# What ideas interest you?



## whiskers (Jan 1, 2019)

In general, what kind of ideas/concepts interest you? Mostly non-music related, but could be that too. Curious to see what topics and ideas captivate other people, not necessarily related to their 'day job.'

Kept kinda vague on purpose


----------



## monomox (Jan 9, 2019)

About a million?

I'm a very curious, life-long learner. In the last year, though, I've been obsessed by productivity, entrepreneurship, art and how they fit in the framework of spirituality.


----------



## gregh (Jan 9, 2019)

I am interested in ideas too - I tend to have one "on the go" for quite some time until I resolve it to my satisfaction, then I stop thinking about it pretty much and basically forget everything about it except the resolution I came to.
My main interests over the last few years have been "free-will" and recently "time". Free-will I'm happy with, Time sort of but not totally. (Free will is a feeling we get when we explore our agency. We don't experience time.)

Prior to that I was mainly interested in the adaptive function of music - how music works in an evolutionary and neuro-biological sense. I'm pretty happy with how that went as well  (I have a background in neuroscience and cognition and am not happy with a solution until it is in strictly materialist terms).

(the evolution of music relates to the attribution of leadership through synchronisation of motion)


I don't really have something on the go at the moment but still not totaly happy with the way I think about Time


----------



## Parsifal666 (Jan 9, 2019)

Whatever ideas lead me away from witnessing the horrific dumbing down of music. Music truly has gone to the dogs this century...I can't help but think there could be an adult great composer out there whom practically no one knows about. There's so much of the same s*&( being mass produced out there that anything that has any sort of original or purely expressive content is literally suffocated by the lowest common denominator.

Why isn't there a Mozart of Beethoven today? He or she would need one _*hell*_ of an agent (and god forbid they're ugly or over 30).


----------



## Crowe (Jan 9, 2019)

Fiction.

Basically our purely human ability to make stuff up and find solace in it.

In relation to the post above, I despise time. I've yet to find a workable way with the ever present feeling that time is running out. Also, spending 40 hours a week on a job you don't really enjoy because I'm not at a level to do what I love professionally really takes it out of you. As such, concepts that used to interest me, such as philosophy, now fall under the header "I have no time for that". Music, Fiction and Family, as much as I manage, are all I feel I have time for.


----------



## Crowe (Jan 9, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> Whatever ideas lead me away from witnessing the horrific dumbing down of music. Music truly has gone to the dogs this century...I can't help but think there could be an adult great composer out there whom practically no one knows about. There's so much of the same s*&( being mass produced out there that anything that has any sort of original or purely expressive content is literally suffocated by the lowest common denominator.
> 
> Why isn't there a Mozart of Beethoven today? He or she would need one _*hell*_ of an agent (and god forbid they're ugly or over 30).



I think music has evolved with the times (disregarding horrible pop and trap and other stuff). Some of the most wonderful music I've witnessed has come from Film and Videogames. You speak of dumbing down, but if something is beautiful why would it need to be exceedingly complicated? John Williams may not be Beethoven and yet I prefer his music above Beethoven's every day of the week. I'm not even sure I would call his work 'dumbed down' in relation.

Not only that, but I've heard (and seen) folks play more complicated and harmonically interesting stuff than for example a Mozart. Yet these musicians do not get the same recognition. Perhaps, as a culture, we are over it. Or perhaps one needs to be dead for a couple hundred years before they are accepted into the foundations of culture.

Hah. Perhaps that's why you feel like it's been getting worse 'this century'.


----------



## MA-Simon (Jan 9, 2019)

Technological age divide.

For example, my parents barely use mobile phones and pc's, while I am expected to use an ever growing number of highly complicated programs, machines, apps and environments (the internet has become a mystery to most people, getting more convoluted and unwieldy by the minute.) to minimally function at my job. For me internet usage is almost like a sixt sense, because I grew up with it. I can almost feel my way before each click. I know what to expect, which adds to trust, were not to go, what sites are legit, how to search... fast, but to someone not in the know... it can only be magic and mystery, like that mother in her 40 using facebook and playing candycrush? I am scared for her. How would she know? Can I really trust my parents with that much power?

And they are not even 60 yet. I can only imagine what the world looks like for older people.
Or people jobsearching in their 40/50s. If I was an employer, I would not hire "old=stuck" pleople either. Shure, some folk educate themselfes, but most are just getting swept with the tide.
Unfortunally that gap is a real thing and it is only getting wider.

In a more positive interest: 3D Printing.
Currently doing a lot of 3D-Stuff for clients. It's fun!


----------



## Parsifal666 (Jan 9, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> Not only that, but I've heard (and seen) folks play more complicated and harmonically interesting stuff than for example a Mozart. Yet these musicians do not get the same recognition. Perhaps, as a culture, we are over it. Or perhaps one needs to be dead for a couple hundred years before they are accepted into the foundations of culture.



