Numbers do not exist at all on the phenomenal plane - you won't find them anywhere, except in the act of counting. — Wayfarer

What's your definition of counting? Is counting an act outside the phenomenal plane?

When I'm experiencing a 400 Hz tone, does this particular tone-quale express the number 400 in a phenomenal way? I would say, yes. I think, this phenomenon refers to the counting of 400 eardrum deflections per second. Eardrum deflections are separated by a forward and backward motion.

When I see two things, I have counted to 2 because I noticed a separation between them. This separation is based on different phenomenal forms and qualities. How slow must a counting be in order to define it as a counting rather than a quale corresponding to a number of light or sound waves per time?

("quale" = singular of "qualia")

To everyone who thinks logic and causality were the same. They are not.

The trigger before the explosion is not a logical reason; it's a physical cause. This cause is not based upon a logical law nor is it linked with it. It's not logical that the trigger causes an explosion. This is just an empirical observation and it's not guaranteed that this effect will be the same at all times. If this were logical and the effect would change, it would be like saying: "2+2=4 has been correct until now, but in the future it may be 2+2=3." -- This is not logic. Logic is independent of space and time.

Interesting topic. Does logic have any empiricity anyway?

On one hand, I assume that logic wasn't invented; it was discovered. Just like math, logic is a set of rules beyond physical and mental things. Even God, if one believes in him, is subject to logic.

On the other hand, quantum mechanics and their fuzzy superpositions require a special logic that adds a third state between true and false. That seems to indicate that logic does imply a certain empiricity. But there's no final answer to that.

On the middle hand, why should logic emerge from experience and not vice versa? Experience may emerge from logic! I guess logic is a superpower that is mightier than anything else; in other words: Logic is the basis of all basics, the root of all roots.

Every day, every minute, true, semi-true, and untrue news become available. In order to be informed correctly, humans need to decide which news are the true ones. Even smart people cannot filter out all untrue news. It may take days or years until I can see that the information XY at that time was wrong. Until then, I'm believing that the information XY is true and I'll make personal decisions accordingly; I'm relying on information that I got from other humans. During this period my behaviour is being influenced by others (the ones that gave my information XY).

I'm not a doctor. My doctor tells me I should eat more apples. I'll follow her advice. She influenced me.

Her influence on me is possible because I rely on her. I trust her. I trust her not because I have the same medical knowledge as she does. I'm not a doctor and I'm not all-knowing. I trust her because I assume she's right. My assumption may be wrong! Perhaps it's better to stop eating apples. Who knows? Even doctors make mistakes (or want to make more profit). I don't know and therefore I just follow her advice; that's an influence.

Influence is possible in areas where I don't know better. Such areas exist because I'm not all-knowing.

There are countless cases of this kind every minute, every second. To claim it was impossible that speech could influence people is just absurd.

Why are the media full of advertisement? Because ads can influence humans. At least half of all ad producers claim that ads are just "offerings" for humans that can completely decide on their own. Question: Why are ads supposed to evoke emotions? Answer: Because emotions influence better. -- There's the contradiction. They are not "offerings". They are influences.

Why do emotional speeches influence the listeners better than non-emotional speeches? Because emotion attracts and gets more easily into the human memory. So why do influencers generate emotions? Because that's the way influence works.

It's not about "offerings". It's about influence. Be honest!

Sure, but there is no law against lying. Are you saying there should be? — Harry Hindu

No, please reread my post. I'm talking about being influenced. You keep deviating from my point. And I now stop this dialog with you.

Now that you and I have had that type of experience of being lied to by another human being, wouldn't that make you more skeptical of what people say? — Harry Hindu

Yes, but only after you've learned it was a lie. You are diverting from my point. I'm talking about situations where you are being influenced by friend XY because you haven't learned yet that friend XY has lied. You are talking about the situation thereafter. Please refer to my point.

I don't need to know the expansion rate of the universe to know if Joe Biden was ... — Harry Hindu

Bad example. You need to bring a complex example where your evaluation can fail. Now you can say you've never failed in your life and I won't believe you, or you can provide an example where your evaluation has failed and where you had to correct your opinion afterwards. In such a situation you had not enough data and so you relied on someone else's input.

