad", and use chord progressions from them to make a happy sounding song. I'll name them too...

- Tune Up (Miles Davis) Em7 - A7 - Dmaj7
- Take Five (Dave Brubeck) Dorian Mode
- Bemsha Swing (Thelonious Monk) Cmaj7 - Am7- Abmaj7
- Somewhere Over The Rainbow Fmaj7 - Fm7
- Goodbye Porkpie Hat (Charles Mingus) Adim (Am7 in this case) - Ebm7

Em7 - A7 - Dmaj7 - Bm7 - Bbmaj7 - Bbm7

This does not sound sad at all. Don't believe me? Try it out. It actually sounds really like strange and twisted, much unlike the plain nature of many of the songs on there. Thanks for the inspiration. And thanks for not having your cranial cavity in the other cavity that kind of rhymes with it. 

This article is entitled

"Say it again sam!" or "How many times can you say the same thing?"

by the way XenoX don't ever assume anything. as for your cough cough logical cough cough comment: I never said I was not a highly logical person, I love logic in fact. I'm quite familiar with the definition of logic and I've studied it rather in depth. I know what a syllogism is and I know what constitutes the valid syllogistic path of reasoning etc etc etc.

Logic is the the process whereby new assertions are produced from already established ones.

Exactly! key phrase: Already established ones. Then we have to keep asking ourselves, from what were THOSE conclusions established. Eventually we reach the chicken and the egg connundrum. Because it is the already established assertions which make logic work. Without already established assertions logic has nothing on which to operate. Logic cannot create assertions it can only connect them. Thats it. Logic connects things, it does not create them. Without things to connect, logic is useless. We must create our own assertions first, test them for truth, and then and only then can we proceed to use them amongst logically valid structures to find new connections between these already established ideas. Q.E.D. it is rather impossible for logic to contradict itself because valid logic is valid logic, end of story. Once logic is valid the only thing we have left on which to hinge our arguments is the truthful basis of the assertions made.

So... no. Logic cannot contradict itself. Logically valid structures are logically valid. That quantum physics usese logically valid structure does not deem the logical structure of general relativity to be invalid. The conclusions arrived at are what contradict each other, not the logic. As I've said already, one can debate logic very successfully but one will have a very difficult time debating truth. Truths can contradict each other. Logically valid thought patterns are still logically valid.

By the way... where in my last post did I attempt any argument relating to "action vs. passion" because I don't recall doing so nor do I see it. Apparently you have again assumed and taken the liberty of applying a label to me which you don't have any real knowlegable basis for the application therof. Apparently you are claiming to know what "my logic" is which would imply that there are multiple versions of logic. Even if there is such a thing as "my" logic, I in fact think you are incorrect as I would consider my logic in my world is neither action nor passion. I think what you refer to is the originating root ideas from which logic proceeds: the assertions. And yes, any root idea is fair game, because if the logic is valid the logic is valid regardless of if the idea from which it stems is true or not. Therefor you could stem a logical flow from two contradictory ideas which come from passion and arrive at differing conclusions. The logic is still valid, but the conclusions may contradict. This is my point. I'll illustrate.

The classic validly correct syllogism of logic:

    If all humans (B's) are mortal (A), (major)
    and all Greeks (C's) are humans (B's), (minor)
    then all Greeks (C's) are mortal (A). (conclusion)

for the logic to be correct the flow must be correct... B to A, C to B, thus C to A... any other flow is invalid logic.

