yet again, Nicu i find the logic in the flow of your questioning to miss some critical details...
do animals and plants have souls too?
yes, why wouldn't they... they are life forms...
animals certainly react to many things the way humans do. animals have personalities. animals have memory. so do they then have a soul too?
uhhh, repeating yourself... but.... yes, they do
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?
no... not at all... this logical flow would only work if we stemmed from the idea that a soul and a memory are the same thing... or if we stemmed from the idea that a soul and a brain are the same thing... which as I defined "soul" prior to this in the widely known "classical sense" of some sort of detached infinitely small concious entity... no... animals have in fact, i beleive, exactly the same variety of souls that humans do. same for plants.
plants actually have been prooven to be concious... yes... scientifically... in fact plants have been prooven to be psychic... yes... scientifically... read a book called "The Secret Life of Plants" by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, ISBN: 0060915870 ... if you don't beleive me. There's your "scientific proof" for you in the same format which you provide the "proof" of which I asked.
Anyway... a soul is able to pilot the "meat" of an animal just as well as it is able to pilot the meat of a human. The ability to pilot it is no less... the limitations of the meat itself may be greater for sure, but the ability to pilot it would not seem to me to be any different.
And yes, we obviously fall into this trap of thinking that this whole debate is Science VS. Opinion... but may i remind you that maybe... just maybe... it's not a battle or a contest here at all... maybe we could view it as a meeting and melding of the minds.
I've never once said I don't accept scientific principles. I am a fan of science, it has brought us many things. I do however feel that science has lost track of sight of it's original purpose and original goal. Now i must qualify this and state that, sure not all scientists are like this... however, many a scientist and branch of science estimates those things which it studies and just so many molecules and evaluates those systems as such. Evaluating and estimating a human as just so many molecules is rediculous to me. Again, i'm not saying all sciences do this, however a tendency I see in the sciences is to render objects essentially devoid of inherrent meaning or worth other than their physically measureable properties quantities and actions. It would be rediciulous to study a computer as a combination of plastics and ignore the electricty running through it. It would be rediculous to study a computer as metals plastics and the electricity running throught them and ignore the logical patterns and functional actions and abilities it posesses. It would be rediculous to study a computer as only it's mathematical processing capabilities and ignore the ideas and intentions of the creatore behind it. Similarly it seems to me to be rediculous to study a tree as just so much xylem and phloem and sun-energy-food-converting processor appendages and ignore the greater meaning and depth of it in regards to it's overall place in the ecosystem and world culture... and ALSO perhaps, the creator of it... who came up with idea for a tree?
For now, yes... in the realm of the soul, we have naught but opinions and ideas. But that is where science began as well. Science is no different from opinion. Science simply investigates ideas to see if and how often they naturally occur. So what? Scienctific "fact" in the end is just opinion which has been observed to occur more often than not. The best we can do with science is a high percentage of inductive logic. So why don't we combine these two fields? These two endeavors? Even the first scientists would have been considered just as crazy as any modern New Age Wiccan Spiritualist... thousands of years ago, considering that disease was caused by tiny things so small they were invisible would have labeled you as insane. Considering even further that perhaps the entire universe was actually made out of even smaller but similar particles would have probably gotten you shipped off to the funny farm. Yet there were people brave enough to pose these ideas without any actual way, at the time... to proove or measure them. Yet they had the knowlege and conviction within themselves to beleive it true.
So... is there REALLY that much of a difference between science and opinion? I think not... science is just a specialized "structurally observed" form of opinion. We must learn that all things in this world are really just ideas and opinions at their core, and if we want to actually GET somewhere by using logical thought, we must not only analyze the logic flow itself but we must critically analyze the base premises from which the logical conclusions stem and evaluate them for importance, workability and truth. Otherwise we go on wild goose chase digressions into the emotionally charged landscapes of our own minds. Just as in the brocolli connundrum... we should all be equally able to reach the conclusion that a soul does exist and that it does not. Once we're there we must then weigh all the initial assertions from which that logic stems and then evaluate the conclusions for their importance in regards to our own lives.