I respond if and when I want to. — NOS4A2

Yes, this is true. But you don't have 100 % control of your situation. Your situation is partially influenced by yourself and partially influenced by external inputs. You're not the only designer of your situation. There are many designers. You are only able to want to write a reply when there is an input. You don't write the inputs yourself. You don't know when they come in and what will be written in them. You are not all-knowing and not all-mighty. Your reaction depends on the external inputs. You and the external inputs both design your situation. And the situation is the basis for your decisions. Change the situation and it will change your decisions.

So we conclude: The best solution is a compromise close to "almost unlimited freedom".

I'll add a second point:

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be -- like a machine -- completely free of emotions, so nobody can make you feel happy or sad; no comedian and no joke can make you laugh, and when your beloved one is dying you can't cry, and no film or music can change your mood.

Now who on this forum is cold as ice?

But the fact that there is variation is trivial. — Harry Hindu

Yes, it's trivial. But some people don't get it or don't want to get it and rather play rhetorical games; they categorically round any influence down to zero. They do this by saying any free speech is just an "offering". I think this is just a rhetorical shift at the surface while the substance underneath remains the same: Call the emotional Pepsi-advertisement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the false fire alarm an "offering" -- its influence remains; call any incitement an "offering" -- its influence remains; call the training program of the football coach an "offering" -- the coach's influence remains.

If you want to be immune against influence, you need to be all-knowing, so you can at any time detect whether the message you hear is nonsense or not.

Now who on this forum is all-knowing?

It seemed to me that you were unwilling to acknowledge that there was a 0%. — Harry Hindu

I've been acknowledging that 0 % influence can occur as well. I'm quoting myself:

Influence varies. Sometimes it's greater than zero. — Quk

So, sometimes it's greater than zero -- which implies that sometimes it isn't.

When you say "sometimes it's X" then you imply that "sometimes it's not X." Do you see the dual logic of the word "sometimes"? The word "sometimes" has a different meaning than "always".

Anyway, all I want to say is that in my view influence is gradually variable rather than a hard yes-no-issue. I'm glad to read you agree with my view.

Your example #3 is fine and correct. It's just not essential for the illustration that influence is variable because variability includes the number zero anyway.

How much influence did Mavis have on Oscar here? — Harry Hindu

Zero.

Now do you understand that influence has a variable magnitude, ranging from 0 to 99 %. That's what I meant to say.

What do you mean by "It's never 100%"? — Harry Hindu

Mavis says to Oscar: "Oscar, eat this pill or you end up in hell."


Example 1:

Oscar hates this pill, but he eats it anyway as he's very naive and afraid of hell.

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar almost 100 %. Almost, not fully, because Oscar still has a brain of its own.


Example 2:

Oscar replies: "No, I won't eat the pill now. Maybe tomorrow."

In this context, Mavis controls Oscar just a little because Oscar obviously declines the instruction, but maybe he'll reconsider tomorrow.


In short: Influence is not a binary matter of "all or nothing". Influence has a variable magnitude. That's what I mean.

And it logically follows that if different people have different responses to the same stimuli then the influencer's intention is not the closest thing to the response of the listener - the listener's interpretation of the words and the speaker is. — Harry Hindu

Correct. I'm not saying that the influencer has 100 % control. And you're not saying that the influencer has always no influence at all. Influence varies. Sometimes it's greater than zero. But it's never 100 %.

You were just influencing me to write a reply which took two minutes of my lifetime. You just changed my history. If I missed a certain event in that other room during those two minutes, your influence was one of the many causes. Life is multicausal.

How so, when those same words spoken to a different person would produce a different result? — Harry Hindu

The closer the result is in relation to the influencer's intention, the more influence is done.

If the influencer says to the newbie: "Eat six apples a day!", and the newbie eats two, then the influencer's intention agrees with the result by about 30 %. Of course, it cannot really be measured in numbers, but I hope you get the picture.

I cannot motivate anyone to do anything, ever. I can use words to perhaps convince them to motivate themselves to do what I am suggesting, but the motivating factor is not me, nor my words. It is the internal force created by the individual that results in action being done, or not done, as the person decides. — Book273

I think this statement is full of contradictions.

