I'm mostly interested in melody and harmony which, to my reckoning, is more subjective than objective notwithstanding the fact that these aspects of music seem universal in re structure/pattern.

Why should one note followed by another speicific note be, well, pleasing to the ear? I'm, luckily or not, not a musician although I tried hard - spent almost 5 years trying to learn the guitar with nothing to show for it - so am not able to give you the specifics. All I know is that for every note there's another that's a perfect match; it gives us the same feeling that some ardent lovers describe as that of "being made for each other."

It would be really fascinating if there's an objective reason why melody & harmony, in a way, "make sense" to our ears/brains/hearts. I feel it's more of a heart thing but that's going back to a time before neuroscience. Sounds like a bad idea but, let's be honest - look at history, do you see any good ideas?

Musical melody and harmony then must be the acoustic version of logic - a set of notes (horizontally - melody; vertically - harmony) seems to "make sense" (I repeat myself but treat this as a refrain and we should be alright).


I wonder if what women do with colors is something similar - visual logic. They always ask "does this :point: skirt go with this :point: top?" Some color combinations don't "make sense" (refrain) do they?

Perhaps it's a case of failure to appreciate the rationale/logic behind some notes/color combination and not that such arrangements don't "make sense" (refrain). Thus I made it a point to mention that subjectivity may have a role in all this.

That's all I have for now. Stay tuned for more. That's meant in an iffy way.

:smile:

My IQ score is on the wrong side of 69 (Wechsler). Does that explain everything going on between us?

Yes! Nonphysicalists can hope that mind is a different kind of physical. I'd consider that a win! Wordplay or something substantive? I dunno!

What does that mean? I am really disappointed this morning. I am not seeing any post that I consider worthy of contemplation and a considerate reply. Maybe another thread will be more interesting? — Athena

I'm sorry, Athena my Goddess, if you feel that way. Your vengeful reputation precedes you and I don't wanna be in your bad books. Let's just say that I'm wrong and you're right! :smile:

Deomcracy is, bottom line, a compromise between totalitarianism and anarchy. The deal we've agreed to is a fixed term (4 years in the USA, think Trump) of dictatorship interrupted by short spells of anarchy (elections). There's nothing great about democracy when you look at it that way; as it is authoritarianism is being favored, given we have to live with it for 4 years, in democracy and that speaks volumes. It seems the logic of democracy boils down to getting robbed and opressed by different people is better than getting robbed and oppresed by the same person. I somehow fail to see the difference.

How do you understand things? — Athena

Not backwards! :grin: :joke:

Yes, I'm aware that Chalmers (maybe) setting down some kinda boundary for science - demarcating its borders in a manner of speaking, whatever lies outside our field of vision; perhaps we can look at it as a blind spot or something like that.

My point is science, if there are absolute limits to science, may not be the only materialist/physicalist game in town. Another materialistic/physicalist, albeit nonscientific, perspective may be out there waiting for the right person to discover it, loads of luck a sine qua non as far as I can tell. This new materialistic philosophy/viewpoint could dissolve the first-person/third-person distinction and provide for us the window through which science can enter the domain of pure subjective consciousness and work its magic.

One, does IQ directly correlate with maturity? — Bylaw

I'm only stating a widely-accepted view on the issue: the older you are (chronologically), the smarter you are. This intuition or belief is reflected in IQ = $\frac{Mental \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100$.

You question this though and IQ does seem very one-dimensional: maturity is a complex phenomenon/state of an individual [mind (reason + emotion) + body] unto himself and as a social entity. The point is if we were to simplify it, what would we end up with? IQ? Yes/no? As you pointed out, IQ is probably an oversimplification. The question is what's the alternative? Your guess is as good as mine.

Two, given that adult brains are more fixed, even if there are adults who have low IQs and this leads to criminal acts, there is still good reason to sentence them differently from 5 year olds and even 15 year olds. — Bylaw

Exactly my point. Please note there seem to be multiple definitions of "adult" and "child" and it becomes hazardous, even pointless, to discuss the matter further unless we want to get entangled in a conceptual maze.

As far as I can tell the so-called hard problem of consciousness is just Chalmers, the magician's, sleight of hand. Let me walk you through how Chalmer tricks us into believing something that isn't true:

First, Chalmers informs us that a certain aspect of consciousness - the first-person subjective awareness - is inaccessible territory for science which has always been viewed as a third-person point of view.

