Philosophy: books and discussion

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Well, in your example we do have a living consciousness. It's not human, but it's closer to us than a rock. Does music exist to a rock?

What? You've never heard of Rock Music

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

Don't want to be picky (that's obviously rubbish - if it was true I wouldn't be writing this post!), but there is a difference between melody and music. Some music contains no melody - John Cage's 4' 33" is I suppose the limit case, four and a half minutes of silence - and some melodies are not music, the melody that my phone makes when it rings (which is just the normal, old fashioned "ring-ring").

But in saying that you are confusing the phenomenon with the interpretation. It does not take interpretation for some phenomenon to exist. The interpretation does not determine whether the phenomena exists or not.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I do believe we have a lot in common with all lifeforms on Earth.

We tend to concentrate on differences,

Oh I agree - instinctively at least. But you do run up against the problem of saying what the difference is between a living thing and a non-living thing - unless you rely on some kind of "vitalist" philosophy - that living things are different from non-living things because the are, well, alive, they contain the "life-force" - which gets a bit circular. The trouble with vitalism is that whilst it is clearly nonsense it does seem to accord with our intuitions - an tomato is alive but this computer that I am writing on isn't.

So, here's your mission - should you choose to accept it - without relying on vitalism, say what the difference is between an living thing and a non-living thing.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But in saying that you are confusing the phenomenon with the interpretation. It does not take interpretation for some phenomenon to exist. The interpretation does not determine whether the phenomena exists or not.

I'm not sure I understand this - what's the phenomenon and what's the interpretation?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

I'm not sure I understand this - what's the phenomenon and what's the interpretation?

The phenomena is the physical (read reality/physics) of the thing under discussion -- the sound wave, gravity, light.

The interpretation is the detection (by senses or detectors) and assignment of meaning to it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

...

So, here's your mission - should you choose to accept it - without relying on vitalism, say what the difference is between an living thing and a non-living thing.

Careful. It's a trick question.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The phenomena is the physical (read reality/physics) of the thing under discussion -- the sound wave, gravity, light.

The interpretation is the detection (by senses or detectors) and assignment of meaning to it.

Mmm, whilst I'd partly go with the disturbance in the air being a physical phenomenon existing independently of a perceiver, doesn't "sound wave" already imply that there are some "senses or detectors" in the environment able to register and respond to the disturbances in the air?

I say only partly go along with because if you take the perceiver out of the picture aren't you just left with energy - perceivers constitute the "things" that are the objects of their perception.

[kennyc]

Guess bottom line ... and this gets back to philosophy ... is whether you believe there is a true physical universe out there independent of "minds" or not.

I do.

I find no reason to believe that an observer has to exist at all. This is one reason I have major problems with some of the concepts of Quantum Theory though there are some interesting interpretations of them as well.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TGS

So, here's your mission - should you choose to accept it - without relying on vitalism, say what the difference is between an living thing and a non-living thing.

Can I get back to you on this?

[kennyc]

Life can only be defined by death.
Because you miss it when it's gone.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Life can only be defined by death.
Because you miss it when it's gone.

Life is like art, as caracterized by (I believe) Kant: anybody can recognize it without a doubt, but nobody can tell what it is (and someone's art may be another's magic, or rubbish ).

[beppe]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

My personal favorite is Epicurus,

A novel plane of discussion among you and me

Spoiler:

Great. I am so glad, not because of your preference for Epicurus, of whom I could not care less at this moment, but because you set a very honest plane of debate between us. That's the way. Let'us interiorize, doing that with an artist is never a loss. Worst come worst we can always sample a bottle. Now I am going to say my things, I read yours, if you reply good, if not we will find many occasions ahead, even on this thread to cross horns. I know that you don't like an expression so rude, but you set the plane of the discussion as it is your right by gender, than bear a little patience with my macho infantilism.

