Fiction isn't even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don't get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.If it's written in an omniscient style, but that's just one style. And rarely do we know everything about every character. Keep trying though. You've convinced yourself, now try to convince others. It helps to try to see things from their perspective when you do that.
Fiction isn't even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don't get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.If it's written in an omniscient style, but that's just one style. And rarely do we know everything about every character. Keep trying though. You've convinced yourself, now try to convince others. It helps to try to see things from their perspective when you do that. It's not just a style but pretty much the only way you know what's going on in the story, it doesn't even have to be omniscient. Fiction isn't comparable to reality because we don't have the same amount of information as in the books. You get in their heads, you can read their thoughts. I wish I had the same amount of information as in books or TV shows, but reality isn't like that. I know we can't know everything about the characters, but we get more information than what you usually get in face to face. Even in face to face we only have guesses. Unless you can actually get into someone's mind and go through their personal history, you won't know how they are feeling. Not even words are good at communicating feelings, as they cannot capture the actually state of the emotions at hand. Not the mention that since fiction is pretty much what the author wants you to experience is enough to strike it as a comparison for reality. Empathy by it's nature and how we define it is a lie. We cannot understand the feelings of others and we cannot share them (especially since we don't understand them).
Titanomachine said, You refuse to alncolwedge simple truths about music or any art form and don’t acknowledge the weaknesses in you case about empathy. This leads me to believe like you want this to be true isn’t he same manner that people want God to exist. But it doesn’t seem to point in that direction.Where did I give this impression that I cling to some made up story, such as that God exists? Let's get one thing clear, I was a professional musician for 10 years on the road, in places such as Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe, Chicago, Los Angeles and the rest of the circuit. I studied music and am well qualified to speak for most serious musicians about the meaning and history of music worldwide. Secondly, I am an atheist and don't believe in ghoulies, ghosties, and things that go bump in the night. OK, kid? Unless you speak from greater experience in the world of art and especially music, or have special knowledge in psycho-analysis, you may want to withhold judgment about my qualifications or the quality of my arguments (usually accompanied by examples).
Sorry kid, tooth fairy isn’t real and neither is empathy.I am not a kid and I agree the tooth fairy is not real. However, empathy is true. If it was not evident, then why would we investigate? Amazing, we even have an entire scientific discipline which deals which studies the neural functions of the brain, including the Mirror Neural System and how this cognitive and response system is formed by world experience. Yet you waltz in and make declarations regarding things about which you have no clue, kid. If you have an argument, present it. Don't resort to ad hominem. I bet you are not even looking at the links which clearly explain that my position is based on clear evidence of assimilation of information about what goes on outside our body. I am sure, I have read just a little more on the subject of the mirror neural system than you and trust me I use my own critical analysis about any scientific proposition which addresses a field of which is little known.
Titanomachine quotation, used as argument against a mirror neural system (network), "She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that “A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that".This supports my position, not argue against it. Perhaps, you should pay closer attention, kid.
Fiction isn't even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don't get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.If it's written in an omniscient style, but that's just one style. And rarely do we know everything about every character. Keep trying though. You've convinced yourself, now try to convince others. It helps to try to see things from their perspective when you do that. It's not just a style but pretty much the only way you know what's going on in the story, it doesn't even have to be omniscient. Fiction isn't comparable to reality because we don't have the same amount of information as in the books. You get in their heads, you can read their thoughts. I wish I had the same amount of information as in books or TV shows, but reality isn't like that. I know we can't know everything about the characters, but we get more information than what you usually get in face to face. Even in face to face we only have guesses. Unless you can actually get into someone's mind and go through their personal history, you won't know how they are feeling. Not even words are good at communicating feelings, as they cannot capture the actually state of the emotions at hand. Not the mention that since fiction is pretty much what the author wants you to experience is enough to strike it as a comparison for reality. Empathy by it's nature and how we define it is a lie. We cannot understand the feelings of others and we cannot share them (especially since we don't understand them). Of course it's a style. Look up styles for fiction. Sometimes the author tells you what is going on in their heads, sometimes they don't. And obviously reality isn't fiction, or we wouldn't have those two words. Stop and think about what you're saying before you post again. One to think about, do you know everything about your own history? Can you express to yourself your own emotional state? Any moment of stopping to think about that question, any attempt to reflect on an emotional state think about how you describe it proves that you aren't able to do it. You don't have a perfect picture of yourself. Get together with friends and recall something you did together 5 years ago. There will be differences. Think, man, think.