No amount of science in the world can provide me with what is right, wrong, good or bad... i can have all the scientific data in existence and still that doesn't give me a way to make a value judgement. In the end, i've still got to form my OWN thoughts, otherwise known as "opinions" based on this data...
SO... Science and opinion are not so far from each other.
do animals and plants have souls too?
yes, why wouldn't they... they are life forms...
animals certainly react to many things the way humans do. animals have personalities. animals have memory. so do they then have a soul too?
uhhh, repeating yourself... but.... yes, they do
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?
no... not at all... this logical flow would only work if we stemmed from the idea that a soul and a memory are the same thing... or if we stemmed from the idea that a soul and a brain are the same thing... which as I defined "soul" prior to this in the widely known "classical sense" of some sort of detached infinitely small concious entity... no... animals have in fact, i beleive, exactly the same variety of souls that humans do. same for plants.
plants actually have been prooven to be concious... yes... scientifically... in fact plants have been prooven to be psychic... yes... scientifically... read a book called "The Secret Life of Plants" by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, ISBN: 0060915870 ... if you don't beleive me. There's your "scientific proof" for you in the same format which you provide the "proof" of which I asked.
Anyway... a soul is able to pilot the "meat" of an animal just as well as it is able to pilot the meat of a human. The ability to pilot it is no less... the limitations of the meat itself may be greater for sure, but the ability to pilot it would not seem to me to be any different.
And yes, we obviously fall into this trap of thinking that this whole debate is Science VS. Opinion... but may i remind you that maybe... just maybe... it's not a battle or a contest here at all... maybe we could view it as a meeting and melding of the minds.
I've never once said I don't accept scientific principles. I am a fan of science, it has brought us many things. I do however feel that science has lost track of sight of it's original purpose and original goal. Now i must qualify this and state that, sure not all scientists are like this... however, many a scientist and branch of science estimates those things which it studies and just so many molecules and evaluates those systems as such. Evaluating and estimating a human as just so many molecules is rediculous to me. Again, i'm not saying all sciences do this, however a tendency I see in the sciences is to render objects essentially devoid of inherrent meaning or worth other than their physically measureable properties quantities and actions. It would be rediciulous to study a computer as a combination of plastics and ignore the electricty running through it. It would be rediculous to study a computer as metals plastics and the electricity running throught them and ignore the logical patterns and functional actions and abilities it posesses. It would be rediculous to study a computer as only it's mathematical processing capabilities and ignore the ideas and intentions of the creatore behind it. Similarly it seems to me to be rediculous to study a tree as just so much xylem and phloem and sun-energy-food-converting processor appendages and ignore the greater meaning and depth of it in regards to it's overall place in the ecosystem and world culture... and ALSO perhaps, the creator of it... who came up with idea for a tree?
For now, yes... in the realm of the soul, we have naught but opinions and ideas. But that is where science began as well. Science is no different from opinion. Science simply investigates ideas to see if and how often they naturally occur. So what? Scienctific "fact" in the end is just opinion which has been observed to occur more often than not. The best we can do with science is a high percentage of inductive logic. So why don't we combine these two fields? These two endeavors? Even the first scientists would have been considered just as crazy as any modern New Age Wiccan Spiritualist... thousands of years ago, considering that disease was caused by tiny things so small they were invisible would have labeled you as insane. Considering even further that perhaps the entire universe was actually made out of even smaller but similar particles would have probably gotten you shipped off to the funny farm. Yet there were people brave enough to pose these ideas without any actual way, at the time... to proove or measure them. Yet they had the knowlege and conviction within themselves to beleive it true.
So... is there REALLY that much of a difference between science and opinion? I think not... science is just a specialized "structurally observed" form of opinion. We must learn that all things in this world are really just ideas and opinions at their core, and if we want to actually GET somewhere by using logical thought, we must not only analyze the logic flow itself but we must critically analyze the base premises from which the logical conclusions stem and evaluate them for importance, workability and truth. Otherwise we go on wild goose chase digressions into the emotionally charged landscapes of our own minds. Just as in the brocolli connundrum... we should all be equally able to reach the conclusion that a soul does exist and that it does not. Once we're there we must then weigh all the initial assertions from which that logic stems and then evaluate the conclusions for their importance in regards to our own lives.