You Epicurus, me Augustine

Spoiler:

Now, I am interested in Augustine. The reason is very intimate and has to do with a search where personal and cultural heritage intertwines with doctrine and transcendence, Needs of my personal soul to which my mind responds enthusiastically. Very deep and interesting. Milano, capital of the Empire at that time, Ambrose resisting the power system almost declared heretic (Arianeism). This Giant Ambrose triggering the atheist and dissolute Augustine who was the speaker of the Emperor into becoming one of the strongest and most loved voices. With an echo that resounds strongly even now. So from one side I meditate Augustine mistic sparks and on the other I trace the origins of his thoughts. Then Plato is not a bad guy anymore. (that was useless). I'am finding much.

Roots

Spoiler:

Our culture, even after the heavy defertilizations by the Giacobins, the Nihilists and the Soviets, just to name a few, has strong roots that keep sprouting. The need for a gate to the transcendent is stronger than the layer of steel and concrete that is very fervidly applied. Rejecting the old ways (the old mistakes) people search their peace of mind in exotic ways, that come from cultures that are appealing mostly because only what pleases is taken. Just one side of the coin. Take the detachment and leave the beastly violence. It is enough not to look at it. Take the freedom and leave the responsibility to the fool masochists.

Philosophy, Science & Progress

Spoiler:

I do not see any big role of modern philosophy in all this, and neither of science except for the technological contributions to progress. Which progress becomes more and more difficult to integrate in people lives, because of its explosive intensity and rate of change. We are left with naked souls to face unasked questions of genetic engineering just to name one. A general escape in metarealities with metalanguages and metavalues. I am not against and I am not for. Exactly like when I look at the moon. She is. I can develop quite articulate opinions about the moon, but she is. For the progress is the same thing.

A tiny example

Spoiler:

Just to give you an example. This is what I got to meditate upon for to day.

Rising to knowledge starts from fear, as the principle of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. From the valley of tears we rise to the mountain of peace. (Sermo 347, 2)
The first two sentences run over me like water on the feathers of a duck, but the third one warms my heart. Pursuing knowledge we will free ourselves of tears, we will not fear no more, we will rise to peace. Peace as the most elevated of places. Peace of mind, peace of spirit, peace from war, peace of justice, peace among the people, peace among the states. Knowledge. Great eh. The pursuit of knowledge. Quite actual, i would dare say.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Guess bottom line ... and this gets back to philosophy ... is whether you believe there is a true physical universe out there independent of "minds" or not.

I do.

I find no reason to believe that an observer has to exist at all. This is one reason I have major problems with some of the concepts of Quantum Theory though there are some interesting interpretations of them as well.

Again, I'd go so far with you on this - there exists a physical universe (not sure about "out there" - "in here" seems to be just as much part of it - but dualism seems to have a tenacious hold on all of us!). But beyond the bare fact of its existence, the question is what can we know of it?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not so deep as far as I'm concerned. See above.

And what about the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" they played melodies.

What struck me upon watching "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was the remarkable coincidence that intelligent life from another star system used the same tonal system as Western music.

The octave is universal. It's simply the nature of the mathematics that if you divide a frequency by a certain amount you end up with the same note at a higher pitch, but each culture divides that octave differently. People in the Western world have been exposed to the 12-tone scale for so long it seems only natural, but other cultures have traditionally divided the octave differently. Traditional Japanese music uses, I believe, a 5-tone scale, while traditional Indian music (like that of Ravi Shankar) uses a 17-note scale.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

What struck me upon watching "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was the remarkable coincidence that intelligent life from another star system used the same tonal system as Western music.

The octave is universal. It's simply the nature of the mathematics that if you divide a frequency by a certain amount you end up with the same note at a higher pitch, but each culture divides that octave differently. People in the Western world have been exposed to the 12-tone scale for so long it seems only natural, but other cultures have traditionally divided the octave differently. Traditional Japanese music uses, I believe, a 5-tone scale, while traditional Indian music (like that of Ravi Shankar) uses a 17-note scale.

Do you mean that the octaves are the same everywhere, which I suppose would mean that everybody uses the same divider/multiplier? So that the tonal range is the same, but only the number of notes in between varies?

Sorry if this is a stupid question, as I said I don't know a thing about music.