Learning...

Originally Posted by tyler.durden

Cool It's never occurred to me to ask those people I dreamed about if they had dreamed of me simultaneously, and it's never come up. Of course, some of those people were dead at the time.
There is definitely a non-verbal form of communication going on between musicians playing together, and it seems to get more intimate and profound the longer they play together. My best friend is a pianist and we get together at least once a week to play through cool music he digs up, and there is a deep communication and intimacy that no other experience can touch. I think it is obvious to others, I often see our significant others act jealous of this connection as it's something they (not being musicians) can't share. Do you experience similar things?

...100%. I've often wondered about the connection while playing - then I fck up my timing and try to not think again And, though I know you may laugh a little, dreaming of deceased people applies here for sure. There's heaps of study into it. It's all linked in with coincidence, healing the family tree, and all that 'new age' stuff that is actually very old. Anyway, when I practice music I reach a meditative state. I'm right fckn out of it. To me, there's a more pronounced faculty involved, because, I'm 'there' playing, but not. Always doing my best to remember to get out of my own way. I remembered that you play with a piano friend from the early days of the Music thread. Sounds cool.

Originally Posted by Dr.J20

yes, facts may remain facts, regardless of who presents them, but when do they become facts?
And peer review, in science, is precisely to check whether a datum is consistently reproducible within a range of error; that groups of scientists have dedicated their lives to preserving and investigating these facts does a great good for humanity, but only because we trust those scientists to engage in unimpassioned investigation. If each person had to continually prove every scientific fact for himself continuously, we would not be able to function as a society. But, please recognize that you are basically taking it on faith that the above adherences to rigor were undertaken in the production of fact. Also, please recognize, that you are still, eventually, deferring to consensus as the marker of fact--e.g., "lots of smarter people than I have tested fact x and find it reasonable to declare x a fact, therefore I should take their word, because i just don't have time and resources to read through and try to reproduce the experiences which led them to accept fact x. I ought to believe a "fact" because others have already done the skeptical work and found it reasonable to accept that "fact;" That is, of course, until the fact comes under question by another scientist who tests his claims and produces reproducible, peer reviewable studies which refute the fact, leading to the formation of a more honed, more accurate fact. This is a good system, but it does ask a large cross-section of humanity to just believe its results. It may not care whether you question those facts, but neither do ALL religions prohibit such contemplation, and, indeed, many encourage such exploration and struggle.
be easy

Scientific investigation is one of the most impassioned human activities. Facts remain after the passion fraction has been distilled off. cn

Originally Posted by eye exaggerate

...100%. I've often wondered about the connection while playing - then I fck up my timing and try to not think again And, though I know you may laugh a little, dreaming of deceased people applies here for sure. There's heaps of study into it. It's all linked in with coincidence, healing the family tree, and all that 'new age' stuff that is actually very old. Anyway, when I practice music I reach a meditative state. I'm right fckn out of it. To me, there's a more pronounced faculty involved, because, I'm 'there' playing, but not. Always doing my best to remember to get out of my own way. I remembered that you play with a piano friend from the early days of the Music thread. Sounds cool.

That's a great description of the musical experience: you do get into a meditative/altered state of consciousness. "I'm there playing, but not..." that's it exactly. Sometimes the only thing my consciousness is used for while playing (esp. while sight-reading) is keeping track of where the fuck '1' is Consciousness gets in the way of many intricate, learned skills: athletes, performers, artists, etc. report that thinking consciously about what exactly there bodies are doing throws a wrench into the works and trips them up. It seems that consciousness is very necessary in technically learning a piece, but once muscle-memory is established consciousness can be detrimental to performance. Do you get to play regularly?

Originally Posted by tyler.durden

That's a great description of the musical experience: you do get into a meditative/altered state of consciousness. "I'm there playing, but not..." that's it exactly. Sometimes the only thing my consciousness is used for while playing (esp. while sight-reading) is keeping track of where the fuck '1' is Consciousness gets in the way of many intricate, learned skills: athletes, performers, artists, etc. report that thinking consciously about what exactly there bodies are doing throws a wrench into the works and trips them up. It seems that consciousness is very necessary in technically learning a piece, but once muscle-memory is established consciousness can be detrimental to performance. Do you get to play regularly?