No amount of science in the world can provide me with what is right, wrong, good or bad... i can have all the scientific data in existence and still that doesn't give me a way to make a value judgement. In the end, i've still got to form my OWN thoughts, otherwise known as "opinions" based on this data...
SO... Science and opinion are not so far from each other.
what he said.
i agree with it all, i think. nothing's popped up as a big red flag, so i'm going to just come out and say that i think i agree with entheon's previous post wholeheartedly
now, if i edit this post later, it might make for some funny read-back commentary, but i'll leave that for a future time
specifically, i agree about the animals and plants having souls as well. i do not think that their sould is any less complete, as entheon sorta said, but rather that the meat that they pilot does not have the same abilities that the human race has.
also, i embrace the idea that memories are not lost, but rather, the connection to which we might have to access them is severed. it's like if my arm got chopped off... it's not that it's not existant anymore, just rather... i can't exactly move it at my will...
sorry, that was a sloppy analogy, but still, it illustrates to the degree that i intended to show.
i also believe that science is a matter of opinion. it is not so fluxy as other "armchair" opinions, because it is in a constant forming processes, never complete, never resting.
i do not wish to cast science off, as i touched in my previous post, but rather, i do not wish to use it to close doors that we cannot possibly rule out...
like... "souls don't exist." that's a big reach. just as in science and other experiments, and similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" idea, we can't just say that souls don't exist by just analyzing the meat. as entheon said, it would be shameful to judge a computer while only looking at it from a limited point of view.
likewise, we shouldn't look at a human being with such a limited viewpoint. we can't rule out the existance of a soul because of science's current understanding. understanding is almost always incomplete. that's the great quest in life, if you ask me. not to understand EVERYTHING, but to achieve an understanding of life that you know to be truth.
this is why i use the word "understanding" with much caution and disclaimer to what it means.
the equation that was presented earlier... it's not that i can't understand it right at first, until i start applying knowledge to dissassemble it... TRUE, that is what i must do, but i do it to better comprehend the task at hand, not because i perfectly understand the mathmatical manipulation and visual affects that it has by applying such numbers to each other. i do it because it is a process that i have become familiar with. and hey, i was the math wiz in my graduating class. i was at least a year (a lot of times 2 years) ahead of anybody else in my age group. it's not that i'm un-learned in the ways of math, but i cannot confess to having a perfect understanding of mathmatics.
anyway, i took the long way around saying that above paragraph. sorry.
beyond that, i believe that we can achieve understanding within science, but it is incomplete because science is incomplete. it may have analyzed it to death, but science is still in the making. it constantly is. and once again, i do not wish to discard science when i said that it was too objective for my tastes. science is wonderful, but it is limited to our 5 reliable senses. i cannot see how science can lead one to believe that a soul does not exist if it can't directly "prove" (there's that bad word again... sorry) that a soul isn't there.
now, likewise, one cannot necessarily "prove" that a sould DOES exist, because once again... we are limited by the senses. that's why there is so much opinion within philosophy, because there can be no facts other than what we literally see. even then, this becomes tainted by personality or by more opinion.
this is the nature of theory. it is based on what we percieve and believe, and left for others to consider, one such "other" is the self. sometimes we ponder this stuff so much that maybe we convince ourselves otherwise, but regardless, it is a big, unending, role-playing, ever-changing game.
(hurrah for RPGs! ...sorry, i could not resist. i did not mean to make life sound like an rpg, b/c i'm certainly not out to save the world ... or the planet. not that i don't care about the .... nevermind.)
i agree with it all, i think. nothing's popped up as a big red flag, so i'm going to just come out and say that i think i agree with entheon's previous post wholeheartedly
now, if i edit this post later, it might make for some funny read-back commentary, but i'll leave that for a future time
specifically, i agree about the animals and plants having souls as well. i do not think that their sould is any less complete, as entheon sorta said, but rather that the meat that they pilot does not have the same abilities that the human race has.
also, i embrace the idea that memories are not lost, but rather, the connection to which we might have to access them is severed. it's like if my arm got chopped off... it's not that it's not existant anymore, just rather... i can't exactly move it at my will...