Dude, is this a joke? Because there isn't a single paid musician I know that will do anything but die laughing off of this.

I'll pay you the ultimate respect and pretend it was joke. Just either hope others treat it the same or...better yet, delete the comment. You're still relatively new to this board and don't need the embarrassment. Even more amusing would be for you to share some audio/video of this player absolutely no one knows about, please. Or, better yet, don't. We already know he or she ain't that.

Most hilarious quote I've seen this year. Honestly no offense meant, but anyone whom has studied Mozart is thinking very lowly of your musical opinion right now, bud. Take my advice: delete that post and I'll even do you a big favor and delete this one if you do. I mean this in the kindest manner. Really. Think whether you want people to irrevocably remember you as saying such horse manure.

You'll thank me later, my friend. I'm only looking out for your future here.

Another great bit of advice: listen to any of the piano concerti after the k400 mark and really _listen _this time, preferably while reading the score. If you can read the score (just sayin').


----------



## gregh (Jan 9, 2019)

MA-Simon said:


> Technological age divide.
> 
> For example, my parents barely use mobile phones and pc's, while I am expected to use an ever growing number of highly complicated programs, machines, apps and environments (the internet has become a mystery to most people, getting more convoluted and unwieldy by the minute.) to minimally function at my job. For me internet usage is almost like a sixt sense, because I grew up with it. I can almost feel my way before each click. I know what to expect, which adds to trust, were not to go, what sites are legit, how to search... fast, but to someone not in the know... it can only be magic and mystery, like that mother in her 40 using facebook and playing candycrush? I am scared for her. How would she know? Can I really trust my parents with that much power?
> 
> ...



Ageist or what! You realise most of the stuff you use was developed and invented by people who are 60+ Takes 20 years at least to go from research projects to product. Most times much longer. 
What you are fooled by is the idea that the technologies you use are central to being "modern". That's just a reflection of fantastic marketing. The whole idea of developing a "generation gap" came out of US marketing in the late 50's early 60's. it was seen that exploiting young people was easier if they were flattered into thinking they had secret knowledge (more up to date) than their parents. This enabled marketers to diminish the influence of parents over young peoples purchasing decisions. Has been fantastically successful - the latest incarnation being in IT where the most inane useless junk canmake millions overnight, then disappear. Perfect optimisation of consumption.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Jan 9, 2019)

gregh said:


> Ageist or what! You realise most of the stuff you use was developed and invented by people who are 60+ Takes 20 years at least to go from research projects to product. Most times much longer.
> What you are fooled by is the idea that the technologies you use are central to being "modern". That's just a reflection of fantastic marketing. The whole idea of developing a "generation gap" came out of US marketing in the late 50's early 60's. it was seen that exploiting young people was easier if they were flattered into thinking they had secret knowledge (more up to date) than their parents. This enabled marketers to diminish the influence of parents over young peoples purchasing decisions. Has been fantastically successful - the latest incarnation being in IT where the most inane useless junk canmake millions overnight, then disappear. Perfect optimisation of consumption.



Music is one of if not the most obvious examples of where this whole "progress" horse s#@$ sucks bogwater. There's nothing out there the level of Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Mahler, and hasn't been since probably Richard Strauss. In other words, this century doesn't even meet the standards of one hundred years ago...the skill sets have diminished that obviously, and not just among composers.

Young people do need to listen to older, studied, experienced people in music...especially when it comes to listing people like Kanye West as a great composer. The last great composer in music (at least Occidental music) died shortly after the second world war, and most musicologists (shoot most music *graduates*) would have a hard time refuting that. Not that there hasn't been wonderful music since...hell no, and I happen to like more than a few two and three chord rehashes. But no one's convincing a music graduate that music has progressed anywhere since Strauss, Bartok.


----------



## MA-Simon (Jan 9, 2019)

gregh said:


> Ageist or what! You realise most of the stuff you use was developed and invented by people who are 60+ Takes 20 years at least to go from research projects to product. Most times much longer.


I hear you. And that is true for some things.
But the day-to-day reality is different.
The software I use in this industry changes monthly. New updates, developments renderers etc. If you are not constantly following development, you are already behind and outdated to your employer.

Shure, broad things like the technological bases have been arround for a bit. But your averange person has stopped being interested in new stuff after those "bases" have been covered. There is a lot happening, but after those needs were covered a lot have just stopped looking outside their box.


----------



## gregh (Jan 9, 2019)

MA-Simon said:


> I hear you. And that is true for some things.
> But the day-to-day reality is different.
> The software I use in this industry changes monthly.



which industry?


----------



## MA-Simon (Jan 9, 2019)

gregh said:


> which industry?


3D / Gamedesign in my case. Which is probably not a fair comparison.

But I meant more simple stuff, like knowing how to use the internet properly, setting up a wifi connection, interacting with your computer. I am constantly baffled by people not grasping the simplest of concepts in regards to their workstations.