I mean, if you have convinced a person to do something, you have clearly influenced that person. Yes, that person is responsible. But you are partially responsible too.

If you tell the person something the person didn't know -- nobody knows everything --, then you transfer new decision parameters to that person. The person cannot reliably detect whether you are a liar. Assuming the person trusts you. Now are you still claiming you have no influence? Assuming the person doesn't trust you. Now you can say, right so. Never trust anyone. Just to be on the safe side. But life without any trust is no life.

I claim that every influence is an influence. Influences vary. Small, big. You can't say you're no influence and at the same time say you're not an influence. There are many forces, and you are one of them. Small ones, big ones. We are all participants. You can't isolate yourself and simultaneously participate in the life on earth.

Basically, you're saying a football game is performed by the team, and the coach has no responsibility whatsoever.

If you look for a word whose meaning is intuitively clear immediately after your birth, then it's probably this word:

Mama

At first your lips are closed, so your throat causes an "mmm" sound. Then you open your mouth; that causes an "aaa" sound. Genetic programs possibly trigger double actions so that symbols clearly appear as intentional symbols and not as random effects; i.e. when you make a sign, do it twice. So it's clear the sign is intentional. Therefore, when you say mmmaaa, say it twice: mmmaaa mmmaaa

You see a certain object the first time and you want to say something the first time. This object is your mother and the sound you transmit is "mama". This sound now has a meaning.

Context is needed in all these instances. — Harry Hindu

Individuals may experience a certain thing differently, yet they may describe it with the same word. Yes, you can clarify it by context. But at this starting point the context is unknown until the individuals describe their personal background with further, finer words.

I guess the "bank" issue was meant as a metaphor for the fact that individuals define certain words differently.

Other examples:

hot
violent
fast

These adjectives are supposed to describe a certain value range. What does "hot" mean? 30 degrees or 100 degrees? What is violent? A kick in the face or calling someone "idot"? How fast is fast?

Well said. I was going to write a similar comment.

How does one claim that others have an influence on others if the selves are themselves some nebulous and vague concept that only exists as a result of "external" forces? — Harry Hindu

Not sure I understand your question grammatically. Could you express your thought in smaller pieces?

I'm not saying that there is no internal force. I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force.

In the first second of your life, did you already understand English due to an internal genetic program or did you learn English from external sources?

The more options one has, the more freedom one has. — Harry Hindu

I agree. This principle is compatible to mine. There is always at least one option, so the will is not entirely unfree. And the number of options is limited, so the will is never entirely free. So it's not a binary yes-no-question as to whether the will is free or unfree; it's always just a matter of scale, i.e. the number of options. The word "freedom", if it's supposed to make sense, always needs a reference. Can I live forever? In this respect I'm unfree. Can I sing a song? In this respect I'm free. Am I free in general? No, as my lifetime is limited. Am I unfree in general? No, as I can sing a song.

Now that's the specific freedom regarding the options. I think there's another specific freedom which refers to the causes and reasons that influence my decisions. I'd say, this specific freedom doesn't provide a free will since I'm always influenced by something that is not part of my Self.

I was asking for something much simpler - and you keep avoiding it. I'm not asking for a sample algorithm. I'm simply asking you for you to explain the process of how you interpret political speech. — Harry Hindu

Pardon, I'm not intending to avoid your questions. Perhaps I was just misunderstanding your question.

What you are describing here looks like an algorithm to me. So your comment here isn't so much different to mine:

I'm a-political, so when I hear political speech I don't accept it at face value, no matter which side of the political spectrum it is coming from. I do research. I listen to what others of varying political persuasions say and then form my opinion about the veracity of what was originally said. I do these things because of my learned history that politicians and those persuaded by them lie. Notice I'm taking about experiences and memories and how they integrate with what is heard or read in the present moment. I don't experience neurons firing and hormones raging when I integrate sensory data with my stored memories. I experience colors, shapes, (of which neurons and brains are composed of and is what we are referring to when we talking about brains and neurons) sounds, feelings, etc. — Harry Hindu

Translated to a computer algorithm:
Declaration: Harry is a-political. Harry does research and he listens.
Contradiction:
IF Harry does research THEN Harry is political
Declaration: Harry has listened to a number of politicians that lied.
Program error:
Harry generalizes "a number of politicians" to "all politicians".
Declaration: Harry compares former experiences with current experiences.
Program error:
Harry concludes that former experiences are always "more correct" than current experiences.
IF experience is made THEN keep that valid for all times
Declaration: Harry is free of personal tastes and emotions.
Program error:
Harry is a machine; he has no human attributes.
Contradiction:
IF Harry is political THEN Harry has personal interests
IF Harry claims he is a-political THEN Harry includes a contradiction AND possibly further errors.