sorry, that was a sloppy analogy, but still, it illustrates to the degree that i intended to show.
i also believe that science is a matter of opinion. it is not so fluxy as other "armchair" opinions, because it is in a constant forming processes, never complete, never resting.
i do not wish to cast science off, as i touched in my previous post, but rather, i do not wish to use it to close doors that we cannot possibly rule out...
like... "souls don't exist." that's a big reach. just as in science and other experiments, and similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" idea, we can't just say that souls don't exist by just analyzing the meat. as entheon said, it would be shameful to judge a computer while only looking at it from a limited point of view.
likewise, we shouldn't look at a human being with such a limited viewpoint. we can't rule out the existance of a soul because of science's current understanding. understanding is almost always incomplete. that's the great quest in life, if you ask me. not to understand EVERYTHING, but to achieve an understanding of life that you know to be truth.
this is why i use the word "understanding" with much caution and disclaimer to what it means.
the equation that was presented earlier... it's not that i can't understand it right at first, until i start applying knowledge to dissassemble it... TRUE, that is what i must do, but i do it to better comprehend the task at hand, not because i perfectly understand the mathmatical manipulation and visual affects that it has by applying such numbers to each other. i do it because it is a process that i have become familiar with. and hey, i was the math wiz in my graduating class. i was at least a year (a lot of times 2 years) ahead of anybody else in my age group. it's not that i'm un-learned in the ways of math, but i cannot confess to having a perfect understanding of mathmatics.
anyway, i took the long way around saying that above paragraph. sorry.
beyond that, i believe that we can achieve understanding within science, but it is incomplete because science is incomplete. it may have analyzed it to death, but science is still in the making. it constantly is. and once again, i do not wish to discard science when i said that it was too objective for my tastes. science is wonderful, but it is limited to our 5 reliable senses. i cannot see how science can lead one to believe that a soul does not exist if it can't directly "prove" (there's that bad word again... sorry) that a soul isn't there.
now, likewise, one cannot necessarily "prove" that a sould DOES exist, because once again... we are limited by the senses. that's why there is so much opinion within philosophy, because there can be no facts other than what we literally see. even then, this becomes tainted by personality or by more opinion.
this is the nature of theory. it is based on what we percieve and believe, and left for others to consider, one such "other" is the self. sometimes we ponder this stuff so much that maybe we convince ourselves otherwise, but regardless, it is a big, unending, role-playing, ever-changing game.
(hurrah for RPGs! ...sorry, i could not resist. i did not mean to make life sound like an rpg, b/c i'm certainly not out to save the world
... or the planet. not that i don't care about the .... nevermind.)To the thin line beyond which you really can’t fake.
- Robert Hunter
Never understood what my body was for
- Tom Marshall
Scientists have yet to notice any life on other planets in the universe, including ours
- entheon
They're just afraid of change
- Shanon Hoon
I remember throwin' punches around
And preachin' from my chair
- Pete Townsend
Give me things that won't get lost
Like a coin that won't get tossed, rollin' home to you
- Neil Young
Running over the same old ground.
What have you found? The same old fears.
- Pink Floyd
All you need is love
- John Lennon
- Robert Hunter
Never understood what my body was for
- Tom Marshall
Scientists have yet to notice any life on other planets in the universe, including ours
- entheon
They're just afraid of change
- Shanon Hoon
I remember throwin' punches around
And preachin' from my chair
- Pete Townsend
Give me things that won't get lost
Like a coin that won't get tossed, rollin' home to you
- Neil Young
Running over the same old ground.
What have you found? The same old fears.
- Pink Floyd
All you need is love
- John Lennon
haha. whered you think the name "NICU" came from. phish is my favorite band. too bad they broke up but oh well i guess, right. just because i like to debate (and yes many of my posts on here were strictly for the fun of posing things to have an intellectual debate about...notice how most of my later topics were questions) doesnt make me a bad guy. and yea, trey is more then damn good, hes amazing. we should ask XenosX if trey plays by reciting notes in a single scale or mode because thats when they are supposed to be played, or if its creativity. because im sure we both know the answer to that question.
| huh? |
"that's known as Acute Paranoid A Good Little Slave Should Live His Life In Fear So He Doesn't Rock The Cradle Syndrome. Take some viagra, that can help... all you need to overcome that is some big balls my friend!"
what that mean?
what that mean?
| ?? |
Entheon... what did you suspect? I've been away so not been on the board.