Second, Chalmers, this is the part where he executes the invalid inference, goes on to say there's an explanatory gap between physical science and consciousness.

Would you, for example, agree with a person who claims that because a certain other individual (science) can't do something (can't explain consciousness physically) that that something can't be done at all (there's no physical explanation for consciousness)? There maybe a perfectly good workaround; we just haven't found out what that is.

Progeria kids are under a lot of stress! :smile:

If only we had a video of the Kenosha killings - that would go a long way in shutting us all, with our own quaint and probably utterly false theories, up.

I'm beginning to see the value of CCTV cameras, cellphone cameras, all sorts of cameras for that matter. Shoot the shooting should be the mantra in a gun-crazy country like the USA. What's the point of bragging about how technologically advanced the US of A is when you can't even take a video of a crime being committed with your cellphone, especially when everybody knew the situation was tense enough to provoke a few trigger-happy randoms with a short fuse.

Most of the posts here seem therefore off topic. — Banno

I'm sure @Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay has something to say about this. He's of the opinion that if something, anything, isn't mathematizable, it's nonsense. I tend to agree but in a broader sense - if the mathematics can't be rendered into ordinary language without weirdness à la quantum physics then, the mathematics must be nonsensical, right? It's only fair to think/say so, no?

In all likelhood this is a case of poor analogy. A dark room is the quintessential state of unknowing - imagination runs wild and what happens is activation of fear-driven explore mode and possibilities, possibilities, and more possibilities; in other words uncertainty. Put simply, a dark room = $\infty$ information, it's overflowing with surprises.

$\log_2 \infty = ?$ Shocking!

Claude Shannon's definition of information in terms of entropy doesn't gibe with surprise viewed as having something to do with free energy minimization. Right?

Are these two the same thing though?

Look at the bright side. When the next variant evolves, we'll all get a piece of Pie ($\pi$).

Doubt: I don't know but that which I don't know is knowable. Ouch! :grimace:

Skepticism: I don't know and that which I don't know is unknowable. Hooray! :cool:

If biological systems, including ourselves, act so as to minimise surprise, then why don't we crawl into a dark room and stay there? — Banno

:chin: Darkness represents, in the context of our world where clarity is visually-defined, a state of not knowing or unknowing i.e. darkness, the room that's dark, is the precise reason why we possess a startle response. When the sun dips below the horizon and night creeps in, surprises, unpleasant ones, are just round the corner. I thought that we already passed that waypoint many hundred thousand years ago and that's the reason we have the startle reflex - we react faster, buying us time for fight/flight! I dunno.

Well, we certainly have agreements on that point! I have been looking into this problem, and it appears there is a strong argument that God puts thoughts in our heads. That is a different topic, but one that might be worth exploring. — Athena

Good to know.

Ouch, ouch :gasp: please that is a totally different subject, but boy would it interesting to explore that. The US has a terrible record of incarcerating mentally disturbed people. Perhaps that goes with our unrealistic notion of a god and humans? What you said about intent, separates the Rittenhouse trial from the trial of the 3 men behaving as the KKK hunting down the coon. — Athena

You've got it backwards as far as I can tell.

And, worse, mental health problems. Most serial killers were abused as children. Most homeless people have mental health problems. This is what's sickening about people with privileged upbringings claiming a la the Monopoly effect that they're just hard-working and those left behind just don't want it enough. — Kenosha Kid

:up:

I feel bad but that's not going to be enough, is it? Reminds me of Kant's ethics. He wanted to reduce morality to logic and I believe he explicitly mentioned that being a bad person was tantamount to believing in a contradiction. That's why criminals, bad folk in general, when they do whatever it is that they do, smart people react with, "are you insanse?" or "you must be raving mad!" There's lunacy in evil (werewolves?) - senseless acts of violence.

See :point: Zinloos Geweld.

:grin:

This preassumes IQ as a measure of being grown up. A quite childish assumption. — Cartuna

You may have a point there. However, look at how the educational system operates. High IQ pupils are routinely awarded grade-skipping promotions. This, if anything else, is an endorsement of IQ as a measure of how "grown up" one is (skipping grades puts a child among older students).

By the way, I'm curious, how would you measure childhood, adolescence, and adulthood?