The links actually undermine your points about it existing and the the function of the supposed mirror neurons. You haven't read them and it has been clear to me that you are just focusing on what you want to be true and not what is true (that you don't have any hard evidence for empathy). Having ten years experience in music is like saying someone is an art critic, it's a meaningless statement, especially since music is just noise that people respond to differentlyTitanomachine said, You refuse to alncolwedge simple truths about music or any art form and don’t acknowledge the weaknesses in you case about empathy. This leads me to believe like you want this to be true isn’t he same manner that people want God to exist. But it doesn’t seem to point in that direction.Where did I give this impression that I cling to some made up story, such as that God exists? Let's get one thing clear, I was a professional musician for 10 years on the road, in places such as Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe, Chicago, Los Angeles and the rest of the circuit. I studied music and am well qualified to speak for most serious musicians about the meaning and history of music worldwide. Secondly, I am an atheist and don't believe in ghoulies, ghosties, and things that go bump in the night. OK, kid? Unless you speak from greater experience in the world of art and especially music, or have special knowledge in psycho-analysis, you may want to withhold judgment about my qualifications or the quality of my arguments (usually accompanied by examples).Sorry kid, tooth fairy isn’t real and neither is empathy.I am not a kid and I agree the tooth fairy is not real. However, empathy is true. If it was not evident, then why would we investigate? Amazing, we even have an entire scientific discipline which deals which studies the neural functions of the brain, including the Mirror Neural System and how this cognitive and response system is formed by world experience. Yet you waltz in and make declarations regarding things about which you have no clue, kid. If you have an argument, present it. Don't resort to ad hominem. I bet you are not even looking at the links which clearly explain that my position is based on clear evidence of assimilation of information about what goes on outside our body. I am sure, I have read just a little more on the subject of the mirror neural system than you and trust me I use my own critical analysis about any scientific proposition which addresses a field of which is little known.
It actually goes against it, try again kid.Titanomachine quotation, used as argument against a mirror neural system (network), "She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that “A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that".This supports my position, not argue against it. Perhaps, you should pay closer attention, kid.
Fiction isn't even comparable to empathy in practice since you are told everything about the character including their thoughts and a host of other information you don't get in the day to day with others. In fact it only proves my point about empathy.If it's written in an omniscient style, but that's just one style. And rarely do we know everything about every character. Keep trying though. You've convinced yourself, now try to convince others. It helps to try to see things from their perspective when you do that. It's not just a style but pretty much the only way you know what's going on in the story, it doesn't even have to be omniscient. Fiction isn't comparable to reality because we don't have the same amount of information as in the books. You get in their heads, you can read their thoughts. I wish I had the same amount of information as in books or TV shows, but reality isn't like that. I know we can't know everything about the characters, but we get more information than what you usually get in face to face. Even in face to face we only have guesses. Unless you can actually get into someone's mind and go through their personal history, you won't know how they are feeling. Not even words are good at communicating feelings, as they cannot capture the actually state of the emotions at hand. Not the mention that since fiction is pretty much what the author wants you to experience is enough to strike it as a comparison for reality. Empathy by it's nature and how we define it is a lie. We cannot understand the feelings of others and we cannot share them (especially since we don't understand them). Of course it's a style. Look up styles for fiction. Sometimes the author tells you what is going on in their heads, sometimes they don't. And obviously reality isn't fiction, or we wouldn't have those two words. Stop and think about what you're saying before you post again. One to think about, do you know everything about your own history? Can you express to yourself your own emotional state? Any moment of stopping to think about that question, any attempt to reflect on an emotional state think about how you describe it proves that you aren't able to do it. You don't have a perfect picture of yourself. Get together with friends and recall something you did together 5 years ago. There will be differences. Think, man, think. I know more about my history than other people would. I can describe an emotional state but really only to myself in a way that I would understand it. The only differences in what happens five years ago is that I have photos for proof and they don't, even then I have a clearer picture of it then others, but it's only in regards to certain events. Which is all besides the point, and goes to show that when it comes to communicating your state to others you can't do it. Doesn't mean you can't describe it to yourself. I would know what I meant by the words I use for an emotional state, but no one else would. Hence it just proves my point that empathy is a myth.