Nicu... I know that I've not been specific about the specific brain structures invovled in our processing of music because I dont think its that important at this point (left hemi vs right hemi etc... you prolly know about the experiments regarding this better than I do)
All I'm getting at is that music is physiological phenomena and serves no greater, ethereal purpose or devine function, the minutia here aren't that important. When all is said and done, I suppose that that's the crux of this.
Nicu... I know that I've not been specific about the specific brain structures invovled in our processing of music because I dont think its that important at this point (left hemi vs right hemi etc... you prolly know about the experiments regarding this better than I do)
All I'm getting at is that music is physiological phenomena and serves no greater, ethereal purpose or devine function, the minutia here aren't that important. When all is said and done, I suppose that that's the crux of this.
music ... serves no greater, ethereal purpose or devine function
i wouldn't go so far as to say that music has an ethereal purpose or devine function... my main purpose in writing is simply to refute the idea that music is a... a... (i can't come up with the word...)
when you all talk about music, you make it sound like a reflex or somethin. people keep saying that personality effects it, but then someone comes back with a big stick made out of science, and they say that i make the kind of music i make because my brain says that these two notes or chords should follow one another. i speak mainly for myself (as i do not mean to impose my opinion on anybody else) when i say that ... "well, dang. that's not how i do it."
i know that XenosX is reffering to the much more subtle processes of the brain, but still. XenosX, you make it sound like i've got absolutely no say in what i write,that it's just a natural reflex or occurance that my brain is trying to pattern. there's plenty of people throughout history that write music that i don't even wish to CALL "music." some of it even follows all of your lydian and dorian and hypodorian and ionian modes. i understand how they work and all of that, but my brain certainly does not manifest that.
wanna know why? because i don't like it. that's a very simplified way to explain why i don't do it, but ... isn't that at the core of the matter? at least for me, that is. like i said, i wish to speak for no one else.
i think that's how this all ties in with the soul. "I" dwell in this body as a spirit, which forms up a soul. my personality is something that i believe to be part of my spirit, not of my meat. generally speaking, the meat for every human body is the same, and thus the variance between personality and likes and dislikes for certain sounds come from my spirit.
now... how can one possibly explain how a spirit contains personality?
nobody's ever gonna know until they're long dead.
i believe in a life after death, as in a spirit life, and then also a ressurection, as I am a christian. the only reason i bring that up is to say that i trust in the fact that we'll all figure it out someday. but it'll have to be beyond this mortal life, and not a day sooner.
i wouldn't go so far as to say that music has an ethereal purpose or devine function... my main purpose in writing is simply to refute the idea that music is a... a... (i can't come up with the word...)
when you all talk about music, you make it sound like a reflex or somethin. people keep saying that personality effects it, but then someone comes back with a big stick made out of science, and they say that i make the kind of music i make because my brain says that these two notes or chords should follow one another. i speak mainly for myself (as i do not mean to impose my opinion on anybody else) when i say that ... "well, dang. that's not how i do it."
i know that XenosX is reffering to the much more subtle processes of the brain, but still. XenosX, you make it sound like i've got absolutely no say in what i write,that it's just a natural reflex or occurance that my brain is trying to pattern. there's plenty of people throughout history that write music that i don't even wish to CALL "music." some of it even follows all of your lydian and dorian and hypodorian and ionian modes. i understand how they work and all of that, but my brain certainly does not manifest that.
wanna know why? because i don't like it. that's a very simplified way to explain why i don't do it, but ... isn't that at the core of the matter? at least for me, that is. like i said, i wish to speak for no one else.
i think that's how this all ties in with the soul. "I" dwell in this body as a spirit, which forms up a soul. my personality is something that i believe to be part of my spirit, not of my meat. generally speaking, the meat for every human body is the same, and thus the variance between personality and likes and dislikes for certain sounds come from my spirit.
now... how can one possibly explain how a spirit contains personality?
nobody's ever gonna know until they're long dead.
i believe in a life after death, as in a spirit life, and then also a ressurection, as I am a christian. the only reason i bring that up is to say that i trust in the fact that we'll all figure it out someday. but it'll have to be beyond this mortal life, and not a day sooner.| just realized... |
XenoX said, by now quite a while earlier...
