Things you should know by now, but only just discovered

fenomas, please explain. I’m just a former violinist with only a casual interest in most music written post 1950, so that sounds like stock 4/4 to me.

Keithustus wrote:

fenomas, please explain. I’m just a former violinist with only a casual interest in most music written post 1950, so that sounds like stock 4/4 to me.

Hope you don't mind, but I'm going to be super annoying and give a hint instead, because it's incredibly gratifying to catch it yourself. Watch again, specifically about 2-3 bars into the solo, and pay close attention to the audience's clapping and how it relates to the music.

Additional hint if it's still not clear:

Spoiler:

At about 0:44 in the video the drummer can be seen briefly cheering in the background - he's cheering something that Connick did a few moments before.

Spoiler:
fenomas wrote:

In contrast there's the rare and elusive reverse beat drop, which master magicians can use to make an audience clap properly:

I bet he did that on purpose to get them clapping on the backbeat. Also, look how young he was!! Freeking adorable. I love that guy.

Exactly, and it was definitely on purpose

fenomas wrote:

Exactly, and it was definitely on purpose :D

Yeah. After I thought about it for a second that became obvious. His sly grin is hilarious.

It's at 0:39 in that clip that Connick either drops a beat or adds one so that everyone's clapping on the beat suddenly becomes a backbeat.

He really is adorable. And such an incredible player... there used to be this great video of him playing Sweet Georgia Brown and just going absolutely mental, that I'd watch every now and again. But seems to have been taken off youtube.

Keithustus wrote:

I’m just a former violinist with only a casual interest in most music written post 1950, so that sounds like stock 4/4 to me.

When you’re listening to the all 80s block party weekend, do you prefer the 1780s or the 1880s?

RawkGWJ wrote:
Keithustus wrote:

I’m just a former violinist with only a casual interest in most music written post 1950, so that sounds like stock 4/4 to me.

When you’re listening to the all 80s block party weekend, do you prefer the 1780s or the 1880s?
:wink:

This is one of my favorite 80s albums.

IMAGE(https://www.classicalarchives.com/images/coverart/9/1/7/5/730099424615_100.jpg)

Oooh snap, I found the video I was talking about. On a dodgy .ru site, so click if you're okay with risks I guess?

dodgy site with video of Harry Connick Jr. ripping "Sweet Georgia Brown" into shreds and then putting it back together

fenomas and Evan, thanks. Yes, I wasn’t paying close enough attention on a first view to spot one extra beat in an already quick-tempo clip.

RawkGWJ wrote:
Keithustus wrote:

with only a casual interest in most music written post 1950,

When you’re listening to the all 80s block party weekend, do you prefer the 1780s or the 1880s?

Not even a debate. While 1780s includes Mozart’s Symphony 40,

the 1880s include Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet,

1812 Overture,

Delibes’s Flower Duet,

and more.

So you hate Philip Glass then?

BadKen wrote:

So you hate Philip Glass then?

I like Philip Glass fine, but my favorite thing about him is that he looks like William Gibson the morning after a bender.

Night before:
IMAGE(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/990HPJh3tfKSebmy5OiPM2mM7Rw=/0x0:1024x683/2050x1367/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/42149666/Gibson_front_portrait.0.jpg)

Morning after:
IMAGE(https://images.glaciermedia.ca/polopoly_fs/1.23513719.1543510418!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/glass-cad7fd62-f3f6-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5-jpg.jpg)

Haven’t given him a real study. Some of his stuff is alright like from The Truman Show and his violin concerto #1, but playing any random piece of his I’m likely to fall asleep after 3-4 minutes.

All this classical music. How can we forget the 21st of Johann Sebastian Bach's 20 children?

Keithustus wrote:

Haven’t given [Phil Glass] a real study. Some of his stuff is alright like from The Truman Show and his violin concerto #1, but playing any random piece of his I’m likely to fall asleep after 3-4 minutes.

As a cellist, I'm glad he dated Wendy Sutter long enough to write some fantastic pieces for her.

fenomas wrote:

Oooh snap, I found the video I was talking about. On a dodgy .ru site, so click if you're okay with risks I guess?

Don't see how it could be dodgy, it says right on the site that they value my privacy.

Ranger Rick wrote:
fenomas wrote:

Oooh snap, I found the video I was talking about. On a dodgy .ru site, so click if you're okay with risks I guess?

Don't see how it could be dodgy, it says right on the site that they value my privacy.

I mean, the URL has "OK" in it so I assume it's fine. (Joking aside, I had no issues, it's basically a video sharing site that presumably steals from youtube. But anyway the Harry Connick Jr. video is amazing.)

Keithustus wrote:

the 1880s include Tchaikovsky’s Romeo and Juliet,1812 Overture, Delibes’s Flower Duet, and more.

I feel like it's important to add here that the 1880s also included the best piece of classical music every ****ing written, and the only one that's really worth listening to, by which of course I mean Scheherazade by Rimsky-Korsakov.

