4 ms·

i remember when i first heard that watching an Adam Neely video and it really struck me just how powerful and salient a claim it is. everything that we have com

i remember when i first heard that watching an Adam Neely video and it really struck me just how powerful and salient a claim it is. everything that we have come to expect of all aspects of existence is only that way because it has been repeated enough to have been made a fact of reality, and then progressively iterated upon over time with each iteration repeated until accepted. so it makes perfect sense within the context of music imo and is quite a useful tool to have in one's belt

solipsism 7y ago
everything that we have come to expect of all aspects of existence is only that way because it has been repeated enough to have been made a fact of reality What does this even mean? Repeated enough to become a fact of reality? So before it was a "fact of reality" it was being repeated, but.. wasn't yet reality? Until it was repeated enough, and then it became a fact of reality? Who is swayed by this kind of false deepness?
- michrassena 7y ago
  Ironic in light of your username, but what the comment you're responding to is talking about is the experience of reality rather than reality itself. In the context of learning, and of survival, it's counterproductive for the brain to spend time and energy on outliers instead of what is consistent. The brain has a lot of innate capabilities at birth, but whatever reality the person experiences shapes them, whether it be language or culture. And unless the experience is traumatic, isolated instances get subsumed under the volume of everyday experience -- outliers are noise and repetition is signal.
  - ozzmotik 7y ago
    yes this is precisely what I was talking about. I suppose that I could have been more clear or precise with how I worded my comment but i felt like it was clear enough that I wasn't necessarily talking about objective reality but rather the personal experience of reality. thank you for chiming in and clarifying for me, and thank you for making an attempt to understand what I was trying to say rather than taking every word at face value. nuance on the internet is definitely an NP-Hard problem, both transmitting and receiving it would seem.
    - michrassena 7y ago
      I had a mild eureka moment when I read your initial comment. In a way it is obvious, how could things work otherwise? But linking reality (as a function of experience) and music is an interesting concept, and one I think has been explored quite a bit, but I've not seen anything to do with repetition being the binding concept. I've recently become more interested in music which is probably why this resonated with me. A lot of the conventions of music, repetition included, I consider necessary evils. Like any creative endeavor, there is no correct music, but I see how it could be fruitful to explore this further.
  - solipsism 7y ago
    Sorry, but this is such a vague and imprecise load of mumbo jumbo that it's easy to think up examples that seem to validate it. It's just as easy to come up with examples that invalidate it. For example, as part of our survival drive the brain is constantly looking for things that stand out -- things that look wrong, not like the norm -- as early warning signs that danger is near. In that sense, "outliers are noise and repetition is signal" is precisely the opposite of reality. If the opposite of what you're saying is just as true as what you're saying, then you're not saying anything meaningful. Can't we leave the pseudo-intellectual gibberish to Deepak Chopra?
    - ozzmotik 7y ago
      so it's not possible for one complex system to act in two different, perhaps even contradictory ways, depending on context? I don't think anyone is making the claim that both the original claim and the opposite are true absolutely all the time and at the same time, but rather with the implicit suggestion that the brain, being a highly context sensitive organ, adjusts its modality relative to external input and at least attempts to use a relevant method when necessary, not just use both simultaneously all the time
    - michrassena 7y ago
      "things that look wrong, not like the norm" What do you base your ideas of what is normal and what is not on?
- ozzmotik 7y ago
  as the response to your comment said, I indeed was speaking of the experience of reality rather than reality itself. I'm not entirely sure why you ask who is swayed by this sort of "false deepness" as to me that implies that I'm trying to inculcate others into my manner of thinking (which I suppose one could argue is a big aspect of rhetoric), when really the thing is is that I was just sharing what was on my mind in hopes of sparking a conversation with others who may or may not agree with me, hopefully to get their perspective and increase my understanding of how others experience reality. Which obviously happened seeing as you shared your perspective on it, so mission accomplished, I suppose. I just feel that the way you presented your perspective came across as unnecessarily hostile and almost as if you just found something you didn't like about the wording of it so you chose to dissect that and then use it as an example of what you would designate as "false deepness". also: just because something has not yet been established as "fact" doesn't mean that it is not yet reality. merely that there is not an acceptable amount of certainty with regards to that pattern of behavior, or whatever the case may be, to establish it as a "normal" or "expected" manner in which reality might manifest. however, I'm fairly confident that even that verbiage won't be good enough as I wouldn't be surprised if you've already formulated a specific idea of who I am and what I'm trying to do by saying these things based off of your response :)
  - solipsism 7y ago
    Sure, I can see how it came off a bit hostile. But it's hostile toward the ideas, not toward you. Don't take it personally. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already formulated a specific idea of who I am and what I'm trying to do by saying these things based off of your response It's ironic of you to say that. I have assumed anything about you. But here you assume quite a lot about me. as the response to your comment said, I indeed was speaking of the experience of reality rather than reality itself. It still doesn't make any sense. Human experience is influenced by both repeated things and by the punctuation of unique and isolated events. Such events can cause deep trauma, or can be the best and most influential parts of our lives. My biggest problem with what you're saying is just that it's not remotely rigorous or well thought out. It comes off as the kind of thing you say when you're smoking pot with your friends and you take some mundane and uninteresting (and possibly wrong) idea and you are convinced it's deep and meaningful. Maybe I'm wrong and there's rigor behind what you're saying. But the statement everything that we have come to expect of all aspects of existence is only that way because it has been repeated enough to have been made a fact of reality doesn't even parse. Everything we have come to expect is only that way? What way? What do we expect?? What? I feel strongly about this because it betrays a tendency to not think critically, and the lack of critical thinking is possible the biggest problem we face today.