----------



## gregh (Jan 9, 2019)

MA-Simon said:


> 3D / Gamedesign in my case. Which is probably not a fair comparison.
> 
> But I meant more simple stuff, like knowing how to use the internet properly, setting up a wifi connection, interacting with your computer. I am constantly baffled by people not grasping the simplest of concepts in regards to their workstations.


shows you how badly those things are designed if so many people are having problems. Or perhaps they are designed that way to preserve a techno elite 

I think you are getting confused about generalising out the importance of knowledge in your own domain to the needs of others (with a bit of selection bias)
Can you perform simple surgery? I'm amazed how many can't and yet it is verycommon and quite necessary.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 9, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> Take my advice: delete that post and I'll even do you a big favor and delete this one if you do. I mean this in the kindest manner. Really. Think whether you want people to irrevocably remember you as saying such horse manure.


Maybe take your own advice.


----------



## HelixK (Jan 9, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> Dude, is this a joke? Because there isn't a single paid musician I know that will do anything but die laughing off of this.
> 
> I'll pay you the ultimate respect and pretend it was joke. Just either hope others treat it the same or...better yet, delete the comment. You're still relatively new to this board and don't need the embarrassment. Even more amusing would be for you to share some audio/video of this player absolutely no one knows about, please. Or, better yet, don't. We already know he or she ain't that.
> 
> Most hilarious quote I've seen this year. Honestly no offense meant, but anyone whom has studied Mozart is thinking very lowly of your musical opinion right now, bud. Take my advice: delete that post and I'll even do you a big favor and delete this one if you do. I mean this in the kindest manner. Really. Think whether you want people to irrevocably remember you as saying such horse manure.


----------



## Crowe (Jan 9, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> Dude, is this a joke? Because there isn't a single paid musician I know that will do anything but die laughing off of this.
> 
> I'll pay you the ultimate respect and pretend it was joke. Just either hope others treat it the same or...better yet, delete the comment. You're still relatively new to this board and don't need the embarrassment. Even more amusing would be for you to share some audio/video of this player absolutely no one knows about, please. Or, better yet, don't. We already know he or she ain't that.
> 
> ...



Oh no, an opinion. Whatever will I do?

You should follow your own advice, pretentious elitism is not a good look on anyone. Great joke though, as your reply was utterly devoid of any respect towards differening viewpoints.

I wasn't trying to prove anything, just illustrate an idea. Art criticism is inherently subjective. Calm the fuck down.


----------



## Vik (Jan 10, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> You speak of dumbing down, but if something is beautiful why would it need to be exceedingly complicated? John Williams may not be Beethoven and yet I prefer his music above Beethoven's every day of the week. I'm not even sure I would call his work 'dumbed down' in relation.
> 
> Not only that, but I've heard (and seen) folks play more complicated and harmonically interesting stuff than for example a Mozart.


This is a large topic which easily could take over this thread. Not that that would be a problem, but IMO part of this has to do with what we *like* to listen to, and not about how complex the music is - and especially not how complicated it is. I can mention several of the great composers who I could categorise as being geniuses, but personally - being unique and having the ability come up with something I really want to hear, many times and can enjoy on several different levels is what I'm looking for.... not 'complicated'. We have girlfriends, DAW bugs and the music industry for that.


----------



## KallumS (Jan 10, 2019)

The only ideas that interest me are ideas for new future Drama Zone threads, such as this one


----------



## CGR (Jan 10, 2019)

Musically: Binaural recording/playback/immersive audio & video.

Technologically: Medical research including brain plasticity & ageing. 'Environmental' technologies.

Existentially:


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 10, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> Music is one of if not the most obvious examples of where this whole "progress" horse s#@$ sucks bogwater. There's nothing out there the level of Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Mahler, and hasn't been since probably Richard Strauss. In other words, this century doesn't even meet the standards of one hundred years ago...the skill sets have diminished that obviously, and not just among composers.
> 
> Young people do need to listen to older, studied, experienced people in music...especially when it comes to listing people like Kanye West as a great composer. The last great composer in music (at least Occidental music) died shortly after the second world war, and most musicologists (shoot most music *graduates*) would have a hard time refuting that. Not that there hasn't been wonderful music since...hell no, and I happen to like more than a few two and three chord rehashes. But no one's convincing a music graduate that music has progressed anywhere since Strauss, Bartok.



Parsifal, I'm not sure what you are saying here, are you condemning some of the great geniuses (who are surely on a par with Mozart et al) of the latter 20thC and up to the present? I get your subjectivity, but to dismiss Britten, Tippet, Henze, Boulez, Messiaen, Lutoslawski etc. etc. with such a short shrift doesn't ring true at all to me and probably a lot of composers. Ok you may not like their music, but those bad boys and others are supremely gifted (and in some cases visionary) composers and it doesn't seem right to dismiss them without at least acknowledging their uniqueness and brilliance, regardless of taste. Britten for example had the fluency, skill and ease of Mozart quite apart from being one of the finest pianists of his generation, with perfect pitch, able to write about 12 pages of full score a day, away from a piano. Boulez's ear was so fine that british musos called him the french Correction, one time he picked up on wrong notes in Stockhausen's Gruppen for 3 orchestras. Messiaen was a theroetical innovator who also just wrote directly to the page, Shostakovitch was another prodigy who bled music just like our Classical and Baroque heroes... I could go on.