Hence it just proves my point that empathy is a myth.No it proves that understanding is difficult, including understanding ourselves. We can know ourselves better by interacting with others. But that's work you don't want to do
It actually goes against it, try again kid. No it does not even address the neural system but the function of a single neuron in the greater scope of the "neural circuitry" She is declaring that there is a "neural circuitry" but that individual neurons have to be located in it's proper place and specific response abilities. a) a neural network exists. (and is divided into several sections, each with specific functions.) b) from the billions of neurons, specific neurons need to have the"right input" (be programmed) c) the specially programmed neurons must be in "in the right place" in the "circuitry" (the mirror neural network) Churchland is describing the specialized neurons, located in the mirror neural system. You can't see that?? Yes, those specialized neurons are located in the Mirror Neural system of the greater Circuitry. There is also a monitoring and control neural system which control our bodily chemistry only. These neurons also employ a mirror function but it is below our conscious thought and you are not even aware of that, unless something goes wrong and we develop symptoms, such as pain, nausea, breathing, etc. IOW, these neurons mirror the state of your health, do you feel good today or is something wrong, headache, nausea. lethargy, etc. The Mirror Neural System an established brain function. We just don't know how deep it can research its stored knowledge. We know that we can fool it, which is an indication of adaptation to specific "assumption" about our real world, which may not always be correct, such as a person seeing a color when hearing a specific sound. Recently saw a clip of a totally blind person, who bicycles a narrow winding forest path every day, by means of clicking his tongue. In his case he was able to reprogram his mirror network to use sound (echo location), in order to see (create an image of what ahead of him). Our conscious sensory neuron system mirrors the "input" from the environment and compares that input to those neurons which have been programmed to do so, in the right place of the brain, which we have named the Mirror Neural System. Your objections without any knowledge of the subject is hasty and ill-considered. Seems you mirror neural system could use some tweaking. How much or how little we know about theses functions is the current focus of investigation, with very promising results. I believe the choice of the term Mirror Neural System is well chosen, because it constantly mirrors our observations and acts in accordance to what the mirror function tells us what's out there. The physical and emotional responses are a product of prior experiences in relation to our environment.Titanomachine quotation, used as argument against a mirror neural system (network), "She makes the argument that intentions are understood (coded) at a more complex level of neural activity than that of individual neurons. Churchland states that “A neuron, though computationally complex, is just a neuron. It is not an intelligent homunculus. If a neural network represents something complex, such as an intention [to insult], it must have the right input and be in the right place in the neural circuitry to do that".This supports my position, not argue against it. Perhaps, you should pay closer attention, kid.
Titanomachine said, "I know more about my history than other people would. I can describe an emotional state but really only to myself in a way that I would understand it. The only differences in what happens five years ago is that I have photos for proof and they don’t, even then I have a clearer picture of it then others, but it’s only in regards to certain events.Which shows, you haven't got a clue about the subject of mirror neurons.
Which is all besides the point, and goes to show that when it comes to communicating your state to others you can’t do it. Doesn’t mean you can’t describe it to yourself. I would know what I meant by the words I use for an emotional state, but no one else would. Hence it just proves my point that empathy is a myth."Now you are completely lost in a fantasy of your own making. The mirror neural system does not function that way at all. You are still caught up in this mindset that there is something mystical about its function. It has nothing to do with mind-reading or parapsychology.