It seems to me that thinking is inherently a causal process. — Harry Hindu

I think so too -- almost. I don't think the processes are 100 % deterministic as they are accompanied by a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations. A tiny random electron path deviation may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later. I'm not saying our brain is pure chaos. Obviously, it's not. But it's not a plain deterministic computer program or formula book either.

Then Kant didn't have reasons for his conclusions? — Harry Hindu

Reason and cause are two different things.

• Reason is a logical condition.

• Cause is an event along a timeline.

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°. For this there is a reason, not a cause. The reason is independent of time and events. It's not a story.

Rain makes the road wet. Rain occurs, then wetness occurs. This is a story. Rain causes wetness. Rain is not a reason; rain is a cause.

I edited my previous comment and added this line:

So there's much more involved than just a "thought process".

I could show you a sample algorithm of a decision process that leads to the acceptance of an incitement. But that sample would be beyond the scope now and tedious. I just want to say there's more involved than just an abstract thought process. There are special tastes and certain emotions and individual temperaments. A flat-earther, for example, cannot be convinced by rational arguments. Flat-earthers insist on their dogma because it's an emotional conviction. Reason cannot beat emotion. Similarly, certain tastes are open to certain offerings. "Thought processes" are just a part of the game.

(Re "random": I think the observations in the quantum mechanics do show that there are random effects -- in the sense of true random and not just pseudo-random with hidden causes. There is no reason to believe that every event has a cause. According to Kant, causality is just a category of our reason that enables our perception. This thesis may be wrong, but it sounds pretty plausible to me.)

If you hear inciting words and are not incited to riot, then why don't you or ↪Michael
take us through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words and why you don't end up rioting? — Harry Hindu

The personality of individuals varies a lot; it consists of many attributes, for example:
• Egoism -- ranging from low to high
• Credulity -- ranging from low to high
• Narcissism -- ranging from low to high
• Introversion -- ranging from low to high
• Social intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Emotional intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Mathematical intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Experience -- having learned from various specific stories
• Political taste -- ranging from right to left, and vertically from liberal to authoritarian
... and a zillion other attributes, scalable from low to high, from down to up.

A certain mix setting within a personality determines or causes a certain reaction; a reaction to certain inciting words or certain invitations or inspirations etc. pp.

(But I'm not saying that everything is determined; I think there are random effects as well.)

So there's much more involved than just a "thought process".

One cannot know what's in the text before it's been read.

One cannot know what's in the speech before it's been heard.

Therefore one cannot warn oneself in advance.

I think the male and female interpretations are both correct and both complement each other.

It's logical that improvement is only possible where something is not good enough. Something perfect has no room for improvement. Whether the "imperfect" is "terrible" is just a rhetorical play, I guess. But the logic is correct, isn't it?

Some reactions are common, some reactions are individual.

Every human likes to breath. Not every human likes garlic.

Isn't it that simple?

So, to be clear, your position is that, because humans can be manipulated, they are not responsible for their actions, due to being manipulated, and that, again, due to manipulation, they are somehow less culpable for their actions and the ramifications of those actions? — Book273

