Recent Responses
Just how 'universal' is music? That seems to be a very broad question, but here's some background to clarify: In the past, there have been many different ways of creating music. The only real standard of pitch is the octave, which is two notes exactly one half or twice the others' frequency. Between that, there have been tons of different ways of dividing the octave (12-tone, just intonation, 19 tone, 31 tone, pitch bending etc.) which obviously resulted in some very different types of music. When I listen to Armenian duduk music, for example, it all sounds very similar to me, a combination of familiar western music scales and modes with slightly bent pitches. I presume that they have many different types of music within their own culture, as we do in the west, and as every culture probably does. So, would our music sound similar to someone unfamiliar with it, as a person from a small Asian or African village that had its own, old and untainted musical tradition. Would they be able to distinguish between a jazzy piece and a baroque dance played on the same instrument? I realize that this sounds ridiculous (of COURSE they would sound different, right?) but I have to remind myself that I have an absolutely limited and biased perspective, as I have grown up completely within the envelope of European tradition music. I don't look for an answer necessarily from someone who grew up somewhere different, but from someone who can speculate about the degree to which perspective changes perception.
Douglas Burnham
November 14, 2008
(changed November 14, 2008)
Permalink
Thanks for your question. I can think of a couple ways ofanswering your question, we'll see if you think any of them areworthwhile.
It is often said in evolutionary accounts of human beings thatmusic is a universal feature, because it served or still serves somesurvival function. If one... Read more
Hi. This is a question on the nature of Reality, or rather Actuality. I say Actuality, because I like the distinction that Kant makes between Appearances he calls Phenomena, and things in themselves he calls Noumena. Anyway he ends up saying we can never know the thing in itself, i.e. actuality, but only our experience of reality, i.e. appearances. What I would like to clear up is if there is a way to experience the thing in itself, or whether we have to accept on good faith that actuality exists independently of us, and that it stops with I think therefore I am. In short is there an answer to the sceptics? My question has been fueled by the book, _A Beginner's Guide to Reality_, by Jim Baggott, which ends in "it depends on what you believe", which doesn't really do it for me. Cheers, Pasquale
Douglas Burnham
November 14, 2008
(changed November 14, 2008)
Permalink
This problem preoccupied many philosophers after Kant. Amongthe easiest to understand alternative view according to which thething-in-itself CAN be 'experienced' is that of Schopenhauer (have alook at section 18 onwards of volume one of The World as Will andRepresentation).
However, st... Read more
If a person were to be a created, a virtual reality person (such as a character in a Sims game, that "reacts" and "grows"), and this person was "downloaded" into an actual body, is that person considered "real?" Were they real before the download, or is a physical body part of the conception of real? Would you even be considered a legitimate person, since all of your "memories" could be considered "fake"?
William Rapaport
November 13, 2008
(changed November 13, 2008)
Permalink
Downloading such an avatar, assuming it were possible, would probably not result in a "real" person because such an avatar would doubtless be less "complete" than a real person. There are two other discussions besides Velleman's that you might find interesting:
Pollock, John L. (2008... Read more
Can one learn to be rational? How would this be done?
William Rapaport
November 13, 2008
(changed November 13, 2008)
Permalink
One can certainly learn what rationality is: You can take courses in logic, in probability and statistical reasoning, etc. And you can study the limits on rationality: Much work has been done by cognitive scientists on "bounded rationality" (the work of Nobel-prize winner Herbert Si... Read more
Is all behaviour learned?
Jennifer Church
November 13, 2008
(changed November 13, 2008)
Permalink
If you include reflex responses such as blinking one's eyes upon the approach of a fast-moving object, then the answer is clearly 'no' -- not all behavior is learned; some behavior occurs regardless of any learning.
There are many sort of behavior that combine what is given and what is... Read more
Is there any objective, scientific way to prove that we all see colours the same? I know it's one thing for two people to point at an object and agree on its colour, even the particular shade, but there's no way that I can tell whether or not the next person in line sees everything in shades of greys, or in negative. We can even study how light interacts with objects and enters our eyes, without truly knowing if one person would see everything the same if he suddenly were able to see though another's eyes. So, is there any proof that we all do see colours the same? Maybe even proof or evidence to the contrary? If that's so, I must say that you're all missing something great from where I can see.
Jonathan Westphal
November 21, 2008
(changed November 21, 2008)
Permalink
There are objective scientific tests which show that we don't all see colours the same, such as the Ishihara test for colour vision. Most people don't even see the same "colours" out of both eyes. For many people the left eye might see things more saturated than the right. The questio... Read more
If a person were to be a created, a virtual reality person (such as a character in a Sims game, that "reacts" and "grows"), and this person was "downloaded" into an actual body, is that person considered "real?" Were they real before the download, or is a physical body part of the conception of real? Would you even be considered a legitimate person, since all of your "memories" could be considered "fake"?
William Rapaport
November 13, 2008
(changed November 13, 2008)
Permalink
Downloading such an avatar, assuming it were possible, would probably not result in a "real" person because such an avatar would doubtless be less "complete" than a real person. There are two other discussions besides Velleman's that you might find interesting:
Pollock, John L. (2008... Read more
As commonly understood and reinforced here, 2 + 2 = 4 is taken as meeting the test for absolute certainty. This appears to be true in a formal or symbolic sense but is it true in reality? When we count two things as being the same and add them to two other same things do we really get four identical things? Perhaps, perhaps not; it may depend on one's identity theory. Do we know with absolute certainty when we have one thing and not two? What am I missing?
Richard Heck
November 13, 2008
(changed November 13, 2008)
Permalink
I don't myself have a view on whether 2+2=4 is absolutely certain. I suppose it's as certain as anything is or could be. But the question here is different. It's whether that certainty is undermined by doubts about what happens empirically.
As Gottlob Frege would quickly have pointed out,... Read more
One of the most common justifications I hear for abortion is "a woman should have control over her body." If humans reproduced oviparously, would that change the debate? Let's say a woman conceives a child, and then immediately lays an egg. The egg would still need incubation and maintenance, though this could be performed by any party, not just the mother. After nine months of development, the egg would hatch into a baby human. Would a woman be justified in crushing this egg? This mimics the abortion debate, except that in this case the fetus cannot be addressed as part of the woman's body. Would that invalidate any abortion arguments?
Richard Heck
November 13, 2008
(changed November 13, 2008)
Permalink
There are several different questions here. The first is whether, in the circumstances imagined, one would have a right to kill the developing ovum, or whatever. The second is whether a negative answer to this question would invalidate arguments in favor of the the permissibility of aborti... Read more
Why is it that very religious people tend to be kinder and more compassionate (with a few notable exceptions to people they deem unworthy i.e.: homosexuals) than secular people? Is this evidence that we need religion/should be religious?
Richard Heck
November 13, 2008
(changed November 13, 2008)
Permalink
Are we entirely sure that religious people do tend to be kinder and more compassionate than secular people? And are we sure of this, especially, when we do not set aside the notable exceptions?
Log in to post comments