The really is that we don't feel, share, or understand others emotions. We are just imagining that we do. The only way for empathy to actually be a real phenomenon would be to involve some kind of neuro link or mind reading ability. Anything less isn't empathy by the definition they propose and is really just humans kidding themselves. It's a wonder people frequently feel misunderstood.The point is that we TRY. I don't know anything about "mirror neurons" so I'm not even going to get into that argument, but Humans are social animals, and we get along best by trying to understand what makes other people tick, by using our own experiences as a guideline. True, not everyone's emotional response is the same, and we often get it wrong. But we get it right more often than not. Why? Because we have a lot of practice. Have you ever wondered why people even like fiction? Movies, novels, fairy tales, made-up stories -- why would an intelligent person bother with characters who don't really exist, who are just figments of someone's imagination? It's because they offer us a good training ground, a simplified stage on which we can see other people's emotional responses play out. And for human beings, that's addictive. I agree. When we watch a good drama performed by great actors, we become immersed in the unfolding events. The interesting part is the word "actor". Acting is the ability to imitate and project a specific mood or thought in a meaningful way to the audience. The audience identifies and understands the actor's imaginary world and empathy between actor and audience has been established. And so it is with all the "performing arts". Can you "dig" it, man? Heinlein called it "grokking"....:) Humans, for all their variety, have certain common facial and physical traits in common. The bio-chemistry reaction, when triggered, is exactly the same in the observer as it is in the victim. What makes music a universal language because our brains and bodies are responsive to certain melodic progression of sound waves. Or even a single drone can make one feel good or bad, depending on the physical (brain directed) response. It's all bio-chemical cells responding to electro-chemical stimulus, leading to the ability of truly sharing someone else's emotional experience of reality, at least for a few moments. If I can imagine your world and identify with your particular circumstances, I should be able to understand better where "you are coming from", your perspective on life. Perhaps misunderstanding is a lack of experience and that's no problem. The problem here is that there can be no other explanation, other than by bio-chemical processes, which are trigged from oersonal experience and observed similar experiences in others. It pertains to common denominators inherited in all living creatures and sociologically refined to be used as a language, even between strangers, by humans.. We watch horror movies because it releases dopamine in the brain and increases the heart rate, a kind of "high". The same happens when we watch the 2 minute drive toward the winning touchdown in a football game. Or the last second 3 pointer in basketball to win the game. All you need do is listen to the crowd's reactions to each play. That's mass empathy, where everyone who is rooting for the home team is of ONE MIND (experiencing the same mental and physical stimulation), meaning experiencing the same chemical reaction en masse. That's why they are called "spectator sports", the shared comradery in support of your Team. Those are just a simple examples.
•As nouns the difference between comradery and camaraderie is that comradery is (rare) camaraderie while camaraderie is close friendship in a group of friends or teammates.} DUPipeline_QISnippet_MetaDescription_Snippet_v1: {},{48|48|32|Comradery is a synonym of camaraderie.Keep it real, shall we.
Alas no it’s not. It is not one mass empathy and it’s not one mind. They aren’t experiencing the same thing mentally (and you couldn’t prove it either). It’s simply a mass illusion, an assumption based on biased evidence.
You are also incorrect about music being a universal language. Not only is it subjective as to what “music” is, because someone can call it noise and another won’t, but the same thing can affect everyone differently. There isn’t a formula as to what can affect all minds. Not to mention the fact that music varies by culture the same way language does. What’s noise to some is music to others, which debunks your universal language claim.
It’s impossible to share someone’s experience of reality, because all you are doing is projecting your imagination onto the person. “empathy” is the ultimate act of narcissism. You aren’t feeling with them or feeling what they are feeling, only what YOU THINK they would in the situation. You are essentially lying. Empathy is lying and acting is no exception to the rule.
Unlike other people who delude themselves into thinking they have shared something, I don’t make the mistake of understanding what someone is feeling or knowing what it’s like. Just like no one can understand or share in what I feel. As humans we are each fundamentally alone in our experience of the world and no words could ever breach that gap.