That claim, while bold, is also unequivocally true, and although listening to it should be proof enough, to fully resolve the issue here's Scheherazade being conducted by Trevor the crazy guy from GTA 5.

Phillip Glass is Ira Glass's uncle, and something of the Black Sheep of the family according to him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking about solipsism the last few days, trying to exercise some of my old philosophy training, and was pleased to come up with the standard problems with it through my memories of various readings. But what I failed to realize was the next step, that Descarte's formulation of solipsism was also the downfall of dualism. The problems of solipsism show that the idea of a consciousness without a body is just untenable. It's an interesting look at a pre-scientific idea reformulated into early modern philosophy and not surviving the transition.

Descartes, in a sense, destroyed his own concept of dualism with his formulation of solipsism. He just didn't have the physical evidence at the time to really lock down the problems. But that came soon enough.

What still amazes me is that society as a whole continues to regard dualism as an intuitively true paradigm. Change is slow.

Robear wrote:

Phillip Glass is Ira Glass's uncle, and something of the Black Sheep of the family according to him.

What still amazes me is that society as a whole continues to regard dualism as an intuitively true paradigm. Change is slow.

I love both Glasses. Phill better watch out or he may end up as the subject of an expose on judgmental uncles.

Dualism. You can’t blame folks who think this way. Humans are hardwired to believe in an invisible dude in the sky who watches you in disgust as you masturbate. It’s one of those heuristics that we must train ourselves to overcome. That’s what critical thinking is for.

But I understand where you’re coming from. God is a myth that does more harm than good, and if we humans can grasp that concept en mass the world would certainly be a better place. But then ironically, we may not have made it out of the caves without that concept. Talk about a Catch 22.

Speaking of which, my 16yo son has started to read Catch 22. The humor is going over his head, though. It’s too soon for that one I guess.

I'll tell you what I think about solipsism: it is silly. That's why I cling to dualism.

In my extraordinarily shallow survey of philosophy done in my spare time over the years, I became convinced that in the first half of the 20th century (and earlier, I guess), philosophers tried to explain the mind as a machine. After computers were invented, philosophers tried to explain the mind as a computer, and only in recent decades have philosophers turned away from that silliness. Like most fields of inquiry, philosophy has become increasingly specialized and opaque, and it is well nigh impossible for someone like me to pick up a serious book or even a paper and make heads or tails out of it. So I really don't have any idea about current theories of mind. However, if the past is any indication, I have a strong suspicion that recent theories have something to do with quantum mechanics.

Solipsism derived from dualism. Descartes found it necessary because of the structure of dualism.

That quantum brain stuff is popsci silliness. (Or an attempt to push the soul into an area we don't fully understand yet, which is a common debating technique ("God is in the gaps") but which ignores centuries of research into the issue.) The problem with dualism - one of them - is simply that if there is something - a soul, or some kind of disembodied consciousness if you prefer - that is separate from the brain, then by definition it cannot manipulate the body in any way, because it can't interact physically with the brain, and we know the brain controls the body. The moment you postulate that consciousness (or the soul) is the pilot, the ghost in the machine, of the body, it becomes subject to the laws of nature, and it has to derive from the body and belong to the category of physical things.

Dualism requires that the body and soul/spirit/lifeforce is separate from the body, but also indistinguishable from it, because that spirit controls the body. However, physical behavior is part of our mental states; the body and mind are inseparable. If you accept that the mental state of sadness can itself cause a physical reaction - crying, for example - then you have to accept that whatever is mentally conning the body *physically* affects it, and so is itself part of the physical world. And that negates the basic separation of mind and body that underlies dualism. Consciousness exists in some way, but is tied to the body, not independent of it. It develops from the body; it's not implanted into it from outside.

Other philosophical arguments get more abstruse and technical; physical arguments are often easier to get. But this is not a new idea; there's hundreds of years of evidence behind it. It's just something that disturbs people for some reason.

BadKen wrote:

if the past is any indication, I have a strong suspicion that recent theories have something to do with quantum mechanics.

Yes unfortunately, or at least was beginning to trend that way in the early 2000s when I was last studying it. A professor of mine was on the trend line arguing for quantum neural synchronization stuff. You know: sounds cool, but ultimately useless and poorly testable, like most things quantum. And I’ve seen no shortage of books releases sticking to the same arguments. Despite all that I’m still a simple Pinkerite who likes the conventional brain chemistry and Phineas Gage localization stuff.

Well, for example, there's experimental evidence (an optical illusion that takes about a second to process in the brain) that the brain operates on a timescale much larger than the quantum world's picosecond scale. (cf Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".) There's also the (still philosophical) problem that there's nothing in the theories of consciousness that would *require* a quantum mechanical explanation; Ockham's Razor would ask why we need to *add* elements to get a successful theory going, and if the answer is "because we want to make the mind separate from the brain", that's emphatically not a valid reason. There are plenty of theories that work to explain the underpinnings of the mind and do so without appeal to an insubstantial element. Likewise, experimental results have shown no need for QM style activity to explain the physical events within the brain that can be connected to thoughts and perceptions.