Not coming on to you here as I often agree with your posts....but not this one....


----------



## Craig Duke (Jan 10, 2019)

gregh said:


> I am interested in ideas too - I tend to have one "on the go" for quite some time until I resolve it to my satisfaction, then I stop thinking about it pretty much and basically forget everything about it except the resolution I came to.
> My main interests over the last few years have been "free-will" and recently "time". Free-will I'm happy with, Time sort of but not totally. (Free will is a feeling we get when we explore our agency. We don't experience time.)


Gregh, are you convinced we have free will or do we just create the illusion of it in our brain, or some combo of both? Do you think Libet's "we choose before we know we choose" experiment, and the like, are convincing? A very interesting subject. I'm on the fence though I do believe most of our actions are not driven by our conscious mind and most of what our conscious mind thinks it decided is mostly influenced by the subconscious or strongly driven by it. Forgive my layman's terms.

I'm wondering about your position that we do not experience of time. Maybe its semantics. We experience a past and a present, remembering the past and sensing the present (or almost present). Noticing the difference between the two is our experience of time. That said, we put the before and now together in our brains, we do not directly sense it, we have no input/sense for time (like sound and light and touch, ...). Is that what you are thinking?


----------



## Quasar (Jan 10, 2019)

Craig Duke said:


> Gregh, are you convinced we have free will or do we just create the illusion of it in our brain, or some combo of both? Do you think Libet's "we choose before we know we choose" experiment, and the like, are convincing? A very interesting subject. I'm on the fence though I do believe most of our actions are not driven by our conscious mind and most of what our conscious mind thinks it decided is mostly influenced by the subconscious or strongly driven by it. Forgive my layman's terms.
> 
> I'm wondering about your position that we do not experience of time. Maybe its semantics. We experience a past and a present, remembering the past and sensing the present (or almost present). Noticing the difference between the two is our experience of time. That said, we put the before and now together in our brains, we do not directly sense it, we have no input/sense for time (like sound and light and touch, ...). Is that what you are thinking?


Of course we have free will. Life is all about making choices, and we are given the freedom and autonomy to make those choices. It's also true that everything is created by God and predetermined to play out the way that it plays out.

This seems like a contradiction, but it's not. Rather, it's a limited perspective based on the way we perceive time. The universal "system" is grander than our human powers of perception, and is big enough to accommodate what we think of as both "free will" and "predetermination" simultaneously.

For instance, I can decide what to have for dinner tonight, but cannot choose what to have for dinner last night. From a vantage point beyond physical spacetime, it's all simply part of what is happening. God can see what we are going to do tomorrow or next month, but this does not mean that we don't have a choice. It just means that God sees it...


----------



## Crowe (Jan 10, 2019)

To me, not having free will falls under the preview of fate. Fate indicates a universal law that cannot be seen, measured or otherwise observed scientifically. Which means that, accepting that it is real, it would also be magic.

And I do not believe in magic.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 10, 2019)

"You think that's air you're breathing?"


----------



## whiskers (Jan 10, 2019)

KallumS said:


> The only ideas that interest me are ideas for new future Drama Zone threads, such as this one


this was not my intent! 

We need a [PAX] & [PUG] Prefix


----------



## gregh (Jan 10, 2019)

Craig Duke said:


> Gregh, are you convinced we have free will or do we just create the illusion of it in our brain, or some combo of both? Do you think Libet's "we choose before we know we choose" experiment, and the like, are convincing? A very interesting subject. I'm on the fence though I do believe most of our actions are not driven by our conscious mind and most of what our conscious mind thinks it decided is mostly influenced by the subconscious or strongly driven by it. Forgive my layman's terms.



I don't see any way that the usual idea of Free will makes sense. Libet showed that conscious deliberation was over-rated but I don't think that (important) result was necessary to see problems with the idea of Free Will. Free will has problems in the basic construction of the idea and we all hit up against those problems when we think about free will.
But we sometimes feel as though decisions are made by us in a free manner, (although I think if we unpack that we find we feel like we are exerting free will far less often than assumed). In fact the more we think about free will the more problematic it becomes - how does it even work? Is it just a retrospective story ala Libet? And so on.