It would be a very rare case that lacked maturity in general. As far as certain social relations, absolutely. But then what they lack is neuroplasty in comparison. We are talking about a much more entrenched situation. — Bylaw

There are a lot of clips/videos available online that discuss and poke fun at how immature adults are. Either that means something or it doesn't. You be the judge. In short, you maybe mistaken regarding the low numbers of immature adults (oxymoron).



To All Of The Above Posters

Does the term immature adult make sense?

From Collins online dictionary:

Overgrown child (British English): An adult whose behaviour is characteristic of a child.

To avoid a contradiction, a distinction has to be made...

Those IQ tests should not be used to judge human beings! — Athena

It might seem that there's more to a person than his intelligence but who in the hell decided to call our species homo sapiens (wise man)? Let's overlook this misnomer and what it implies for the moment and discuss the significance of intelligence (IQ).

Are we to hold a mentally challenged individual (low IQ) responsible for an act that results in death, injury or loss of property? Let's, arguendo, say retarded people are held to account for their actions. That they surely didn't intend the illegal act must amount to something: like should be treated like and so, unlike should be treated...? With malice aforethought vs. unintentional/accidental/plain bad luck.

As one poster in another thread said, many of the criminals who've been found to have low IQs are in prison precisely because they have low IQs. There are some wrinkles to iron out, nevertheless doesn't that mean we're mistreating (sending to the slammer is a form of psychological torture and the death penalty has its own issues) the disabled (low IQ folks)? There really is no difference between a gaol and a mental asylum, psychologically/psychiatrically speaking but as to the manner in which they're treated, they're poles apart. :grin:

Yes, I think Buddhism is about saving yourself — Gregory

Odd things happen given enough time. There's a post somewhere in this forum where a member remarks, paraphrasing, "if time is infinite, anything that can happen will happen." It's inevitable.

I'm in awe as to the grandness and complexity of the human mind to say nothing of the cosmos itself. You think you're right and you're wrong and just when you lose all hope and resign yourself to being always wrong, you're right. This is just a sample, not representative in any way but does give you a feel of how deep the rabbit hole goes. :grin:

Hopefully this new Omicron variant causes less severe disease and becomes the dominant strain. — The Opposite

I hope so too. COVID-19 might become just like the common cold virus - the worst that can happen is a few days in bed and that's it.

From what I could gather, the Omicron variant has multiple mutations and these seem to be random. Maybe, just maybe, these increase infectivity but decrease lethality. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope, like you do, that the die will roll in our favor! Fortune is fickle, we know, but what we lack in determination and intelligence, we make up for in our love of gambling...with our lives. :grin:

The brain is highly plastic in juvenile development. As an example a kid (aged 8 yrs I believe) who had half his brain blown out due to a stray bullet still went on to get a degree at university. When components are lost other areas grow to take over (another case of a child born without a cerebellum being able to walk).

I don't see what sense it makes to talk about hardware and software when referring to the human brain in reasonable detail (even as an analogy it can often give the wrong impression) — I like sushi

I don't know why I used a computer analogy in my reply to Bylaw but it seemed relevant at the time (half-an-hour ago).

Lemme see.

It has to do with differences between children and adults and how that matters to the topic we're discussing (age, crime, IQ). Ah! I get it now. The difference has to be in software (the installed memes & apps) and not in hardware (the neural architecture) for the simple reason that many children (prodigies/savants) can outdo even expert adults.

Of course not. But it takes years lived to get experience. — Bitter Crank

Indeed it does but, the correlation between time and experience is not all that strong or, better put, years lived doesn't seem to guarantee experience. As an illustration, take a 5 year old child, confine him to a cell for 50 years and let him out into the world on his 55th birthday. How experienced is this 55 year old? A few minor adjustments, take this metaphorically or whatever, and I'm sure you'll find quite a few real persons who match this description.