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.
wait... what? so basically you just asked a bunch of questions you don't know the answer to and that's why you don't beleive in souls?
that seems a little silly to me
phew... took me all that long winded reasoning to finally realize that this is what doesn't sit right with me
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.
wait... what? so basically you just asked a bunch of questions you don't know the answer to and that's why you don't beleive in souls?
that seems a little silly to me
phew... took me all that long winded reasoning to finally realize that this is what doesn't sit right with me
| actually... |
when you all talk about music, you make it sound like a reflex or somethin. people keep saying that personality effects it, but then someone comes back with a big stick made out of science, and they say that i make the kind of music i make because my brain says that these two notes or chords should follow one another. i speak mainly for myself (as i do not mean to impose my opinion on anybody else) when i say that ... "well, dang. that's not how i do it."
there is this beautiful thing called "the unconcious". you may not "think" you are composing your songs based on any thing, but your unconcious is. you may not directly be thinking of what two chords should go together or what notes will sound good together, but most likely your unconcious is. if you wanna call your unconcious your soul, thats fine i guess. but if such a thing of a "soul" exists, i wouldnt link it too much to the unconcious. simply because in many psych experiments the unconcious has been sort of "tapped" and altered and all sorts of fun stuff like that. so unless you are open to the idea that the soul too can be altered, then you might wanna consider your unconcious and your soul two different things.
there is this beautiful thing called "the unconcious". you may not "think" you are composing your songs based on any thing, but your unconcious is. you may not directly be thinking of what two chords should go together or what notes will sound good together, but most likely your unconcious is. if you wanna call your unconcious your soul, thats fine i guess. but if such a thing of a "soul" exists, i wouldnt link it too much to the unconcious. simply because in many psych experiments the unconcious has been sort of "tapped" and altered and all sorts of fun stuff like that. so unless you are open to the idea that the soul too can be altered, then you might wanna consider your unconcious and your soul two different things.
i do consider my unconcious and my spirit two different thing.
though... ( i quote myself ... )
i know that XenosX is reffering to the much more subtle processes of the brain, but still. XenosX, you make it sound like i've got absolutely no say in what i write,that it's just a natural reflex or occurance that my brain is trying to pattern.
i don't deny that my unconcious mind helps out, but to say that music is unguided by that soul or spirit...
that's too far... that's something that nobody could prove as fact.
though... ( i quote myself ... )
i know that XenosX is reffering to the much more subtle processes of the brain, but still. XenosX, you make it sound like i've got absolutely no say in what i write,that it's just a natural reflex or occurance that my brain is trying to pattern.
i don't deny that my unconcious mind helps out, but to say that music is unguided by that soul or spirit...
that's too far... that's something that nobody could prove as fact.
i know that XenosX is reffering to the much more subtle processes of the brain, but still. XenosX, you make it sound like i've got absolutely no say in what i write,that it's just a natural reflex or occurance that my brain is trying to pattern. there's plenty of people throughout history that write music that i don't even wish to CALL "music." some of it even follows all of your lydian and dorian and hypodorian and ionian modes. i understand how they work and all of that, but my brain certainly does not manifest that.
It's not that you have no say, it's rather that the reflexes of the brain, after forming patterns, heavily influence the music you write. If you think that you "choose" to follow one chord with a certain other, then what is choice, exactly? Your brain chooses for you, it chooses whichever chord sounds the best to it. Your conscious self is not a discrete entity, rather it is a amorphous display of a path percieved originally from your subconscious mind. When you choose, say, chocolate over vanilla, really your choice is a gathering of past experiences of choosing between these two, a comparative perception of the two, and an analysis of the consequence of choosing one over the other. Your favorite might be vanilla, but your subconscious brain is really what makes the decision. Sometimes conscious thought breaks through, when you might realize that chocolate is cheaper than vanilla, and you only have enough money for chocolate, but it's mainly a subconscious decision.
wanna know why? because i don't like it. that's a very simplified way to explain why i don't do it, but ... isn't that at the core of the matter? at least for me, that is. like i said, i wish to speak for no one else.