I think we can just rethink free will away from being a decision based process to a feeling that we get when we express our agency. As far as I can tell all the classic problems fall away once we reorient our attitude to free will in that way. There is no longer need for a central decision maker that somehow stands outside history (an idea that is incompatible with learning for example). And for a new positive result, having the strength of the feeling of acting freely inversely proportional to the constraints on agency (ie the probability, or "ease", of the action) is a really compact description that covers a lot of ground.



poetd said:


> And if Free Will is an illusion and all decisions are unconsciously driven, then it is still the individual making those decisions and merely the ego that is offended that it isn't supreme overlord.



exactly - there can be a confusion between having free will and being more or less unique with unique ways of being in the world. (although I would still argue that expressing the idea as "the individual making those decisions" leads to confusion, and all we need say is "the individual acts".)


----------



## gregh (Jan 10, 2019)

Craig Duke said:


> I'm wondering about your position that we do not experience of time. Maybe its semantics. We experience a past and a present, remembering the past and sensing the present (or almost present). Noticing the difference between the two is our experience of time. That said, we put the before and now together in our brains, we do not directly sense it, we have no input/sense for time (like sound and light and touch, ...). Is that what you are thinking?



that's pretty much it Craig - and the more I think about it in terms of the physical construction of memory in our brains and bodies the better that idea of time as a story we construct on the fly seems. eg it makes sense of ways we can mis-remember the order of events because of the salience of the memory and it's relation to other memories and the retrieval mechanisms used when that memory is reincorporated into a "story on the fly" . So it is not as if I don't think Time exists or that we don't have a past or a present, more that is interesting to think about how we construct that sense of past and present (and future) given that we have no "sense of time" as you point out


----------



## Chr!s (Jan 10, 2019)

Shiirai said:


> Fate indicates a universal law that cannot be seen, measured or otherwise observed scientifically. Which means that, accepting that it is real, it would also be magic.



Our lives are going to follow an inevitable path.

You cannot just "make" things happen. *You can make choices to try and predict the future, but you will never know what that future is until you're there.* You also have no idea what choices you will be faced with or what choices you will actually make when the time comes. The only thing that is certain is that you will be faced with decisions that will lead you down some road. This then loops back to the bolded part.

Thus: Fate.

In short: Because you cannot know for sure what awaits, and cannot undo the past, the sequence of events in your life was inevitable.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 11, 2019)

Guys n Gals,

A little more alternative fuel for the free will debate. It is only a short article, but, well, quirky and who knows??
It is well worth a read.....but might be completely off the wall!
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nzem3x/do-we-have-free-will-because-god-killed-herself

Determinism? well, there's a question, ask the quantum foam...


----------



## muk (Jan 11, 2019)

That text is hogwash in my opinion. I don't agree and would not let go uncontested one single of his premises. That he states these premises as if they were well established facts still does not make them so. In my opinion his conclusions are wrong because the premises he bases them on are haberdash.

On the Libet-experiment: it does indeed pose interesting questions. Questions that neuro-scientists and philosophers have very differing answers for. Neuro-scientists have interpreted it as proof that we don't have a free will, that our brains create an illusion of free will to our conscious minds etc. Philosophers question the dichotomy these neuro-scientists make: what is it supposed to mean that 'our brain' creates an illusion to us, as if it were a separate entity with its own agenda? Why would you separate one function of the brain (the 'deciding' part) from all other parts of it and our conscious mind? Doesn't all of the brain belong as much to us as oir heart does? Basically this distinction is rather problematic. To accept it would mean that society should not punish individuals for criminal behaviour, but only one part of their brains. And that is a rather absurd and impractical notion.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jan 11, 2019)

MA-Simon said:


> Technological age divide.
> 
> For example, my parents barely use mobile phones and pc's, while I am expected to use an ever growing number of highly complicated programs, machines, apps and environments (the internet has become a mystery to most people, getting more convoluted and unwieldy by the minute.) to minimally function at my job. For me internet usage is almost like a sixt sense, because I grew up with it. I can almost feel my way before each click. I know what to expect, which adds to trust, were not to go, what sites are legit, how to search... fast, but to someone not in the know... it can only be magic and mystery, like that mother in her 40 using facebook and playing candycrush? I am scared for her. How would she know? Can I really trust my parents with that much power?
> 
> ...


I don't necessarily think this is true. My 89 year old dad was an early adapter of all things computer. I remember the TRS-80 with a cassette tape drive that he brought home when I was a kid. This was before floppy disks. He still uses a computer regularly, though his memory is going, which makes it difficult for him. But he updates his smartphone more often than I do. And I taught my mom to use YouTube and Google when she was in her 70's. She loved that a lot of old songs and movies were starting to show up on YouTube. 

Now, keeping up with all the changes in the new, cool, social media methods? Yeah, even I don't do that anymore. But I think a lot of it is where your interests lie. The younger generations do tend to be more computer literate, but I think that is more because it is taught in schools and at home more widely than when I was a kid. It really wasn't until I was in college that they expected you to know how to use one.


