If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

you can say all that but if we find ice on mars, there is ice on mars. And what you're saying will just be humanities bs until there isn't ice on mars.

Why engage in science? Apparently not for anything that involves humanity. This is a problem I have with a lot of disciplines at this point, both in the hard sciences and in the humanities. I'm anthropocentric as fuck without apology.

 

[Baroque]

If we found ice on Mars, I wouldn't try to deny that there is ice on Mars. I would deny that it's an absolute truth.

Suppose you are on Mars holding a piece of ice in your hand. With ice on ground as well. How is it not an absolute truth at that point? That's your present reality.

Are you claiming that only eternal truths are absolute? Then does an absolute truth even exist? Name something that was true eternally? otherwise you might as well just call the set of absolute truths the empty set, and it's a useless term. This is a semantic waste of time.

 

[Einherjar86]

Let me ask you a question about semantics. How can something be "absolute" if it only exists for you, only for a limited period of time, and only according to a specific set of perceptive criteria? Don't complain about definitions when you're using a loaded term (two loaded terms, in fact) that just begs for qualification.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Experiencing material phenomena via numerical expression is itself a conditioned form of receiving information. In this case, I have to disagree with the mathematical Platonists: in other words, the law of gravitational attraction isn't numbers. The bias is in the very construction of the machine/interface.

The law of gravitational attraction isn't numbers, but that doesn't mean it can't be wholly described by numbers. An instrument will naturally be biased according to human understanding, but the human sensory interface component isn't much of a factor there. The challenge is setting up experimental conditions where previously-established mathematical descriptions of phenomena are used to relate input and output, which certainly can later be proven insufficient/wrong, but the construction of the machine is separate from the collection and interpretation of data.

 

[Einherjar86]

The law of gravitational attraction isn't numbers, but that doesn't mean it can't be wholly described by numbers. An instrument will naturally be biased according to human understanding, but the human sensory interface component isn't much of a factor there. The challenge is setting up experimental conditions where previously-established mathematical descriptions of phenomena are used to relate input and output, which certainly can later be proven insufficient/wrong, but the construction of the machine is separate from the collection and interpretation of data.

I have to disagree here. Even disregarding the corruption of data, numerical representation is far from a whole description of a phenomenon.

I realize that I can go around in circles with people here. I don't disbelieve in the concept of absolute truth, but I reject any perspective - human or instrumental - that purports to convey an absolute truth. I reject that terminology. Ultimately it's more complicated than semantics, but that is a major aspect of it.

 

[Baroque]

waste of time.

Later.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I have to disagree here. Even disregarding the corruption of data, numerical representation is far from a whole description of a phenomenon.

I realize that I can go around in circles with people here. I don't disbelieve in the concept of absolute truth, but I reject any perspective - human or instrumental - that purports to convey an absolute truth. I reject that terminology. Ultimately it's more complicated than semantics, but that is a major aspect of it.

Whole description within a given framework. E.g., someone builds a mass spectrometer to ionize particles, which can have charge values varying according to integer values, and can be reliably accelerated to varying positions on a screen in space and time according to Newton's second law. Obviously those principles will fall short if we attempt to use them in situations they do not describe (e.g. where relativity becomes a concern), or if we attempt to use the data (mass of particles derived from the sample) to describe something it cannot measure, but numerical representation is effectively the entirety of the output, after factoring in error associated with the instrument. With respect to the final human interpretation component, conceptually it's about as simple as "Ice exists on Mars".

 

[Talos of Atmora]

The term used for this kind of talk is semantic noise.

 

[Einherjar86]

Whole description within a given framework. E.g., someone builds a mass spectrometer to ionize particles, which can have charge values varying according to integer values, and can be reliably accelerated to varying positions on a screen in space and time according to Newton's second law. Obviously those principles will fall short if we attempt to use them in situations they do not describe (e.g. where relativity becomes a concern), or if we attempt to use the data (mass of particles derived from the sample) to describe something it cannot measure, but numerical representation is effectively the entirety of the output, after factoring in error associated with the instrument. With respect to the final human interpretation component, conceptually it's about as simple as "Ice exists on Mars".

Nothing I've said should be taken to mean that I think instruments cannot measure physical attributes of the world. I'm not saying that instrumentation can't give us relatively accurate representations of the world; but I am saying that even these purportedly "objective" readings can only render physical phenomena in a particular way in order for humans to actually read them.