That's no longer a matter of theory, true, but instead it may be how varied the notes are, or how complex the harmonies are, or anything. Still though, if it makes sense musically, your mind will comprehend the harmonies, whether you like it or not. If I painted your bedroom rainbow, you would probably dislike it, especially if I did it in the brightest, most luminous paints I could find. Still, you could probably tell how the colors blend into eachother, the way they make sense next to each other, really how they are arranged in descending order of wavelengths of reflected light. Regardless of how you 'like' it, you can see the mathematical sense of the walls.
generally speaking, the meat for every human body is the same, and thus the variance between personality and likes and dislikes for certain sounds come from my spirit.
In 'general', it may be true, but subtle differences in arrangements of neurons cause huge differences in personality, the same way switching two tiny functional groups on a comparatively huge strand of dna may change your eye color, or may make you unable to process certain proteins.
wait... what? so basically you just asked a bunch of questions you don't know the answer to and that's why you don't beleive in souls?
I was asking someone to refute the answers which I thought would be entirely visible as to what I meant. I thought wrong. I meant that when you lose part of your memory in a car accident, or for an even better example, if I chopped a piece off of your frontal lobe, then if your soul carries memory, how can this be if heaven is an 'eternal paradise' where true happiness would include memories of good events in your former life? If you discount memory from the soul, you can continue to discount other features through cases where changing something physical in the human body led to a change in what appeared to be in the soul.
It's not that you have no say, it's rather that the reflexes of the brain, after forming patterns, heavily influence the music you write. If you think that you "choose" to follow one chord with a certain other, then what is choice, exactly? Your brain chooses for you, it chooses whichever chord sounds the best to it. Your conscious self is not a discrete entity, rather it is a amorphous display of a path percieved originally from your subconscious mind. When you choose, say, chocolate over vanilla, really your choice is a gathering of past experiences of choosing between these two, a comparative perception of the two, and an analysis of the consequence of choosing one over the other. Your favorite might be vanilla, but your subconscious brain is really what makes the decision. Sometimes conscious thought breaks through, when you might realize that chocolate is cheaper than vanilla, and you only have enough money for chocolate, but it's mainly a subconscious decision.
wanna know why? because i don't like it. that's a very simplified way to explain why i don't do it, but ... isn't that at the core of the matter? at least for me, that is. like i said, i wish to speak for no one else.
That's no longer a matter of theory, true, but instead it may be how varied the notes are, or how complex the harmonies are, or anything. Still though, if it makes sense musically, your mind will comprehend the harmonies, whether you like it or not. If I painted your bedroom rainbow, you would probably dislike it, especially if I did it in the brightest, most luminous paints I could find. Still, you could probably tell how the colors blend into eachother, the way they make sense next to each other, really how they are arranged in descending order of wavelengths of reflected light. Regardless of how you 'like' it, you can see the mathematical sense of the walls.
generally speaking, the meat for every human body is the same, and thus the variance between personality and likes and dislikes for certain sounds come from my spirit.
In 'general', it may be true, but subtle differences in arrangements of neurons cause huge differences in personality, the same way switching two tiny functional groups on a comparatively huge strand of dna may change your eye color, or may make you unable to process certain proteins.
wait... what? so basically you just asked a bunch of questions you don't know the answer to and that's why you don't beleive in souls?
I was asking someone to refute the answers which I thought would be entirely visible as to what I meant. I thought wrong. I meant that when you lose part of your memory in a car accident, or for an even better example, if I chopped a piece off of your frontal lobe, then if your soul carries memory, how can this be if heaven is an 'eternal paradise' where true happiness would include memories of good events in your former life? If you discount memory from the soul, you can continue to discount other features through cases where changing something physical in the human body led to a change in what appeared to be in the soul.
Sorry, you do not have access to post...
Wanna post? Join Today!