----------



## Craig Duke (Jan 11, 2019)

muk said:


> Why would you separate one function of the brain (the 'deciding' part) from all other parts of it and our conscious mind? Doesn't all of the brain belong as much to us as oir heart does? Basically this distinction is rather problematic. To accept it would mean that society should not punish individuals for criminal behaviour, but only one part of their brains. And that is a rather absurd and impractical notion.


The separation is a result of the definition of free will being a conscious decision. If the choices are non-conscious, then by definition, there is no free will. No one is arguing that the choice is coming from anywhere but our bodies (no one I would be interesting in listening to anyway).

Libert is very interesting but there are areas of concern. Since it's such an old experiment (1980s), I am surprised there haven't been more extended versions. I have seen one variation with a women, with a sensing plate installed in her head, which gives good results. She is playing a simple game and a computer is predicting her moves (choices) correctly 80% of the time before she knows her choice.

Just because something is impractical or bad for society doesn't make it incorrect. Not sure if that is what you are saying. You are in good company with your concern though. As I remember Daniel Dennett mentioned his concern ("If its true we shouldn't talk about it"). Sam Harris also has a say about that. 

If it was generally believed that we have no free will, our laws would certainly adjust. This is because a society's first goal is to perpetuate its existence. That requires a level of stability (free, capitalistic societies especially). A punishment for breaking a law still affect the individual's non-conscious decisions. We touch something hot and couple of times and not doing so became automatic after that.

Right. The article was, how should I say, New Age gobbleygook.


----------



## gregh (Jan 11, 2019)

muk said:


> That text is hogwash in my opinion. I don't agree and would not let go uncontested one single of his premises. That he states these premises as if they were well established facts still does not make them so. In my opinion his conclusions are wrong because the premises he bases them on are haberdash.
> 
> On the Libet-experiment: it does indeed pose interesting questions. Questions that neuro-scientists and philosophers have very differing answers for. Neuro-scientists have interpreted it as proof that we don't have a free will, that our brains create an illusion of free will to our conscious minds etc. Philosophers question the dichotomy these neuro-scientists make: what is it supposed to mean that 'our brain' creates an illusion to us, as if it were a separate entity with its own agenda? Why would you separate one function of the brain (the 'deciding' part) from all other parts of it and our conscious mind? Doesn't all of the brain belong as much to us as oir heart does? Basically this distinction is rather problematic. To accept it would mean that society should not punish individuals for criminal behaviour, but only one part of their brains. And that is a rather absurd and impractical notion.



Actually it is normally the philosophers that make the dichotomy between "brain" and "us" - and even then only some philosophers. There are still Dualists in philosophy - not so much in neuoscience. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with thinking the brain has both specialised modules and is also highly integrated.

The punishment thing is a non-problem. I personally don't think anyone should be punished for crime - that's a mechanism and attitude that has never worked. A harm minimisation approach would be - and demonstrably is - more effective. The desire to punish just derives from revenge fantasies - the desire to be a vengeful God. Those desires are themselves, in the main, a reflection of feelings of humiliation through subjugation within power hierarchies.


----------



## Parsifal666 (Jan 11, 2019)

I apologize for my earlier, obviously contradictory comments. I feel bad, as I was having a bad day and I made the mistake of bringing it on here with me. 

I honestly hope no one was offended or felt disrespected, please forgive me all. I'll try to keep my crap to myself. 

And yeah, I can be pretty damn obtuse huh lol!


----------



## dzilizzi (Jan 11, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> I apologize for my earlier, obviously contradictory comments. I feel bad, as I was having a bad day and I made the mistake of bringing it on here with me.
> 
> I honestly hope no one was offended or felt disrespected, please forgive me all. I'll try to keep my crap to myself.
> 
> And yeah, I can be pretty damn obtuse huh lol!


My dad would probably agree with your sentiments. He never understood the appeal of anything much newer than the 1930's. Fortunately, my mother was much more open to anything that was musical. I can appreciate my dad's viewpoint, but I'm glad I inherited my mom's openness to something new. You never know what will inspire you to make music.


----------



## gregh (Jan 11, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> My dad would probably agree with your sentiments. He never understood the appeal of anything much newer than the 1930's. Fortunately, my mother was much more open to anything that was musical. I can appreciate my dad's viewpoint, but I'm glad I inherited my mom's openness to something new. You never know what will inspire you to make music.


I grew up in a family with little to no music at all - I think we had a chubby checker LP and another from Mario Lanza that got played maybe once a year. I didn't hear any other music at home until I was about 10 or so and my sister bought a Beatles album - It's a Hard Days Night. There was no music at school either, so not much at all really


----------



## dzilizzi (Jan 11, 2019)

gregh said:


> I grew up in a family with little to no music at all - I think we had a chubby checker LP and another from Mario Lanza that got played maybe once a year. I didn't hear any other music at home until I was about 10 or so and my sister bought a Beatles album - It's a Hard Days Night. There was no music at school either, so not much at all really


We had a lot of music growing up. It is hard to imagine not having music in the house. My dad sang in the church choir and played the violin. My mom was a genius on the piano, she could read music and also play by ear. And everything sounded happy when she played, if that makes sense. She also played the organ at church until her arthritis made it difficult. She never thought she was that good though. I wished I picked up her ability. 