    If one who wants to be healthy (B's) will eat brocolli (A), (major)
    and I (C's) am one who wants to be healthy (B's), (minor)
    then I (C's) will eat brocolli (A). (conclusion)

    If something that tastes bad (B's) is brocolli (A), (major)
    and I (C's) won't eat something that tastes bad (B's), (minor)
    then I (C's) won't eat brocolli (A). (conclusion)

The contradiction does not occur in the logical flow it occurs in the truth of the premises. These thought patterns are in fact both technically logically valid afaik, though I'm only human and prone to error... however based on the two brocolli statements which XenoX presented, these would be the underlying logical arguments. It is their conclusions that are contradictory, not their logic, and that was my point. What I mean to say is that there is no My Logic and there is no Your Logic, there is one logic, there are many beginning premises. It is these premises which we must debate. De-bunking logically invalid arguments is the easy thing to do. De-bunking untruths is the difficult thing to do. If truth were as evident as logic then holy wars would not exist. Each religion has premises from which it stems. If you've got book which tells you the truths of the universe and then you are able to draw logically sound conclusions from those truths, and another person has a different book with different truths and he draws logically valid conclusions from those truths... who is right and who is wrong? My answer is simple. No one. In fact everyone is right but that doesn't mean one must accept both or even either of the conclusions. In the brocolli example what if one realizes the conundrum. Well... one must find what is more true. Perhaps one does wish to be healthy yet to them brocolli tastes bad. One might hold both originating premises to be true, yet one must decided which truth has more weight. I always seem to manage finding ways around contradictory conclusions... for example:

"I know brocolli will make me healthy but can't stand the taste so I eat peas instead"

or

"I know brocolli will make me healthy and I hate the taste but I just eat it anyway cuz it's good for me"

I've known enough people in my life to see both of these solutions put into effective motion and used to satisfy the great brocolli conundrum. Which person is more right? To me the person who is more right is the person who has accepted the connundrum and gone on with their lives using an effective solution. The person who is more wrong is the one stuck, like a computer, in an infinite loop saying "but, but, but, but, but" and flip flopping between the two conclusions simply because they both contain equally valid logic. It's not the logic that matters, it's the value judgement of the original assertions. Effectively speaking: truth is ultimately a value judgement. More specifically truth is an evaluation of importance of data. This evaluation of importance is truth when it provides the most number of solutions to the most number of areas of life under which it is subject. In this manner truth is a sliding scale. Some things are more true than others. That brocolli is good for you is more true in some ways than it is in others. That brocolli is good for your health might be true... that brocolli is good for your taste buds (and thus your psychological health) might be false.

Both options seem to be perfect solutions in my world and I'm sure there are perhaps other solutions as well. You see, simply because the conclusions of logic contradict each other does not make the logic invalid. In fact, I think that contradicting conclusions are the why logic exists and also why it serves a purpose and also, just like TonightsLastSong's ideas concerning musical interpretation... that contradictory conclusions are a thing of beauty to be held in regard. If there were only one conclusion to be drawn from any topic in the universe there would be no need for logic in the first place and thus logic would not serve much of a useful purpose. Besides, if there were only one conclusion to be drawn then there wouldn't be much of a reason to live because IMO we'd know it all already. Even if we didn't know it all and there were only one set of conclusions to draw, then we could simply follow the yellow brick road of logical thought until we arrived at enlightenment or heaven or where ever it is supposed to take us.

Well, there's been brough up the question of a soul now and what it is and whatnot. I knew it was only a matter of time before this topic crept up, but I'm glad it did because to me it is an important consideration in the realm of philosophy.

WARNING WARNING: Armchair philosophy is and has been going on for some time now on this thread. If you only accept authoritative sources for your philosophic ideas please consult your physician and preist before reading any further!

First of all, for the purposes of clarity, I will be defining a soul as that classical concept of what it is. Some sort of invisible infinitely small entity which is not actually made of physical energy or matter but which does posess conciousness and also that souls do exist.

So... what do I have to say about it? Well... I do consider all the questions which have been posed very worthwhile. Nicu proposed something like exactly WHEN does this soul combine with the chemistry.