You might as well give up on the mirror neuron theory since there isn’t data to support it.
It’s strange that as someone who isn’t a musician or artist I know more about this than you do. But I guess it’s hard to see the truth when you can’t separate yourself from the subject.
Alas no it's not. It is not one mass empathy and it's not one mind. They aren't experiencing the same thing mentally (and you couldn't prove it either). It's simply a mass illusion, an assumption based on biased evidence.a) All of human brainfunctions are illusionary experiences (best guess of what we are experiencing) b) when our illusions agree, we call it reality. We call that experiencing "empathy".
You are also incorrect about music being a universal language. Not only is it subjective as to what "music" is, because someone can call it noise and another won't, but the same thing can affect everyone differently. There isn't a formula as to what can affect all minds. Not to mention the fact that music varies by culture the same way language does. What's noise to some is music to others, which debunks your universal language claim.Really? Tell me what Morse code is, noises or a mathematical sound language. The sounds: "duh duh duh daah daah daah duh duh duh" is meaningless to you? If those were meaningless noises, no one would be physically come to help, no? This is just one example of a musical metric used as specific plea for help. If you heard your neighbor call for help, you'd just sit in your couch and and express "sympathy" for that person's plight? In more primitive societies, drums are used to communicate. Bird of a different feather have specific mating songs, which is recognized only by birds of the same species, because their brains (mirror neural systems) are tuned to that specific sequence of sound. All humans communicate by sound. Words and sentences are verbally communicated, by sound. How do you understand what another is saying?
It's impossible to share someone's experience of reality, because all you are doing is projecting your imagination onto the person. "empathy" is the ultimate act of narcissism. You aren't feeling with them or feeling what they are feeling, only what YOU THINK they would in the situation. You are essentially lying. Empathy is lying and acting is no exception to the rule."That is not even wrong". It is the mentally generated bio-chemical responses in the observer that prove empathy.
Unlike other people who delude themselves into thinking they have shared something, I don't make the mistake of understanding what someone is feeling or knowing what it's like. Just like no one can understand or share in what I feel. As humans we are each fundamentally alone in our experience of the world and no words could ever breach that gap.Then why are you typing all these words, which is a mathematical use of the alphabet, which consists of sounds if spoken?
You might as well give up on the mirror neuron theory since there isn't data to support it.Tell that to the thousands of scientists in all fields of neuro-science and the role the brain plays in the observation and cognition, and the physical chemical responses which echo the physical chemical responses of the person experiencing the trauma. There is plenty of data to support the hypothesis. You just haven't bothered to do some serious study on the subject. But unless you have a mental defect, it makes no difference. You have a mirror system, just like every sentient being, wether you like it or not. Live with it.
It's strange that as someone who isn't a musician or artist I know more about this than you do. But I guess it's hard to see the truth when you can't separate yourself from the subject.I find it strange that someone, who admits they know nothing about the importance of sounds and music in particular, dares to make a definitive statement about its properties and influence on the listener. If you admit your ignorance on the subject, isn't it time you do a little studying on the subject before making any definitive statement about a science about which you know nothing at all? If this is your viewpoint of critical thinking and the scientific method, you may want to brush up on that as well.
It's strange that as someone who isn't a musician or artist I know more about this than you do. But I guess it's hard to see the truth when you can't separate yourself from the subject.I find it strange that someone, who admits they know nothing about the importance of sounds and music in particular, dares to make a definitive statement about its properties and influence on the listener. If you admit your ignorance on the subject, isn't it time you do a little studying on the subject before making any definitive statement about a science about which you know nothing at all? If this is your viewpoint of critical thinking and the scientific method, you may want to brush up on that as well. That was an odd claim wasn't it? He is claiming he knows about something because he knows it can't be known. He doesn't engage with the terms or the data any of the knowledge of the field he is talking about, he just points how it can't be true because it hasn't been proven yet. This is the world from the movie Idiocracy. This is what we have come to after years of "Think Tanks" that spew out fake studies and misinformation. This is taking the philosophy of not knowing anything with 100% certainty and saying we don't know anything. It's giving up on the pursuit of knowledge, even just trying to get to know our neighbors or ourselves for that matter. It's hearing the words of people who are smarter than us, and instead of trying to understand them, mocking them.