It was my older brother who discovered pop/rock - we were more rock in our house, The Who, the Stones & Led Zeppelin. My older sister eventually introduced us to the Beatles, but they were broken up by then.


----------



## gregh (Jan 11, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> We had a lot of music growing up. It is hard to imagine not having music in the house. My dad sang in the church choir and played the violin. My mom was a genius on the piano, she could read music and also play by ear. And everything sounded happy when she played, if that makes sense. She also played the organ at church until her arthritis made it difficult. She never thought she was that good though. I wished I picked up her ability.
> 
> It was my older brother who discovered pop/rock - we were more rock in our house, The Who, the Stones & Led Zeppelin. My older sister eventually introduced us to the Beatles, but they were broken up by then.


actually you remind me that my Dad sang a bit and whistled a lot. I don't see not having music as a bad thing tho - no doubt it was harder to learn to read and play starting later, but a lot of what I do and love is sound art rather than (usefully) notated music in the classic sense. I think the biggest issue was being in an environment that had zero interest or knowledge of art or anything outside of making money and sport. But that just meant my family was a normal Australian family of that era. For example the high school I went to did not allow boys to do art - they were taken out of the classroom to pick up papers or carry chairs and desks around while the girls remained. Art was definitely associated with homosexuality and at that time Australia was incredibly (and violently) homophobic. The Deputy Headmaster would come in to the music room and sneer at and disparage the boys doing music - sometimes we would be taken out to do chores but mostly not. Visual arts tho were completely forbidden


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 11, 2019)

Parsifal666 said:


> I apologize for my earlier, obviously contradictory comments. I feel bad, as I was having a bad day and I made the mistake of bringing it on here with me.
> 
> I honestly hope no one was offended or felt disrespected, please forgive me all. I'll try to keep my crap to myself.
> 
> And yeah, I can be pretty damn obtuse huh lol!




You are still on my reading list.........

Greg, my background is not dissimilar. There was no music in our family although my parents where supportive of my choice. Homophobia existed on the rough streets of Liverpool too and the assumption that art being gay was rife. I only got into music to get girls because me and a few mates thought that if we formed a band they'd come crawling (I was 14 and no, they didn't). My mom lived 2 doors away from George Harrison in Wavertree as a kid---does that count as anything?...


----------



## gregh (Jan 11, 2019)

mikeh-375 said:


> I only got into music to get girls because me and a few mates thought that if we formed a band they'd come crawling (I was 14 and no, they didn't).



ha ha - you, me and about a million other 14 year olds


----------



## whiskers (Jan 11, 2019)

In general terms:

* People's interaction with technology

* Information security

* Recommendation systems

* Data aggregation & inference (Business intelligence I guess)


----------



## mikeh-375 (Jan 13, 2019)

I'm into Cosmology and its physics. I also have a 10" Schmidt Cassegrain but wish my nuts didn't freeze off every time I use it in the winter......
I also try to get a handle on all things quantum and string theory related, but without the math, I'm ultimately stymied. Even so, wow the wonder of it all.


----------



## AllanH (Jan 17, 2019)

in addition to improving my piano and compositional skills, I'm very interested in mathematics, relativity, and quantum mechanics. I'm also working a bit on various ML techniques for a few AI ideas.


----------



## whiskers (Jan 17, 2019)

AllanH said:


> in addition to improving my piano and compositional skills, I'm very interested in mathematics, relativity, and quantum mechanics. I'm also working a bit on various ML techniques for a few AI ideas.


What are your thoughts on the technological singularity?

Can you talk about your ML projects or would you rather not?


----------



## AllanH (Jan 18, 2019)

whiskers said:


> What are your thoughts on the technological singularity?
> 
> Can you talk about your ML projects or would you rather not?



Most teenagers already live the singularity - they cannot think and function without a smart phone!

Regarding Machine Learning: I can describe one project that was rewarding. Back in 1996 I started developing statistical models for trading stocks and futures. I quickly figured out that I needed to develop some custom statistics as stock/futures have time-varying distributions. As such, many of the common tools fail as the time series are non-stationary. I ended up developing a mechanism for time-evolving distributions and the mathematics to make decision with confidence (in a statistical sense). I have a PhD in mathematics, so I was pretty comfortable with that. In about 2003, I switched to real-time trading and the systems went fully autonomous in about 2005. I finally lost the speed battle some years ago and turned it off. I did not want to make the required investment to get down into the low micro seconds. In view of today ML algorithms, most of what I created would be considered ML but without any of now well-known frameworks.