If I had to take a stab at that... my guess would be that it merges with the chemicals approximately at the time at which it realizes that the survival potential of the vehicle has acheived an ample balance and stability. My guess at when this is would be approximately right after the sperm which won the race has won the race and actually merged with the egg. I mean, if I was a soul looking for a new vehicle, that's approximately when I'd consider it viable for use. After all, as nicu pointed out, the survival potential of a solitary sperm is rather appalling. In fact my guess is that one has a better chances of winning at the track than one does gambling on sperm riding. However, once a sperm and an egg have fused, the survival potential of that chemical system is now extremely high and will in fact more than likely increase. This is, obviously disregarding unfortunate mitigating circumstaces such as premature termination for whatever reason. This last statement obviously borders on the abortion debate but as I've said once before I absolutely do not want this thread to turn into an abortion debate. If you care, suffice it to say I have views on the topic which I will not express here but which you may be able to garner if you care enough to send my a private message. Anyway.

This theory of maximum and balanced vehicle survival viability seems like a good one to me. There is however another theory which I have come accross which seems to be a plausible one. It does require a bit more acceptance of some metaphysical concepts.

There is a theory which has been proposed which I beleive actually follows quite naturally in line with the desire for linkage between the concepts of chemistry and spirituality. This theory states that a soul actually enters the body 49 days after conception. From what I understand, it is at this time when there is an initial release of a rather massive quantity of Di-Methyl Triptamine from the pineal gland in the brain. This release of DMT as it is called is thought to act as and be responsible for "kick starting" the fetus into actual life, rather than remain in a state of wrote cell multiplication. Sort of like turning the key in the ignition. It is at this juncture when the limbs are tested for motor controll and it is after this point at which the baby is able to and begins to kick and move about.

The pineal gland has in fact been termed the "seat of the soul" by some. In classical Buddhist understanding, after death and prior to re-birth one must walk through a number of other realms or planes of existence known as the "Bardos" during which one will undergo various trials and tribulations. This process is supposed to take exactly 49 days to complete. Thus these numbers seem to corollate. Truth? You decide. Interesting theory for sure.

what most believe as a soul is really just a ever growing contemplation of experience, as any two things that occur within reasonable margin, or within reasonable importance, form a link within the vast bundles of neurons, and whenever one is thought of, the other is activated, which may or may not lead to different actions on part of the body

hmm... and we arrive yet again at the theory of meat... which I disagree with entirely but I respect your opinion. logically I have no real issues with it. it is not however truth for me.

does a soul carry memory?

yes, it is often called Karma by some. I just call it memory.

If you agree, then what about people in car accidents that lose long term memory, or people with amnesia?

Your logic in this carries some unseen assertions which I don't think logically fit together. In one respect this asserts that a soul and memory are distinct and separate entities, and in one sense it asserts that a soul is the same thing as memories or that a soul is actually nothing but a stack of memories. It all comes down to these initial assertions. This is the realm in which logic works wonders. Whenever one sees a statement such as "if this then that" or "since blah all blurpies must blink" we are dealing with logic, and whenever we deal with logic there is always some sort of assertion being made from which the conclusions stem. In fact, there are multiple assertions.

Essentially we are assuming here that the soul carries memory AND that memory can actually be lost erased or destroyed in the first place AND we are assuming that a soul is actually just a pile of memory or perhaps simply a memory shelf, a memory container... and not some more intelligent concious creature. In which case if we asserted that a memory is a soul or that a soul is just memories, then if you don't beleive in souls then you don't beleive in memory either, obviously this is only true when we are also asserting that something called a soul does exist because this could be prooven logically invalid if souls do not exist. Here we are yet again in the realm of assertions, and remember that for the purposes of my argument I am asserting that a soul is a real and existing entity. Memory seems to be rather obvious and evident as a real existential fact of life to me. I don't think memory can actually ever be lost, I simply view it to be inaccessible. Just because a brain does not have direct and immediate access to a memory doesn't mean that memory does not exist. For illustration: there is a concept known as "repressed memories" in which a memory is not destroyed but merely inaccessible.