solipsism 7y ago

everything that we have come to expect of all aspects of existence is only that way because it has been repeated enough to have been made a fact of reality What does this even mean? Repeated enough to become a fact of reality? So before it was a "fact of reality" it was being repeated, but.. wasn't yet reality? Until it was repeated enough, and then it became a fact of reality? Who is swayed by this kind of false deepness?

michrassena 7y ago
Ironic in light of your username, but what the comment you're responding to is talking about is the experience of reality rather than reality itself. In the context of learning, and of survival, it's counterproductive for the brain to spend time and energy on outliers instead of what is consistent. The brain has a lot of innate capabilities at birth, but whatever reality the person experiences shapes them, whether it be language or culture. And unless the experience is traumatic, isolated instances get subsumed under the volume of everyday experience -- outliers are noise and repetition is signal.
- ozzmotik 7y ago
  yes this is precisely what I was talking about. I suppose that I could have been more clear or precise with how I worded my comment but i felt like it was clear enough that I wasn't necessarily talking about objective reality but rather the personal experience of reality. thank you for chiming in and clarifying for me, and thank you for making an attempt to understand what I was trying to say rather than taking every word at face value. nuance on the internet is definitely an NP-Hard problem, both transmitting and receiving it would seem.
  - michrassena 7y ago
    I had a mild eureka moment when I read your initial comment. In a way it is obvious, how could things work otherwise? But linking reality (as a function of experience) and music is an interesting concept, and one I think has been explored quite a bit, but I've not seen anything to do with repetition being the binding concept. I've recently become more interested in music which is probably why this resonated with me. A lot of the conventions of music, repetition included, I consider necessary evils. Like any creative endeavor, there is no correct music, but I see how it could be fruitful to explore this further.
- solipsism 7y ago
  Sorry, but this is such a vague and imprecise load of mumbo jumbo that it's easy to think up examples that seem to validate it. It's just as easy to come up with examples that invalidate it. For example, as part of our survival drive the brain is constantly looking for things that stand out -- things that look wrong, not like the norm -- as early warning signs that danger is near. In that sense, "outliers are noise and repetition is signal" is precisely the opposite of reality. If the opposite of what you're saying is just as true as what you're saying, then you're not saying anything meaningful. Can't we leave the pseudo-intellectual gibberish to Deepak Chopra?
  - ozzmotik 7y ago
    so it's not possible for one complex system to act in two different, perhaps even contradictory ways, depending on context? I don't think anyone is making the claim that both the original claim and the opposite are true absolutely all the time and at the same time, but rather with the implicit suggestion that the brain, being a highly context sensitive organ, adjusts its modality relative to external input and at least attempts to use a relevant method when necessary, not just use both simultaneously all the time
  - michrassena 7y ago
    "things that look wrong, not like the norm" What do you base your ideas of what is normal and what is not on?
ozzmotik 7y ago
as the response to your comment said, I indeed was speaking of the experience of reality rather than reality itself. I'm not entirely sure why you ask who is swayed by this sort of "false deepness" as to me that implies that I'm trying to inculcate others into my manner of thinking (which I suppose one could argue is a big aspect of rhetoric), when really the thing is is that I was just sharing what was on my mind in hopes of sparking a conversation with others who may or may not agree with me, hopefully to get their perspective and increase my understanding of how others experience reality. Which obviously happened seeing as you shared your perspective on it, so mission accomplished, I suppose. I just feel that the way you presented your perspective came across as unnecessarily hostile and almost as if you just found something you didn't like about the wording of it so you chose to dissect that and then use it as an example of what you would designate as "false deepness". also: just because something has not yet been established as "fact" doesn't mean that it is not yet reality. merely that there is not an acceptable amount of certainty with regards to that pattern of behavior, or whatever the case may be, to establish it as a "normal" or "expected" manner in which reality might manifest. however, I'm fairly confident that even that verbiage won't be good enough as I wouldn't be surprised if you've already formulated a specific idea of who I am and what I'm trying to do by saying these things based off of your response :)
- solipsism 7y ago
  Sure, I can see how it came off a bit hostile. But it's hostile toward the ideas, not toward you. Don't take it personally. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already formulated a specific idea of who I am and what I'm trying to do by saying these things based off of your response It's ironic of you to say that. I have assumed anything about you. But here you assume quite a lot about me. as the response to your comment said, I indeed was speaking of the experience of reality rather than reality itself. It still doesn't make any sense. Human experience is influenced by both repeated things and by the punctuation of unique and isolated events. Such events can cause deep trauma, or can be the best and most influential parts of our lives. My biggest problem with what you're saying is just that it's not remotely rigorous or well thought out. It comes off as the kind of thing you say when you're smoking pot with your friends and you take some mundane and uninteresting (and possibly wrong) idea and you are convinced it's deep and meaningful. Maybe I'm wrong and there's rigor behind what you're saying. But the statement everything that we have come to expect of all aspects of existence is only that way because it has been repeated enough to have been made a fact of reality doesn't even parse. Everything we have come to expect is only that way? What way? What do we expect?? What? I feel strongly about this because it betrays a tendency to not think critically, and the lack of critical thinking is possible the biggest problem we face today.