EDIT: I coded the entire thing myself, including the ML algos and trading engine with broker interface. Pretty wild in retrospect.


----------



## whiskers (Jan 18, 2019)

AllanH said:


> Most teenagers already live the singularity - they cannot think and function without a smart phone!
> 
> Regarding Machine Learning: I can describe one project that was rewarding. Back in 1996 I started developing statistical models for trading stocks and futures. I quickly figured out that I needed to develop some custom statistics as stock/futures have time-varying distributions. As such, many of the common tools fail as the time series are non-stationary. I ended up developing a mechanism for time-evolving distributions and the mathematics to make decision with confidence (in a statistical sense). I have a PhD in mathematics, so I was pretty comfortable with that. In about 2003, I switched to real-time trading and the systems went fully autonomous in about 2005. I finally lost the speed battle some years ago and turned it off. I did not want to make the required investment to get down into the low micro seconds. In view of today ML algorithms, most of what I created would be considered ML but without any of now well-known frameworks.
> 
> EDIT: I coded the entire thing myself, including the ML algos and trading engine with broker interface. Pretty wild in retrospect.


wow, that's seriously impressive. 

Re: singularity, I mean more of the 'runaway point' of AI being more or less self sufficient, and better at learning things (still is only good at very specific directions to my understanding.) But I suppose from a 'previously unfathomable technological changes' general aspect, yeah, we're already there


----------



## AllanH (Jan 18, 2019)

whiskers said:


> wow, that's seriously impressive.
> 
> Re: singularity, I mean more of the 'runaway point' of AI being more or less self sufficient, and better at learning things (still is only good at very specific directions to my understanding.) But I suppose from a 'previously unfathomable technological changes' general aspect, yeah, we're already there



That singularity! - By the time a true AI (assuming access to network resources) becomes self-aware, we'll be gone in 24 hours. Probably less. The numbers are simply stacked against us.

EDIT: let me substantiate my statement. The thinking processes in the brain are essentially chemical and operate in the kilo hertz range. Computers operate in gigaherz, i.e. 1,000,000 times faster. Over time we will likely have enough compute power to substantially equal a brain. So for each 24 hours the AI will have had 3,200 human years of experience. That's a few einsteins, wittens, etc. Unless the AI really likes us, we'll be rodents in no time. The moment the AI becomes self-aware, we'll immediately lose control of it. My two cents.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 21, 2019)

Craig Duke said:


> Sam Harris also has a say about that.


I read the Sam Harris book in which he opined in the affirmative about all of this nonsense. Predetermination, schmedetermination, sez I. That we have predetermined influences that affect us before we act? OMG-what an amazing theory...say it ain't so!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 21, 2019)

AllanH said:


> Most teenagers already live the singularity - they cannot think and function without a smart phone!
> 
> Regarding Machine Learning: I can describe one project that was rewarding. Back in 1996 I started developing statistical models for trading stocks and futures. I quickly figured out that I needed to develop some custom statistics as stock/futures have time-varying distributions. As such, many of the common tools fail as the time series are non-stationary. I ended up developing a mechanism for time-evolving distributions and the mathematics to make decision with confidence (in a statistical sense). I have a PhD in mathematics, so I was pretty comfortable with that. In about 2003, I switched to real-time trading and the systems went fully autonomous in about 2005. I finally lost the speed battle some years ago and turned it off. I did not want to make the required investment to get down into the low micro seconds. In view of today ML algorithms, most of what I created would be considered ML but without any of now well-known frameworks.
> 
> EDIT: I coded the entire thing myself, including the ML algos and trading engine with broker interface. Pretty wild in retrospect.



Did you happen to read Michael Lewis's book "Flash Boys"?


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 21, 2019)

AllanH said:


> That singularity! - By the time a true AI (assuming access to network resources) becomes self-aware, we'll be gone in 24 hours. Probably less. The numbers are simply stacked against us.
> 
> EDIT: let me substantiate my statement. The thinking processes in the brain are essentially chemical and operate in the kilo hertz range. Computers operate in gigaherz, i.e. 1,000,000 times faster. Over time we will likely have enough compute power to substantially equal a brain. So for each 24 hours the AI will have had 3,200 human years of experience. That's a few einsteins, wittens, etc. Unless the AI really likes us, we'll be rodents in no time. The moment the AI becomes self-aware, we'll immediately lose control of it. My two cents.


On the optimistic side, we'll probably blow up the planet before that occurs. I like to remain positive.


----------



## AllanH (Jan 21, 2019)

NYC Composer said:


> Did you happen to read Michael Lewis's book "Flash Boys"?



I have not yet read Flash Boys. There are also many exchange order flow issues that are unfair to the little guy. As that became known, it explained several things as well. It's definitely a rigged game.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 21, 2019)

I’m in the market, not because I have any illusion of beating anything except savings bank returns.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 21, 2019)

Music tech ideas? Granular, physical modeling, etc.


----------