I find Gretta annoying and Donald Trump revoltingly loathsome. However, he became President and neither of us did. (I don't know--maybe you tried and failed; I didn't even try.) Apparently he had enough experience to fill the bill for the idiot bastards in the Republican Party. — Bitter Crank

All that matters to the discussion is chronological age doesn't line up as nicely as I'd have preferred/liked with experiential age. If it actually did, the world's problems would've been solved centuries ago. We've failed to learn from our experiences - that's what's evident in the papers, radio, and TV. I don't need to tell you that Bitter Crank, c'mon! :grin:

It's not a matter of IQ, it's a matter of brain development. Children's brains are still forming, including those parts of the brain that allow one to control impulses. IOW they need to be controlled by others and are in the process of being taught how to have self-discipline, control over impulses and so on. An adult with a low IQ is NOT the same — Bylaw

You're right of course but the truth remains some chronologically adult (18 +) people have the mental maturity of a 5 year old toddler. IQ is just one measure of mental maturity and like Bitter Crank was so kind to point out, experience counts. Unfortunately or fortunately, I don't know, the relationship between time, brains, and experience is not as clear as we'd like it to be - some get a get a head start, some grow exponentially, others are gentle slope, still some flat line, you get the idea.

Neuroplasticity - yes, children's brains. However, hazarding a guess, going out on a limb here, most modifications/adaptations are in software and not in hardware.

Update

1. Intelligence Quotient (IQ) = $\frac{Mental \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100$

2. Stress Quotient (SQ) = $\frac{Physical \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100$

3. Experience Quotient (EQ) = $\frac{Experiential \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100$

How are IQ, SQ, and EQ related?

IQ seems to have an ambiguous effect on SQ. Some smart folks look younger then they actually are, for others it's a different story.

IQ and EQ inform each other. IQ enhances the quality of experiences and experiences boost IQ.

Now, SQ and EQ. High EQ reduces stress.

There's more but I'm going to leave it at that.

A complex relationship between intelligence, experience, and stress emerges.

Basically, if you have a low IQ, you're a child trapped in an adult body and vice versa for high IQ folks.
— TheMadFool

Not so, because adults have more experience in life than children, even if they have a relatively low IQ. Low IQ isn't a severe mental impairment. Granted, it's not an advantage, but someonep with an IQ of 85 or 90 is not mentally retarded. Children with IQs of 120 to 130 do not thereby have extensive experience. Life experience is an important aspect of intelligence. Brains without experience don't have much to say. — Bitter Crank

You're assuming too much. Years lived do not necessarily translate into experience. Look at Greta Thunberg, just 18 or so, and she's talks/acts like a 40 year old veteran climate scientist. Trump, on the other hand, comes off as infantile.

I guess it depends on how you define an adult.

I propose a new measure:

Experiential Quotient = EQ (not emotional quotient) = $\frac{Experiential \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100$

We only know the criminals who get caught, and it's more likely that the police will catch the dumbest ones first, who are also more likely to commit a crime because they think that they will get away with it. — Vince

Evil geniuses, the smart ones never get caught! True.

However, this means that we need to take into account mental vs. physical age all the more. After all, we know it's the dumb ones (read immature/infantile) that are apprehended.

So I'd say you proved my point for me. :up:

You're confusing chronological age and biological age. — Vince

Reread the exchange between me and Hermeticus.

There seems to be 3 components to aging:

1. Mental age (loosely mental immaturity/maturity)

2. Chronological age (the time elapsed since birth)

3. Physical age (the state of your body, its condition). Your biological age.

Intelligence quotient = IQ = $\frac{Mental \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100$

Stress quotient = SQ = $\frac{Physical \space Age}{Chronological \space Age} \times 100$

Cool! :up:

I named it "stress" quotient because the body puts on years (graying, wrinkles, etc.) when under physical & mental pressure.

A 25 year old man is like a child compared to a 50 year old man — Miller

In most cases both mentally and physically but it's not a rule written in stone.

Are you sure about that? When I interact with a child, I don't gauge their mental age first and then decided how to treat them. I treat them like a child because they look like a child - because their body is like a child. If during the course of conversation I notice that the child is "mature for their age" I may treat them differently - but initially I'll treat them like a child because they appear like a child. — Hermeticus

So you would treat a progeria child patient as an elderly citizen?

Pertaining to law, there is a solid reason why you'd want to take the "body age" rather than the "mental age". Both concepts of IQ and mental age are actually heavily criticized as a measurement. There are too many factors for intelligence and different tests will come to different results. The law however can not allow for such variety. It needs to be clearly defined otherwise people will exploit any possibility of variety and find loopholes around the law. It requires hard and objectively measurable facts - like the age of the body which is clearly documented by a birth ceritificate - rather than a soft and subjective measure like IQ. — Hermeticus

So, again truth is sacrificed for convenience and that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as I can tell.