...practice almost daily. I've been working on something for a few years, but it waits as life takes precedence. A little time off helps to fully cook ideas, and makes for less editing - as an unexpected benefit

Originally Posted by Dr.J20

yes, facts may remain facts, regardless of who presents them, but when do they become facts?
And peer review, in science, is precisely to check whether a datum is consistently reproducible within a range of error; that groups of scientists have dedicated their lives to preserving and investigating these facts does a great good for humanity, but only because we trust those scientists to engage in unimpassioned investigation. If each person had to continually prove every scientific fact for himself continuously, we would not be able to function as a society. But, please recognize that you are basically taking it on faith that the above adherences to rigor were undertaken in the production of fact. Also, please recognize, that you are still, eventually, deferring to consensus as the marker of fact--e.g., "lots of smarter people than I have tested fact x and find it reasonable to declare x a fact, therefore I should take their word, because i just don't have time and resources to read through and try to reproduce the experiences which led them to accept fact x. I ought to believe a "fact" because others have already done the skeptical work and found it reasonable to accept that "fact;" That is, of course, until the fact comes under question by another scientist who tests his claims and produces reproducible, peer reviewable studies which refute the fact, leading to the formation of a more honed, more accurate fact. This is a good system, but it does ask a large cross-section of humanity to just believe its results. It may not care whether you question those facts, but neither do ALL religions prohibit such contemplation, and, indeed, many encourage such exploration and struggle.
be easy

That's why science has so many vigorous steps you must go thorough, it prevents bad science from getting disseminated officially. It's admittedly not perfect, but it does a good job of policing itself. Generally speaking, most of the advancements I have seen have not refuted prior discoveries, so much as clarified them further. I do see where you are coming from though, I think. I suppose the biggest difference between deference to scientific consensus and deference to religious consensus, in my opinion; would be that one is based in something I can verify if I wish to and have the time and resources, whereas the other is quite the opposite. Ultimately though, I guess even scientific methods were designed to remind people that what we know to be facts is not always that simple. They even went so far as to never technically have a scientific "fact", even the most well proven of ideas is only a "theory".

Originally Posted by kpmarine

That's why science has so many vigorous steps you must go thorough, it prevents bad science from getting disseminated officially. It's admittedly not perfect, but it does a good job of policing itself. Generally speaking, most of the advancements I have seen have not refuted prior discoveries, so much as clarified them further. I do see where you are coming from though, I think. I suppose the biggest difference between deference to scientific consensus and deference to religious consensus, in my opinion; would be that one is based in something I can verify if I wish to and have the time and resources, whereas the other is quite the opposite. Ultimately though, I guess even scientific methods were designed to remind people that what we know to be facts is not always that simple. They even went so far as to never technically have a scientific "fact", even the most well proven of ideas is only a "theory".

Actually, Theory is the highest form of knowledge in science, theories incorporate many facts. The way laypeople use the word theory is anything from a valid hypothesis to some wild guess pulled from someone's ass

Originally Posted by tyler.durden

Actually, Theory is the highest form of knowledge in science, theories incorporate many facts. The way laypeople use the word theory is anything from a valid hypothesis to some wild guess pulled from someone's ass

I know a scientific theory is based on fact. I meant that I found it interesting that science's highest level of truth is called a "theory", not a "fact". I always took that as a nod to a belief there is always more to learn. Sorry if I came across as trying to say theories were not facts, in respect to science.

Originally Posted by Padawanbater2

Well, we could easily test that, and prove it one way or the other, but my guess is you'd oppose it or say something along the lines of "my friend doesn't want to be tested, he doesn't care, I don't have to prove anything to you...", sooo...

lol Would you like to contact him? I have no control over his actions or motives, hes just a kid who wants to live his life care free and doesnt care for being a science experiment. He'd rather not have the attention too I'd imagine, since he got annoyed at my relevant curious questions. Fuck, if I had a fat bank account I would send you down here just to see the look on your face when you find out for yourself lol wouldnt even need to get all techy with the experiment, he'd just talk to you... If you wanna contact him and question him then I can ask him if hes willing to talk to you, but I'd have to tell him what kinda person you are and that might put him off... Plus, its not like it changes anything if a scientist examines him or not lol.