Did whatever affect them cause them to lose part of their souls?

no, because it's not lost, it's just inaccessible. By that token, then if re-incarnation is a real fact then we've infact been loosing parts of our souls for millions of years. In this manner of logic, living a life and experiencing time would (probably) equate rather directly to the size and growth of a soul and thus each live would make our souls grow larger and smaller larger and smaller. I don't feel this to be true. I don't think a soul ever enlargens in size. If a soul were able to increase or decrease in size then in that way, even, you'd never loose your soul because you'd always be in a constant balanced flux of sorts wherein your soul never looses all of it's "mass" and never gains infinite mass either. This is also assuming that a soul has some sort of mass anyway, or that memory is the same thing as a soul. If a soul contains memory and memory is actually in fact destructable I don't think that would automatically equate the loss of memory with the loss of soul. Memory and soul are two distinct items in this case.

Does a soul carry sensory perception?

yes. roughly speaking, if a soul can carry memory then it would pretty much follow that a soul can and does also carry sensory perception. Memories are simply recordings of sensory perceptions. So essentially you are asking the same question you just asked.

If you agree, then what about people who are blind, or deaf? Are they missing parts of their souls?

not at all, because as I have just pointed out this would require an equation in which soul and memory are equivalent which I don't think is true at all. I think a soul carries memory. Memory is not the essence and make up of a soul. A soul is a soul, distinct from memories. Memories cannot function, compute, evaluate, enjoy, enrage, act, befriend, create, employ or otherwise engage in any of the complex activies known to concious beings. Memories just are, they are static recordings. Anyway, these types of people are indeed missing large portions of their perceptory data banks, but they're not missing portions of their souls.

If you agree to all the questions I could ask, then what is a soul? Nothingness? That is why I don't believe in souls.

It's rather impossible to agree with all the questions you ask because only about half of them are actually able to be agreed to in a yes or no fashion, the other half require some explanation. For the most part, for you critical questions, I seem to agree with them. For their resultant logically derived questions I don't agree with them. I beleive your logic to be invalid in this respect though I have not conducted a thorough analysis of it and I also cannot speak for you and thus won't try to assume that I know exactly what your originating assertions and thus syllogistic thought pattern flows consisted of.

Why you don't beleive in souls doesn't seem very logical to me is what I'm saying. Most of what I proposed is indeed what many would consider straight opinion. It is what some would consider straight fact. The only fact is that it is subject to interpretation. The only other fact is, most of us don't really know for sure one way or the other, the best we have is our educated guess. The best I have is personal experiential first hand knowlege to corroborate what I say. But then again that's just me... and for the purposes of the general populace I might as well be hallucinating. Therfore I am a cheese hamburger

if i were judging this pissing contest, i'd say you all lose.  i don't doubt that you are all very smart people, but i bet that the only person who reads a post and says, "man, the author of this post is one smart dude," is the author of the post.  i also enjoy debating philosophy, but you guys aren't even debating you are just trying to sound smarter than the last post, or trying to make the last post sound stupider than it was.

Good day to you sirs.

*ahem*

i believe jkomdl has just slapped a label on us.  man i hate that.

now, to continue:

(and please note that i could care less who "sounds" smarter, because as entheon has said several times, truth is what i hold true for myself, and so i feel absolutely no desire to "out-do" any other person on here.  i might retaliate because of an inaccurate accusation, but i do not wish to get a one-up on someone.  i am here simply because i enjoy the reading, the views, and the thoughts that are brought into my mind.)

oh, yes.  to continue:

science in it's current application in society is far too objective for my taste.

Isn't that what science is supposed to be?

i guess i should clarify:  the mindset in people that science has a habit of creating is far too objective for my taste.  science MUST be objective, i do admit, in order to function.  i am not arguing that objectivness should be done away with.  sometimes, it is all that we can rely on to draw up facts.

Emotion does not guide music because music relationships are mathematical in form. The information for musical understanding is drawn from the neurons, not from emotion. Emotion is just the consequence of certain neurons firing. Happiness does not cause you to hit an F, an A, and a C. This principle is guided by the left brain neurons deciding that these notes would fit mathematically. This may stem from the same neurons emotion does, but it is not emotion.

perhaps you do not understand the word "guide" in the context you use it.  i say once again:  emotion certainly does guide music.  it is not necessarily responsible for every little placement of a note on a staff, but the keyword is "guide"!  if i were to guide someone in trying to teach them how to play the guitar, they are still responsible for actually learning a chords.  since their brain did the actual work, does that mean that i didn't guide them?  emotion guides music in the very same way.