See :point: Indiana Pi Bill

I'm also a bit (actually a lot) troubled by the fact that a sizeable percentage of criminals have low IQ. Out through the window goes the much-celebrated notion of childhood innocence.

I say don't be so/too quick to judge.

Did you know that human offspring require, comparatively, the most care if they're to "make it" in an evolutionary sense? Last I checked, human babies are more helpless than a fawn in the midst of famished lions. The care infants need seems to extend, as per existing social theories/norms, up to the 18th year.

The assumption here is that in the 18 formative years, parents, family, friends, society at large, will actually deliver good mentorship; an assumption that's been blown clear out of the water by studies. A double-edged sword, it is.

You're right in that social structures that were once tailored to bringing up children (in the right way) have collapsed and society, by and large, is tending towards a child-unfriendly milieu. I guess this is the point at which philosophers step in and develop pediatric philosophy for there is such a thing as flourishing (eudaimonia) in children too and we need to find out how it is that we adults may render our assistance towards that end.

However, laissez-faire (leave children alone, let 'em do their thing) doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. Economies, at least within current paradigms, are described as having "matured"; minds & bodies may too.

but a child always has a guardian in this society. — Michael Zwingli

:rofl: Namesake guardians i.e. no guardians?

The distinction between R and an actual child, is that the child is under the authority of another, it's guardian, while R is under no authority but his own — Michael Zwingli

Begging the question. By your logic, a guardianless child is an adult.

See you around. Thanks.

I don’t see anything here other than some doctrine I don’t care about and some terms used that lack definitions. — I like sushi

:lol: So you don't care about what you said viz. luck (Gettier cases) explains stupidity (I like sushi's razor)? Ignorance is (some times) mistaken for malice (Hanlon's razor). They're all connected.

Please don't reply. Thanks.

Should IQ tests $(\frac{Mental Age}{Body Age} \times 100)$ be part of criminal law? People with low IQ are basically children trapped in adult bodies and many "criminals" save some who fit the description of an evil genius have been found to score well below average on intelligence tests. In short, Rittenhouse is not 17 years old, he's much, much younger than he looks. Children are said to be innocent; their actions, no matter how heinous, are to be forgiven - they don't know any better.

@I like sushi $\uparrow$ On topic.

Update

In Buddhism there are The Three Poisons:

1. Moha (ignorance, pig)

2. Raga (greed/sensual attachment, bird)

3. Dvesha (hate/aversion, snake)

In Western traditions, from how philosophy, was (unfortunately) such a big deal, there's only one summum malum:

1. Ignorance

Western philosophy, I reckon, sees/views the lack of knowledge as the root of all suffering. Buddhism too, by some accounts, traces all suffering back to not knowing.

Unfortunately for us, as Gettier demonstrates with his Gettier cases, there's an element of chance (luck) in knowledge despite the fact that we have what we believe is a method for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion viz. logic.

I guess we could create a Hackliste for Buddhism as follows:

Prime evil: Ignorance

Lesser evils: Hate, Lust/Greed

Are we? — I like sushi

Yes.

'Luck' is just 'entropy' at work. — I like sushi

Disagree. Nothing systematic about luck.

I've been over morality numerous times before and noticed a reluctance from many to make any serious kind of moral investigation. — I like sushi

And you're not one of them? :lol:

Ethics is unethical because it is roughly framed as a one size fits all item rather than a more nuanced and personal thing where individuals act in ways they wish to act rather than acting in ways they are told is better to act. — I like sushi

Old news.

Nietzsche respected the man who killed — I like sushi

:lol:

To be sure, it's the problems of free logic that are fun. — Banno

Excelente!

Free logic would, in my humble opinion, open up the world of fiction - Tolkein's works, Doyle's works, etc. - to logical analysis.
— TheMadFool

You seem to think this would be problematic. Why shouldn't fiction be logical?

Holmes lived at 221b Baker Street. Why shouldn't we consider this to be true, within the context of the writings of Doyle and their derivatives? Is there an argument against this? — Banno

No, no. I have a recollection of wanting to make an argument about a fictional character about 6 months ago but I couldn't figure out how because of the vexing matter of existential import. I wanted an argument that has a nonexistent entity in it but it was impossible without also saying that the nonexistent exists.

It appears, prima facie, that the difficulty lies with the implied existence of $\exists x$. If I'm correct, free logic should have existence as a predicate. We might also need to look at the ontological aspects of categorical/sentential/predicate logic.