I don't follow philosophy much, but at the surface level it seems weird to me that important tenured people still sit around seriously discussing e.g. Descartes' ideas about mind vs. body and the like. We know all kinds of stuff he didn't - how neurons work, how physical trauma to the brain can affect thoughts, etc. Shouldn't modern philosophers be able to utterly supersede any argument Descartes was capable of making? I mean, physicists study Kepler or Newton for historical reasons but they don't sit around debating the content of their theories; we've moved past that. Does philosophy not do the same?

As for the QM angle: any time you hear somebody say "quantum mechanics" and "consciousness" in the same sentence you should reach for your gun.

You'd think so, but there are also a lot of very smart people trying to prop up dualism, and they have some arguments that can't be falsified with current knowledge. They can, however, be opposed with arguments based on current evidence.

Think about unsolved mathematical conjectures, and you'll be in the same ballpark. The Goldbach Conjecture has never been proven, for example, or "There are no odd perfect numbers", which has been around since antiquity. Progress can be slow even with the fantastic growth of knowledge in the last few decades. Descartes provided us with a set of conjectures to support the idea of dualism, and given the difficulty of investigation of things like consciousness, we are just not able to nail down the coffin lid. Yet.

That said, yes, emphatically, philosophy has moved far beyond Descartes and his contemporaries. Epistemology, for example, is far better developed than in his time. But remember, there are founding principles that can be contested at any time, and if falsified at this late date would knock down entire sections of the field. And if you're a Dualist, that's what you want to do, erase the last few hundred years entirely. The fact that Western religions are Dualist provides a great deal of societal inertia and financial opportunity supporting Dualism, and will for centuries, I fear.

However, it's interesting to look over the pro/con arguments on the Dualism page at Wikipedia, or in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The pro arguments are trending weaker and weaker, requiring those who argue them to accept more and more ridiculous side effects, while the con arguments are more and more grounded in evidence.

Remember, too, philosophy is not science. It's not intended to pin down particular facts. It's intended to guide scientific inquiry by identifying the boundary between useful and useless ideas, or the limits of a particular field of inquiry. This can be as (seemingly) simple as "what are the useful features of a theory of taxonomy?" or as difficult as, well, trying to figure what is and is not consciousness. (If you don't know what it might encompass, how do you define your inquiry?) So philosophy does not deal in settled facts (although it happily uses them), it deals in competing lines of inquiry and how likely they are to relate correctly and usefully to the world.

Cognition will continue to be the realm of philosophy so long as we can't actually agree on what "cognition" means.

In terms of the idea that cognition is dependent on quantum mechanics, my memory is one of the principal movers behind that was Roger Penrose, who's neither a neurologist nor a philosopher, but a mathematician/physicist, with emphasis on the mathematician part. I stopped reading Penrose after The Emperor's New Mind, where it seemed like his argument for QM underlying cognition boiled down to "because I say so, and I'm Roger Penrose". Which, while inarguably true, didn't seem to me to be a convincing argument for his model of consciousness.

Robear wrote:

Epistemology, for example, is far better developed than in his time. But remember, there are founding principles that can be contested at any time, and if falsified at this late date would knock down entire sections of the field.

Wait, are there falsifiable claims in philosophy? What sorts?

Well, for example, any philosophical claim that depends on phlogiston is automatically falsified by the real world. That's all I meant. If Dualists can show that the real world actually does show evidence for non-corporeal spirits, that would knock physicalism out of alignment. The point here is that philosophy must give way to evidence.

The standard definition for "falsifiability" in philosophy of science is "the capacity for a statement, theory or hypothesis to be contradicted by evidence". Popper based his life's work on that idea. So yes, philosophy can indeed have falsifiable claims.

Does that make sense now?

Robear wrote:

You'd think so, but there are also a lot of very smart people trying to prop up dualism, and they have some arguments that can't be falsified with current knowledge.

With the scientific method, typically we don’t try to disprove or falsify things. We start by asking a question such as, “Do people have souls?” Then we try to set up a test, or series of tests to prove that the soul exists. This process, if done well, might give us evidence to support the idea that people have souls.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. We must ask, is there a valid test which might provide evidence to support the idea that people have souls? To my knowledge, such a test doesn’t exist, which means that the idea that people have souls is outside of the realm of science. Science, at its core, is the study of nature and the natural world. Therefore we must conclude that the soul does not exist, and that dualism is an invalid concept.

When someone is making an outrageous claim, it’s not the responsibility of science to disprove the outrageous claim. It’s the responsibility of the person who is making the outrageous claim to provide scientific evidence to support that claim. To this day, there is zero evidence for the existence of the soul, so we must conclude that the soul does not exist.