Not "not". It's gradually variable. -- First of all, I think there is a network of many individual wills and many individual manipulations. Consequently, nothing is mono-causal. In my view, mankind and life is multi-causal. Everything is interdependent. Nothing is autarkic. Whether someone is more or less responsible -- "30/70%, 90/10%" --, depends on the scenario. In any case, every individual is a link in the chain. I don't believe in "free will", I just believe in "will". I'd say will is neither free nor unfree. Every will is influenced by something, yet every will is its own decision unit that separates it from other units. In such an interdependent network of reasons and units I have difficulties to integrate the words free and unfree. -- Back to the main topic: For example, if I were to manipulate a child or a very naive "adult" and tell them they need to wear aluminum hats because of the "chemtrails", then I would certainly be a part of the whole responsibility package that leads to that nonsense. In such a case I would misuse my intellectual power over their naivity. Would I then say my responsibilty were zero? No. I would be one of many influences. Other influences come from books, films, other certain persons etc. and from the brainwork of the kid or the naive adult themselves. -- Multicausality. In short words: Whether someone is more or less culpable depends on the scenario, I think. And this question is not only valid in the philosophical field but even in the legal field. That's why penalties are variable, at least in some countries.

I do believe that inciting others to violence should be a culpable offence, but those who commit the violence should be more culpable; they did have a choice to not be incited. — Book273

Humans can be manipulated. When humans are older than 18 years, are they adults? By the law, yes. Mentally, adulthood is a never ending process. Kids and "adults" can be educated. Where education is possible, there's also a possibility for manipulation. Some humans can hardly be manipulated, some can be manipulated very much; they may even join sects and possibly get indoctrinated to commit a crime. In short: I think the phrase "they did have a choice" is too simple; it doesn't show the whole picture. Humans can be manipulated.

I think it's possible that there are several levels of reality. Not one single reality but realities at variable intensities. Not to confuse with truth: There is just one truth. That's a logic axiom. Reality, on the other hand, may have a substance, and that substance might be scalable.

A dream, when sleeping, contains little substance of reality. When I'm awake, I'm in a state that contains more substance of reality.

I really don't know what the "self-quale" is. — J

It's the experience of what it's like to be the owner of this leg or that arm etc. that is attached to my body. It's a specific phenomenal quality that is different to watching that table, for instance, which is not part of my body. I think nobody can describe qualia. I can only hope that you see what I mean. Also, nobody can describe the phenomenal quality of yellow, for example. We just trust that everyone experiences the same quality that we call "yellow". (Someone may experience blue instead. Who knows?)

What are laws good for? They protect humans that can't defend themselves on their own against stronger attackers.

So, laws prohibit certain attacks, and this prohibition is supported by the police which is, by design, supposed to be the strongest of all.

Murder, for example, is prohibited. If it were not prohibited, the police wouldn't help that lady that is going to be killed this evening. One could say: It's a free world; she can defend herself on her own, can't she? She has two fists, the killer has a gun. If she has no gun and no greater muscles than the attacker, it's her fault. The only rule shall be this: The survival of the strongest, not of the fittest or smartest. The survival of those that have the strongest weapons.

The dictum shall be: Maximum freedom for the strongest, minimum freedom for the weakest. Hence: Get rid of all laws and all prohibition; abolish the courts and the police.

Everyone should be allowed to use their weapon as they like, at their discretion. Anarchy! No prohibition at all; allow all weapons: Not only guns or poison but also weapons like slander, defamation and other verbal destructive attacks.

"This boy has stolen my car, he's a thief; if you catch him I give you 1000 dollars." -- One week later: "Oh, just joking. I don't know who has stolen my car. But it was funny how that boy was frightened, haha. Well, it's not my fault that he's so weak and that he can't do anything against my slanderous attacks."

Irony mode off.

I think there is a mark. There are timestamps too, but those cannot tell whether the related memory refers to a true event at that time or to an imagination at that time. So, back to the mark:

Here's my hypothesis: When I'm saving a present event in my neuronal network, the stored event gets a timestamp and a "true event"-mark. Now when I remember this event, say, a year later, I also remember that associated "true event"-mark. It could be that I remember just 90 % of the event and subconsciously fill the rest with fictitious details. This semi-true data mix will be resaved as a "true event" along with the original "true event"-mark. The mark remains the same but the resaved details of the event may get inaccurate. From time to time I recall-and-resave, recall-and-resave, etc. Each time I do this, more inaccurate data may be added or the entire data package might even get smaller. But the "true event"-mark remains attached.