It's strange that as someone who isn't a musician or artist I know more about this than you do. But I guess it's hard to see the truth when you can't separate yourself from the subject.I find it strange that someone, who admits they know nothing about the importance of sounds and music in particular, dares to make a definitive statement about its properties and influence on the listener. If you admit your ignorance on the subject, isn't it time you do a little studying on the subject before making any definitive statement about a science about which you know nothing at all? If this is your viewpoint of critical thinking and the scientific method, you may want to brush up on that as well. That was an odd claim wasn't it? He is claiming he knows about something because he knows it can't be known. He doesn't engage with the terms or the data any of the knowledge of the field he is talking about, he just points how it can't be true because it hasn't been proven yet. This is the world from the movie Idiocracy. This is what we have come to after years of "Think Tanks" that spew out fake studies and misinformation. This is taking the philosophy of not knowing anything with 100% certainty and saying we don't know anything. It's giving up on the pursuit of knowledge, even just trying to get to know our neighbors or ourselves for that matter. It's hearing the words of people who are smarter than us, and instead of trying to understand them, mocking them. He hasn't given any data, and the mirror neuron network he is so sure of amount to little more than "we don't know" in the fields. As I said, when it comes to music and art it takes an outside perspective to see it for what it is. Those within music and art are blinded by the illusion. There are no "smart people" in such fields, just those who think they are. It's not like math or science, I don't claim to know more than my doctor. But given how music and art are entirely subjective, you cannot compare the two. The people in the matter aren't necessarily smarter so much as unwilling to acknowledge that they cannot prove the existence of a supposed virtue. In the matter of trying to know your neighbors, you can't. You aren't in their shoes, don't feel what they feel, and haven't experienced their history. To say you experience any sort of "empathy" towards them is a lie, it's just your imagination projecting itself upon them and you mistake that for knowledge. As for ourselves, well you cannot know or understand what doesn't exist. Modern science has essentially said what Buddhists have all this time, that the self doesn't exist.
Alas no it's not. It is not one mass empathy and it's not one mind. They aren't experiencing the same thing mentally (and you couldn't prove it either). It's simply a mass illusion, an assumption based on biased evidence.a) All of human brainfunctions are illusionary experiences (best guess of what we are experiencing) b) when our illusions agree, we call it reality. We call that experiencing "empathy".
You are also incorrect about music being a universal language. Not only is it subjective as to what "music" is, because someone can call it noise and another won't, but the same thing can affect everyone differently. There isn't a formula as to what can affect all minds. Not to mention the fact that music varies by culture the same way language does. What's noise to some is music to others, which debunks your universal language claim.Really? Tell me what Morse code is, noises or a mathematical sound language. The sounds: "duh duh duh daah daah daah duh duh duh" is meaningless to you? If those were meaningless noises, no one would be physically come to help, no? This is just one example of a musical metric used as specific plea for help. If you heard your neighbor call for help, you'd just sit in your couch and and express "sympathy" for that person's plight? In more primitive societies, drums are used to communicate. Bird of a different feather have specific mating songs, which is recognized only by birds of the same species, because their brains (mirror neural systems) are tuned to that specific sequence of sound. All humans communicate by sound. Words and sentences are verbally communicated, by sound. How do you understand what another is saying?
It's impossible to share someone's experience of reality, because all you are doing is projecting your imagination onto the person. "empathy" is the ultimate act of narcissism. You aren't feeling with them or feeling what they are feeling, only what YOU THINK they would in the situation. You are essentially lying. Empathy is lying and acting is no exception to the rule."That is not even wrong". It is the mentally generated bio-chemical responses in the observer that prove empathy.