Nothing about instrumentation is objective, for one glaring reason in particular: "objective" means that something exists in a particular state whether it is observed or not, but instruments interfere with the objective reality that they aim to observe. Therefore they cannot test any objective reality of an object. It's a logical paradox.

Heisenberg's uncertainty relation effects every situation, not just the measurement of microscopic particles.

 

[rms]

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...tones_how_the_rock_and_roll_became_white.html

long

 

[EternalMetal]

Nothing I've said should be taken to mean that I think instruments cannot measure physical attributes of the world. I'm not saying that instrumentation can't give us relatively accurate representations of the world; but I am saying that even these purportedly "objective" readings can only render physical phenomena in a particular way in order for humans to actually read them.

Nothing about instrumentation is objective, for one glaring reason in particular: "objective" means that something exists in a particular state whether it is observed or not, but instruments interfere with the objective reality that they aim to observe. Therefore they cannot test any objective reality of an object. It's a logical paradox.

Heisenberg's uncertainty relation effects every situation, not just the measurement of microscopic particles.

I think im also getting sick of your 2-deep-4-U philosophical mental exercises. You arent entirely wrong, but this kind of analysis reminds me of that philosophy 101 horseshit that makes you question whether or not you even exist. You suffer from a bad case of philosophical pedantry. This discussion went from being a philosophical science discussion to one that is just pointless. Have fun if you want HB, but im with @Baroque here.

 

[Dak]

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...tones_how_the_rock_and_roll_became_white.html

long

I read/skimmed the whole thing and at no point does the "critic" get me to even care about the Rolling Stones, much less justify these assertions about how oppression or appropriation or whatever "took" rock music from black people. Maybe what happened is that elements were taken and then changed and mixed to a degree in which it was no longer pleasing to the ears of most black people?

 

[Einherjar86]

I think im also getting sick of your 2-deep-4-U philosophical mental exercises. You arent entirely wrong, but this kind of analysis reminds me of that philosophy 101 horseshit that makes you question whether or not you even exist. You suffer from a bad case of philosophical pedantry. This discussion went from being a philosophical science discussion to one that is just pointless. Have fun if you want HB, but im with @Baroque here.

Thanks for the diagnosis. I'm comfortable with it.

And if I may, I do believe that I exist... but I may not be entirely sure what "I" am.

 

[rms]

I read/skimmed the whole thing and at no point does the "critic" get me to even care about the Rolling Stones, much less justify these assertions about how oppression or appropriation or whatever "took" rock music from black people. Maybe what happened is that elements were taken and then changed and mixed to a degree in which it was no longer pleasing to the ears of most black people?

Honestly was thinking the same thing. Took the damn author ~12 paragraphs to even mention things relevant to the thesis suggested in the title.

 

[rms]

Thanks for the diagnosis. I'm comfortable with it.

And if I may, I do believe that I exist... but I may not be entirely sure what "I" am.

I'm just wondering why you went into a philosophical discussion about objectivity in science from a girl in South Africa saying de-colonize 13 times?

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Boring article. Lots of white music is definitely derived from black music but there's no rule that black people can't keep making it too. I think that some white artists like Elvis Presley are overrated in the context of early rock music but I also don't think that Presley showed anything but reverence toward the black musicians of the era. Other bands, including The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin and the like continued to make music heavily inspired by black musicians into the 1970s and beyond but thos article makes it seem like there was some concerted effort by white people to invalidate the origins of rock music as being a creation of black artists.

I do think that it's interesting that many of the musical styles that are distinctly American in origin, such as blues, rock, jazz, country and hip-hop music are all largely the creation of black artists, but this article spends too much time on the conspiracy theory when it could have just been an article praising black musicians and it would have been a much more enjoyable reading experience.

 

[Dak]

I don't think the article is suggesting a concerted, conscious conspiracy theory, but is pushing a narrative that falls under the "systemic racism" umbrella of unsubstantiated bullshit.

 

[Elric of Melniboné]

Systemic racism is always a conspiracy since it requires a system of oppression to be in place. While there have been clear examples of that type of thing in American history, white people making and enjoying rock music isn't one of them.

 

[Dak]

You know it's BS when you can't win either way. If you don't like it it's because you're racist. If you do like it then you are appropriating.

 

[rms]

I just wanna see an article saying how hip hop was sold to blacks and injected a culture that was destructive. Or the opposite, just something.