Ooh, sarcasm.

i did not intend sarcasm, though my vocabulary i see suggested it.  i apologize.

Does your statement mean I'm free to say your view is invalid? I think it is, but does that make it not so? If not, then why not for mine?

of course it does, but you wish to render all other statements but your own, as false.  i am not so naive to think that i can make up rules and forget that others might use them as well.  it was not my intention whatsoever to try to render you "dead in the water."  i know that you may say the same, but the difference in our views is that i say "hey, don't just label the so-talked-about music-emotion relationship as 'invalid.' " and you say "hey, your view is invalid."  i am trying to stop you from just closing all doors of consideration.  i am trying to keep them open.  or at least, more open than you seem to want it to be.

That's not true.

bull crap, dude.  i now take my liberty to stop you from just slamming that door in my face.  do not tell me that my emotion does not steer me, but rather my idea of a chord progression.  the chord progression is the last thing i'm thinking about.  of course some chords sound "sad" or whatever, but there's more to it than just picking a chord progression.  and i would like to point out (randomly) that your own paragraph here suggests the idea that emotion guides music.

i apologize.  i do not have more time to continue writing.  perhaps i can finish tomarrow before someone else posts

just a few things and i think im done with this whole topic, because its not really goin anywhere...thanks to all its been fun, i enjoyed it.  i will however keep myself updated on what others say, because it is still very interesting.

so, the way its looked to me with the last couple of posts is science vs. opinion.  and thast fine i guess, but yes my personal opinion is to agree with science.  the way i "personally" see it is this:

all of the examples XenosX gives he backs up scientifically.  all of the examples entheon and tonightslastsong give are strictly opinion. i also back up all of my statements scientifically. 

i guess what im trying to say is that for every example ever given thus far, minus a few, such as memory loss (which i agree is not lost, but inaccessable...however still scientifically because its neurons that are no longer able to associate with each other)...are able to be explained through science, but nobody to this date can explain what role the soul actually plays in any of these examples.  so why is it that science is wrong or not quite right when researchers in every area of knowledge have only come up with scientific explanations not explanations of the soul? 

now if humans have souls, do animals and plants have souls too?  animals certainly react to many things the way humans do.  animals have personalities.  animals have memory.  so do they then have a soul too?  we can do all of the same experiments on animals (psychologically) and get the same results.  so there is no difference in how humans and animals form memories and learn (except that humans are of course able to process more information).  so since  humans are naturally i guess "smarter" than animals, do they have less (not speaking in terms of mass or size, rather than in terms of character) of a soul because animals souls are not able to "pilot" its "meat" as well as human souls? 

well i guess ill leave it at that for now and if i really feel necessary either clarrify or add to that.  but ill end with a nice little quote since eintstein has been quoted several times already...

"the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible" - einstein

jkomdl, hehehe... insert foot into mouth...

hmmm.... so.... you come in and piss on it by calling it a pissing contest thereby becoming a participant in a pissing contest and then claim that you're not going to participate in a pissing contest cuz you don't like pissing contests but that you're only going to piss on the pissing contest and then leave... very insightful way of doing things...

and for the record... I am the only one who sounds smart on here, and I love the sound of my own voice, and the only reason i post is, obviously, because i love to read my own posts and see how smart i sound... obviously it's not because i have any interest in expressing my own views or having a good natured well tempered debate on musical philosophy... no... couldn't be that... and I like vanilla ice cream, and I have 3 dogs a cat and a llama, and I can use big words that you can't understand, and I can type faster than any of yall...

so eat my shorts!

P.S. oh yeah and i'd like to point out to yall that this was in fact intended to be an opinion thread in the first place... if it's scientifically prooven already then it's not really much of a philosophy is it? just a thought... carry on