Unlike other people who delude themselves into thinking they have shared something, I don't make the mistake of understanding what someone is feeling or knowing what it's like. Just like no one can understand or share in what I feel. As humans we are each fundamentally alone in our experience of the world and no words could ever breach that gap.Then why are you typing all these words, which is a mathematical use of the alphabet, which consists of sounds if spoken?
You might as well give up on the mirror neuron theory since there isn't data to support it.Tell that to the thousands of scientists in all fields of neuro-science and the role the brain plays in the observation and cognition, and the physical chemical responses which echo the physical chemical responses of the person experiencing the trauma. There is plenty of data to support the hypothesis. You just haven't bothered to do some serious study on the subject. But unless you have a mental defect, it makes no difference. You have a mirror system, just like every sentient being, wether you like it or not. Live with it.
It's strange that as someone who isn't a musician or artist I know more about this than you do. But I guess it's hard to see the truth when you can't separate yourself from the subject.I find it strange that someone, who admits they know nothing about the importance of sounds and music in particular, dares to make a definitive statement about its properties and influence on the listener. If you admit your ignorance on the subject, isn't it time you do a little studying on the subject before making any definitive statement about a science about which you know nothing at all? If this is your viewpoint of critical thinking and the scientific method, you may want to brush up on that as well. I said music isn't a universal language. Nothing is. If it were then it would not require instruction to interpret it. You can respond because you understand English but not everyone does. Even if the whole world did that would not make it a universal language. Morse code is a bunch of meaningless noises that we arbitrarily assign values to, which is the only way it makes sense. The same thing applies to words. You can type Morse code to me but without knowing what the sounds correspond to it's just meaningless beeps to me. Then same thing with words. If one doesn't know the meaning assigned to them then they are meaningless. Saying something exists in birds doesn't mean the same thing applies to humans. When it comes to music this is further shown by how the communication one seeks to do gets lost based on culture and other factors. Music and art are terrible ways of communication that suffer the same way speech does. Someone can speak to me in Japanese but it's meaningless noise to me. Your "mentally generated bio-chemical responses in the observer that prove empathy" is not even wrong. It doesn't prove empathy, it just proves our imagination. It proves that we project ourselves onto others. "Tell that to the thousands of scientists in all fields of neuro-science and the role the brain plays in the observation and cognition, and the physical chemical responses which echo the physical chemical responses of the person experiencing the trauma. There is plenty of data to support the hypothesis. You just haven’t bothered to do some serious study on the subject. But unless you have a mental defect, it makes no difference. You have a mirror system, just like every sentient being, wether you like it or not. Live with it." There aren't "thousands" who say that, in fact it's the same ones who debate it's very existence or even it's functions. Face it, there is no data to support it, all the works end with "we don't know". All they can say is that we imagine it. The "serious study" (which you haven't provided and other bits I struck down) leads to the same conclusion. Our illusions agreeing isn't reality, it's just imagination. Even then we cannot truly know their illusions, we just imagine we do. We trick ourselves into thinking we share something when we really aren't. It's all our imagination. It isn't experiencing empathy, it's just believing we are. "Then why are you typing all these words, which is a mathematical use of the alphabet, which consists of sounds if spoken?" This statement is unrelated to the quoted line. Look, it's clear you are beaten and refuse to accept "empathy" for what it is, nothing more than a narcissistic use of our imagination.
I said music isn't a universal language. Nothing is. If it were then it would not require instruction to interpret it. You can respond because you understand English but not everyone does. Even if the whole world did that would not make it a universal language.I don't think you understand the word universal.
I said music isn't a universal language. Nothing is. If it were then it would not require instruction to interpret it. You can respond because you understand English but not everyone does. Even if the whole world did that would not make it a universal language.I don't think you understand the word universal. I do and I know it's correct in this case. Either way his point is moot because there is no self and no "other" to have empathy for.
I said music isn't a universal language. Nothing is. If it were then it would not require instruction to interpret it.Tell that to the baby being soothed by mom's lullaby.