We know that the data in our brain is fragmented across the entire neuronal network. The event is not stored in "one little box"; the event is fragmented and scattered. There are paths from one location in the brain to another. And when we're sleeping, the paths restructure themselves to become more efficient: Important stuff will be optimized, and irrelevant data will be deleted. In fact there must be a lot of marks to bring all these fragmented parts together when they are needed to restore a certain memory. Without those marks we would be sort of demented, I think.

Maybe there are certain qualia that accompany such marks. When I remember my name there is a certain self-quale that tells me that's really me without doubt. The quale makes the self-detection automatic and phenomenal, just like a yellow-quale tells me that this banana is yellow rather than blue. Similarly, the remembered event is true rather than imagined. It's a different phenomenal experience, just like a yellow-experience is different to a blue-experience.

That's my hypothesis. I may be completely wrong.

P.S.: Can I tell a true event from an imagination at the current time? Yes, I can. The experience of a true event is often more intensive.

Maybe Blues music isn't really just 200 years young. Perhaps it already occured 20,000 or 100,000 years ago ...

Some birds sing pentatonic scales. I guess they've been singing it for millions of years.

I'm continuing from page 1 of this thread. This is what I was writing while further comments were posted.

Typical elements of Rock'n'Roll, in my opinion, and in short words:
(May partially occur in other styles as well.)

Rhythm:
4/4 measure at high tempo with syncopated eighth notes or with swinging triplets. On the quarter notes: Low drum sounds on 1 and 3, bright percussion sounds like snare drum or handclaps on 2 and 4 -- boom cha boom cha. Occassional "funky" syncopation accents on all percussion instruments, especially on the cymbals. bo-boom cha bo-boom-bo cha etc. There's a lot of swing in Beethoven's 6. symphony in the two Allegro movements, for example. Di-da-da, di-da-da, di-da-da ... swing, swing, swing ...

Melody:
Mainly pentatonic. The pentatonic scale sounds optimistic and forceful. There's no mourning minor chord and no sickly-sweet major chord. Some bluesy "blue" notes may appear, e.g. A+g or E+d etc. Chord progression is simple, mostly consisting of no more than three chords. Audiences can participate easily.

Sound:
Distortion is welcome in the voice and in the melody instruments. What do I mean by distortion? The voice of opera singers, for example, is never distorted. Their air pressure will never exceed the limit above which the clean sine wave of their oscillating voice chords would be clipped. Rock singers don't care about that limit; they often overdrive the air pressure to clip the sine curve, and this generates additional "screaming" overtones, and these overtones cause a psychoacoustical effect: The sound seems to be louder even though the amplitude is not neccessarily greater. Stradivari violins, for instance, are known for their intensive overtones, and that's why they can very well be heard as a solo instrument in large concert halls with an orchestra in the background. A sitar, for example, generates distortion as its strings cannot freely oscillate; so the string's sine wave will be clipped mechanically. Wind instruments too can be overdriven by high air pressure. Trumpets were found in the burial chamber of Pharaoh Tutankhamun. I guess they generate a lot of overtones; i.e. they probably sound like a single string of a Gibson Les Paul played through a stack of overdriven Marshall amps. In short: Distortion is welcome in Rock'n'Roll because it makes the music sound loud (even if it's not physically loud), and this loudness is part of the optimistic expression; see next point.

Rebellion:
That optimism has a goal: Get rid of the repression. Get rid of the unfair authorities. Abolish the monarchy, the slavery, racism, sexual constraints. We are strong. Participate. The future is bright if we are many and if we come together. Beethoven liked the French Revolution and the fall of the monarchy (but didn't like Napoleon later on). Elvis Presley was a rebel against sexual constraints. Rock'n'Roll is an optimistic movement; it supports those that get repressed. It's about the freedom of those repressed people, not about the freedom of the slavedrivers, kings or popes. Ike Turner wasn't a Rock'n'Roller; he was a wannabe king. Tina was a true Rock'n'Roller; her optimism was stronger than the violence she had to endure.

Maybe some ancient Egyptians played Rock'n'Roll already. I don't know. The thread title is just a symbolic picture. The main question is about the link between contemporary music and contemporary environments, and whether Rock'n'Roll can only be a product of our time.

Thank you all for the good comments. I'll reply with more details later. For now just a tip:

The video you posted is from 1964. This one is closer to the start; it's from 1941: