Is innate musicality dependant on human physiology?

[prometheus]

Let me explain. Non-extended matter is the non-observable force(s) that may not be physically apparent, but their existence is justified by laws of physics.

How is their existence justified by the laws of physics?

Also, if the laws of physics function on them then they are observable.

Where does this whole concept of non-extended matter come from anyway? I know of quite some hypothetical forms and kinds of matter and energy. But not this one.


But let's imagine what kind of matter this would be. It can't be observed so it does not interact with electromagnetic forces or gravitational forces. Because if it would it would no longer be unobservable.

So how does it interact with the body? Any interaction with the body will be observable. How can something that is totally seperated from reality be part and interact with reality?

We would call the mind non-extended matter.

The mind is not made of matter. The mind is a product of matter arranged in a specific way. Just as the pictures and music on my computer are immaterial, so is the mind.

Exactly, just as we do not have a clear picture of the mind.

Silly argument to push a nut-case theory which is basically proposing the supernatural.

From this standpoint it is hard to assume that the computer has as much potential as the brain. As I mentioned before, we do not know just exactly what mind is, but we do have knowledge of what a machine code is. This is not ample evidence to assume that mind cannot be independant from its bio-machine.

Why the mind? Why not something else?

Let's say that when I press the keys of a piano. Maybe it's not really the muscles that do the job. Maybe it's an non-extended form of matter or energy that actually moves my arm, my hand and my finger, and that uses these movements together with the muscles in my arm to channel a force that presses down the key of the piano.


No, we don't know everything about the brain. In fact we know very little. But you make all kinds of crazy assumptions based on nothing. What makes you think the 'machine' the brain can't explain the mind?

And again I don't see how the mind can control itself. How can the fictional concept of the soul control itself? The soul already is supposed to control the mind, and the mind to control the body. How can it control itself? And what does that even mean?

No I do not assume that. Medicine has disected the brain in search of the mind and has found that not one particular structure of the brain is incharge of it. This means that either the mind is a product of different brain structures working with each other, or simply that mind is non-existent.

Well well, that should be an extremely easy one.

We know that the mind if a product of all our 100 billion brain cells, we know every connection out of the 1000 to 100,000 connections each of our brain cells make with other brain cells matter in generating out mind.

It is easier to assume the latter one as true, but then get to confront the question of the ego.

Are you joking or is this a typo?

Similarly, it is easier to assume anything than to confront those things.

What do you mean with this?

It would be silly to deny that most people do not believe in the soul.

Well, yes. But this has absolutely nothing to do with it. How many people believe in astrology? It's total non-sense. Not to mention belief in god.

Obviously, there has to be a tangible explanation for why people believe in the soul.

Yes. And we can immediately exclude one reason. Clearly people do not believe they have souls because they really have one.

From what we know, there is no tangible evidence of the soul. This means that the notion of the soul is produced from the mind. A non-existent mind would not be capable of producing such notions as the soul or God, because of their non-existent nature. After all, does the soul and God exist to the brain? I guess it could be argued that it does, but there is more evidence that it doesn't.

Huh?

A non-existent mind does exactly the same as a non-existent tea spoon; nothing. Not sure where you are going here either.

The other explanation is that in order for the mind to assume anything that isn't pertinent to physical natures is that the mind is existent, and isn't entirely dependant on the brain.

Wait, what? You are saying that a mind can only conceive of notions that have no ground or basis in the physical world if the mind itself also has a ground or foundation outside of the physical world?

Because I can conceive of fairies my mind must be a product of supernatural matter and energy?

I will say it again, that if someone proposes something such as the soul, and naturally are not capable of truly defining it, is evidence to me that such undergoings are restricted to non-material factors which are in themselves not restricted to material factors, in this case non-physical matter be the mind and the physical be the brain.

So because the notion of a soul makes no sense, it must be true?

Since we do not entirely know how the human brain composes the mind, we cannot know if animals also have a mind.

You can observe behavior. You mentioned ego. Great apes have ego.

[debussy symbolism]

How is their existence justified by the laws of physics?

Also, if the laws of physics function on them then they are observable.

Where does this whole concept of non-extended matter come from anyway? I know of quite some hypothetical forms and kinds of matter and energy. But not this one.


But let's imagine what kind of matter this would be. It can't be observed so it does not interact with electromagnetic forces or gravitational forces. Because if it would it would no longer be unobservable.

So how does it interact with the body? Any interaction with the body will be observable. How can something that is totally seperated from reality be part and interact with reality?

First of all let us be clear about some concepts, as I think you misunderstood non-extended matter in relation to concepts such as gravity. Non-extended matter is the type of objectivity that cannot be touched, whereas you can touch matter, or concepts such as objects and brain. First let us confine ourselved to the interaction of gravity and objects. Let us suppose that we have two objects at hand, one alot more dense and massive than another one. According to the laws of physics, the smaller, less dense object will be under the influece of the larger object because of gravity. You can touch the two objects, but you cannot touch gravity. This is what I meant by non-extended matter. Similarly, this applies to the concepts of mind and brain. The brain influences the mind, and you can touch they brain, whereas you cannot touch the mind.

Just as with the interaction between objects, you can know of gravity, but you cannot touch it. With the concept of mind, you know that the physical brain emotes the mind, but you cannot still touch the mind.

Non-extended and extended matter aren't really forms of matter, but more of concepts of existing concepts of matter, with the non-extended denoting the matter you cannot "touch," but can obseve, and extended matter being the matter you can "touch" and still observe.

This is the question, how cannon-observable matter interact with observable objects. We know that gravity, is no less "real" than mind is, impacts objects, so why shouldn't the mind affect the brain?

The mind is not made of matter. The mind is a product of matter arranged in a specific way. Just as the pictures and music on my computer are immaterial, so is the mind.


Silly argument to push a nut-case theory which is basically proposing the supernatural.



Why the mind? Why not something else?

Let's say that when I press the keys of a piano. Maybe it's not really the muscles that do the job. Maybe it's an non-extended form of matter or energy that actually moves my arm, my hand and my finger, and that uses these movements together with the muscles in my arm to channel a force that presses down the key of the piano.

The mind is not matter, just as gravity is not matter.

You are making contrary points which I never provoked. When did I ever assume that it is the mind that governs your bodily actions against the predetermined nature of a particular physiology? I am merely contemplating the possibility that mind isn't dependanton physiology. Lets take this a step back. We all know that our bodily actions are governed by the brain. We also know that the brain is capable of producing a hypothetical concept such as the mind. We do not know whether or not the mind has the potential to govern itself. I never made the suggestion that your mind governs you actions, I am making a point that perhaps mind has the potential to act on the brain, which in turn will decide your actions.

No, we don't know everything about the brain. In fact we know very little. But you make all kinds of crazy assumptions based on nothing. What makes you think the 'machine' the brain can't explain the mind?

And again I don't see how the mind can control itself. How can the fictional concept of the soul control itself? The soul already is supposed to control the mind, and the mind to control the body. How can it control itself? And what does that even mean?

You are making points which I did not provoke. When did I ever say the brain cannot explain the mind. I do imply that the brain, just as the physical object I talked about earlier (the two objects of potential masses and their gravitational pull towards other), has the potential to produce non physical entities, such as the mind. The physical objects are physically existent, or "touchable," whether the mind is not, but just as gravity, is present.

I never suggested that the mind can definately control itself. I am contemplating on possibilities. Also I never suggested that the soul is in any way in authority of anything.

Are you joking or is this a typo?

What do you mean with this?

By "ego," I mean the notion of "I."

It is much easier to refute anything rather than to confront it. It is much easier to say that the mind doesn't exist because it cannot be observed rather than to investigate it.

Huh?

A non-existent mind does exactly the same as a non-existent tea spoon; nothing. Not sure where you are going here either.

A mind that isn't capable of influecing the body, such as the mind you seem to propagate, would not be able to assume points that are alien to it, namely, the non-physical entities such as the soul and God.

Wait, what? You are saying that a mind can only conceive of notions that have no ground or basis in the physical world if the mind itself also has a ground or foundation outside of the physical world?

Because I can conceive of fairies my mind must be a product of supernatural matter and energy?

When a mind conceives of notions that aren't grounded in reality, it suggests not that the mind itself is somehow a creation of the supernatural, but that the mind can assume the supernatural. This wouldn't be possible for a mind that wasn't existent, because a non-existent mind is under the control of the brain, which accordingly, could not assume anything supernatural.

So because the notion of a soul makes no sense, it must be true?

The notion of soul is only acceptable to a mind that isn't bound totally to the brain. I never suggested that that proves the validity of supernatural however.

[ahinton]

but, alistair - if we are made in God's image and the animals aren't

Why "but"? I had never said anything about anyone or anything "made in God's image; only you have brought that notion into the discussion.

- it must say something about us.

BY "us" here, I take you to mean all of us humans; I must disagree with you on the fundamental concept here, since it only says something about you, your beliefs and those who may share them.

why we are attuned to music and spirituality/ philosophy and art - which requires a high degree of consciousness.  the animals don't have this imagination.  that is why i bring it up in this context. 

they have 'instinct.'  we have true conscious awareness that makes us know we have control over the entire planet (well, not literally - but over our area of the planet).

This is largely true, in the sense that (as another writer has correctly suggested later in this thread), humans have a capacity for logic and reasoning which is largely unique to them, although that is not to say that humans lack the instinctive responses that other creatures have - this indeed remains part of the human subsconscious, I think and humans' ability to reason and make decisions of all kinds based upon reasoning has not supplanted but complemented instinct.

btw, my six year old believes that she knows what the cat is dreaming about and insists that she is imagining herself hunting.  perhaps they do have a limited imagination.

But then perhaps your six year old is thereby demonstrating that she herself has sufficient imagination to make up for what might be perceived to be a lack thereof in the cat! - but then what most cats may lack in imagination they tend to make up for in intelligence, in my experience.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Sorry, for me somewhat stepping out of line, as I am not Alistair,

Just out of idle curiosity, is "stepping out of line" what you believe me to have done here? If anything, I would have thought that any "stepping out of line" here is more credibly attributable to Susan in the implied assumption that I, as well as she, has supposedly made in respect of who or what may or may not have been made "in God's image", given that I had made no mention whatsoever of anything or anyone made "in God's image".

I'm not sure in any case if Susan's knowledge of what is identifiable as someone made "in God's image" is necessarily as thorough as she implies, since by her own admission she doesn't "claim to know what God's ears look like".

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

how about the composer andrew lloyd webber.  isn't this music,

Lead me not into temptation!

though 20th century, remarkably calling upon faust to help musicians reach those upper limits (beyond human physiology).

Excuse me? What does that mean?

now, if some composers openly worship satan

Care to name some, Susan?

- why shouldn't some openly worship Jesus Christ - the author of our salvation.  music was created to worship Him - not an imposter.

What? ALL music? What absolute and indefensible nonsense!

Best,

Alistair

[debussy symbolism]

Just out of idle curiosity, is "stepping out of line" what you believe me to have done here?

No of course! On the contrary, I think that you indeed are following the hypothetical line. This forum witnessed several complaints concerning the desultory ways of many conversations, and the ultimate demise of many such threads just because it is impossible for many people to continue the same debate for prolonged periods of time. Naturally, the longer the thread, the more likely that it is going to deviate from its original topic. This is ironic, as seeing that the only thread that has truly never changed its course and will probably never change, is incidentally the longest thread if forum history.

[prometheus]

First of all let us be clear about some concepts, as I think you misunderstood non-extended matter in relation to concepts such as gravity. Non-extended matter is the type of objectivity that cannot be touched, whereas you can touch matter, or concepts such as objects and brain. First let us confine ourselved to the interaction of gravity and objects. Let us suppose that we have two objects at hand, one alot more dense and massive than another one. According to the laws of physics, the smaller, less dense object will be under the influece of the larger object because of gravity.

No. They both attract each other according to F = Gm1m2)/r^2


There is only once force. And it doesn't matter if one object is 100 kilogramme and the other 1 or both are 10.

Then in what sense this force causes acceleration has to do with inertia. Massive objects are harder to put into motion: F = ma. So same F, big m means smaller a.

You can touch the two objects, but you cannot touch gravity. This is what I meant by non-extended matter.

Gravity is not matter. It's either a force caused by gravitons, which would be matter and would be touchable. Or gravity is the curvature of space-time which is caused my mass.

Similarly, this applies to the concepts of mind and brain. The brain influences the mind, and you can touch they brain, whereas you cannot touch the mind.

You can't touch the mind because it is an immaterial concept. You can touch the brain.

Just as with the interaction between objects, you can know of gravity, but you cannot touch it. With the concept of mind, you know that the physical brain emotes the mind, but you cannot still touch the mind.

In the case of gravity you can touch the matter that causes it and you can observe the curve in space-time it represents.


You can't observe the mind independent of the brain. Because while gravity is independent of matter, the mind is just not independent of the brain.

Non-extended and extended matter aren't really forms of matter, but more of concepts of existing concepts of matter, with the non-extended denoting the matter you cannot "touch," but can obseve, and extended matter being the matter you can "touch" and still observe.

If it isn't matter then don't call it matter. Silly Descartes...

So how can you observe the mind? When we do that we are really observing the brain. I don't know of a way of observing the mind without looking at the brain. I do know tons of way of observing gravity without observing the matter. That's how we first discovered black holes, for example. And that is also how we try to find planets around stars far away. We look for the curvature in space-time they cause.

This is the question, how cannon-observable matter interact with observable objects. We know that gravity, is no less "real" than mind is, impacts objects, so why shouldn't the mind affect the brain?

Now you do call it non-observable. By definition the non-observable can't interact with the observable because if the interaction has effect on the observable we can see that effect, and thus see the interaction and thus observe that what is supposed to be non-observable.

You are making contrary points which I never provoked. When did I ever assume that it is the mind that governs your bodily actions against the predetermined nature of a particular physiology? I am merely contemplating the possibility that mind isn't dependanton physiology.

Gravity is totally dependent on matter as far as we can tell.

Lets take this a step back. We all know that our bodily actions are governed by the brain. We also know that the brain is capable of producing a hypothetical concept such as the mind. We do not know whether or not the mind has the potential to govern itself. I never made the suggestion that your mind governs you actions, I am making a point that perhaps mind has the potential to act on the brain, which in turn will decide your actions.

Again, I don't see how the mind, which is the effect of the brain, can influence that what it its cause.

You are making points which I did not provoke. When did I ever say the brain cannot explain the mind.

Then why not quit this discussion immediately then? If there is nothing the supernatural mind can explain which the physiological brain cannot then the concept is totally useless.

I do imply that the brain, just as the physical object I talked about earlier, has the potential to produce non physical entities, such as the mind. The physical objects are physically existent, or "touchable," whether the mind is not, but just as gravity, is present.

But the mind is immaterial. The mind is the immaterial result of the purely material processes that go on inside the brain.

I never suggested that the mind can definately control itself. I am contemplating on possibilities. Also I never suggested that the soul is in any way in authority of anything.

Isn't that the same thing? You are all free to do so, of course. But why would you contemplate something if you don't want to suggest it.

It is much easier to refute anything rather than to confront it.

Because here 'anything' and 'it' are not defined this sentence is meaningless.

It is much easier to say that the mind doesn't exist because it cannot be observed rather than to investigate it.

You can only say that the mind cannot be observed if you tried to do so, which means investigating it.

My memories, my thoughts, etc. They aren't made of matter or energy. They are coded for in my brain through neurons. I have 100 billion neurons and they store information by making patters and connections. Every neuron connects with 1000 to 100,000 other neurons, making a total of 1x10^14 to 1x10^17 connections. These connections store information. They determine the nature of the mind.


Just as you can build a neural net artificial computer. You can have it run simple algorithms to recognize pictures or faces. These processes do exist, but they aren't made of matter or energy themselves.


And in our normal computers information is coded in bits using magnetically charged fields and the lack of them.

Bits aren't made of matter or energy either. So in a sense they are 'non-extended'. But they are the effect of normal matter.

A mind that isn't capable of influecing the body, such as the mind you seem to propagate, would not be able to assume points that are alien to it, namely, the non-physical entities such as the soul and God.

A mind that isn't a mind wouldn't be able to contemplate concepts like a soul or a god, yes.

When a mind conceives of notions that aren't grounded in reality, it suggests not that the mind itself is somehow a creation of the supernatural, but that the mind can assume the supernatural. This wouldn't be possible for a mind that wasn't existent, because a non-existent mind is under the control of the brain, which accordingly, could not assume anything supernatural.

A mind that does not exist does not do things that a mind can do. Of course our mind can conceive of all kinds of ideas. If they are grounded in reality or not does not matter. But it is hard to know if our concepts are grounded in reality or not. Therefore we use scientific method.

The notion of soul is only acceptable to a mind that isn't bound totally to the brain. I never suggested that that proves the validity of supernatural however.

Well, here you say that the brain limits the mind and that a soul is needed to explain what the mind can do what the brain can't explain.



If a brain can perfectly produce a mind that can conceive of the supernatural. Conceiving of supernatural concepts is physiologically no different that conceiving of any other concept.

[debussy symbolism]

No. They both attract each other according to F = Gm1m2)/r^2


There is only once force. And it doesn't matter if one object is 100 kilogramme and the other 1 or both are 10.

Then in what sense this force causes acceleration has to do with inertia. Massive objects are harder to put into motion: F = ma. So same F, big m means smaller a.

It doesn't matter here how the attraction occurs, as long as we understand that gravity, is as you said, is a dent in space dependant on the mass of the object. I was using the relationship between to objects of defferent mass to illustrate not the concepts of gravity, but to point out that physical objects do have the innate capability of producing non-physical objects, in this case gravity.

In the case of gravity you can touch the matter that causes it and you can observe the curve in space-time it represents.


You can't observe the mind independent of the brain. Because while gravity is independent of matter, the mind is just not independent of the brain.

I don't understand. How is gravity non-dependant on matter? As you said, gravity is produced when a dent in space is created by an object of density. If there is no object of density then no curvature can occur and no gravity can occur. Similarly, the mind is dependant on the brain only because the brain exists, otherwise the mind couldn't exist.

So how can you observe the mind? When we do that we are really observing the brain. I don't know of a way of observing the mind without looking at the brain. I do know tons of way of observing gravity without observing the matter. That's how we first discovered black holes, for example. And that is also how we try to find planets around stars far away. We look for the curvature in space-time they cause.

We cannot observe gravity without first recognizing the sources that cause it, as in the case of celestial objects. Similarly with the mind and the brain, we can only recognize the patterns of the mind by recognizing the functions of the brain. This is what I meant by "you can touch the physical entities such as the brain, and you can observe it; yet you cannot touch the forces such mind and gravity, but you can still observe them."

Now you do call it non-observable. By definition the non-observable can't interact with the observable because if the interaction has effect on the observable we can see that effect, and thus see the interaction and thus observe that what is supposed to be non-observable.

Sorry I made a mistake. I meant "non-touchable."

[prometheus]

I don't understand. How is gravity non-dependant on matter?

I mean to say that gravity is depended on but independent of mass. You can observe gravity without observing matter. You can't observe the mind without observing the brain.

We cannot observe gravity without first recognizing the sources that cause it, as in the case of celestial objects.

This is incorrect. I already gave an example. We can observe black holes mainly through gravity. We then postulate the gravity must be caused by mass. Same with dark matter. We see a gravitational effect, therefore there has to be matter.

So this really is a false analogy. It's pretty similar, but exactly on the point you want to use it it is different in a small way but in a very significant way.

Similarly with the mind and the brain, we can only recognize the patterns of the mind by recognizing the functions of the brain. This is what I meant by "you can touch the physical entities such as the brain, and you can observe it; yet you cannot touch the forces such mind and gravity, but you can still observe them."

Yeah, the mind goes create magnetic fields. But these magnetic fields aren't the mind itself. They are also merely an effect of the mind, a way to observe the activity in the brain that are responsible for the effect we call the mind.

Sorry I made a mistake. I meant "non-touchable."

Do you realise you can never actually really touch matter? What happens if you try to touch matter is that the magnetic field of the atoms that make up your hand come into contact with the magnetic field of the atoms that make up the object you touch.

Matter is largely empty space. Atoms never touch each other.


So yeah, in the case of gravity we have a force acting on matter, in the case of observing brain activity we have a force acting on matter. But in the case of touching an object we also merely have a force acting on matter.