Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Video clip for classical music?

Sadly, I was thinking AI. And hoping against hope.

Now that I know about it, I kind of like having it showing me asleep all the time, in part because I actually do have a sleep disorder, and that avatar is oddly appropriate for me.

I'm loving this.

Through the jesting, the fun and the trolling, "my" semi-porn flick of a video already got to 15 pages and counting! BUT without being the main issue of the last 10 pages! LOL

I'm actually enjoying this thread. Except for some very interesting (and more lengthy) replies, the rest are rubbish throwing to one another, which can be spot by a mile away, so it's easy to read all 15 pages in less than a couple of minutes! teeheehee...

Now, wr and Joel (and Atrys) I think you guys are coming from a completely different philosophical point of view... You won't agree really. But I agree with all 3 of you!

(Sorry just woke up and I'm in a good mood actually. After A LONG while)...

I'd guess Nikolas has his posts per page count set to 10 instead of the default 30.

I realized that and deleted my post.

But not fast enough.

He was last online a couple of days ago. Maybe he went somewhere over Easter? I think this thread might get locked when he comes back...

The default for me was 10 actually... I never bothered changing it, but I will now...

AI sounds plausible - there is this weird mechanical quality to the persona that gets especially noticeable when threads start to whirl around the drain.

I think Damon was making a different point. And I don't think it was concern for Kreisler's whereabouts.

Quick question for Atrys:

You stated earlier - "if I place a video camera in a forest and walk away, then return and watch the footage on the camera, the footage will contain events and objects that transpired and exist outside of human observation."

A human had to put the video camera in the forest and then the human had to observe the recorded images. Doesn't that imply that, without human intervention, it is not possible to know, that those events transpired and those objects existed?

We only know what exists by observation, and in observing, we affect the observed.

Not at all! Such thinking is greatly detached from reality as we know it. I encourage you to do research on solipsism (those cases for and against) and arrive at conclusions by your own doing and by your own judgement based on evidence, reason, and all the rest of it. No thinking person can honestly conclude and believe that existence is contingent on human observation.


This is a misunderstanding of the Uncertainty Principle and the mechanism of observation. The UP does not extrapolate into macro scale. This way of thinking is "new age" hogwash that is chiefly proliferated by charlatan authors and quacks. You're correct to say that observation must affect some system in order for the observation to take place, but this affect occurs at the quantum scale where particle states are directly collapsed by the mechanism of the observation device. There are instances where this affect happens at larger scales (thermometers), but that is beside the point. Again, this does not have any relevance to the macro scale. The Moon exists whether there are humans to observe it or not.

You won't read it if I go into detail, so before you state that I need to go into further detail etc. please bear that in mind. Um...what you state here is that you consider yourself more intelligent, more reasonable, a greater thinker than some of the greatest minds in history. Please, state your point, but try to do so without inadvertently stating your arrogance above it.
Xxx

What are you on about? I never said those words and in no way did I even imply that. I'll remind you that Einstein was wrong about his stance, and his views on this matter are rejected in today's modern science.

FSO, you don't even have a firm grasp of the UP, and until you do your opinion on the matter is null.

UP...isn't that just a loud way of saying "not down"? Um...I thought I already addressed that...but, oh, yes, sorry...you didn't read that. What if the UP doesn't matter? It's just what one person reckons; you have no idea what's in my sock draw and until you do your opinion on what does or does not exist is null. I mean, surely, if knowledge of truth-facts is truly independent of human observation you'd be able to think your way to the answer (it's a trick, I don't have a sock-draw ). Seriously, read Berkeley because you clearly haven't; why trust what one person says over another? Um...you state, and I *quote* so I don't understand how you never said these words, "No thinking person can honestly conclude and believe that existence is contingent on human observation"...that is *precisely* what Berkeley proposes (I only use him because he's probably the most in-depth example; Descartes wasn't specific enough for my tastes). I mean, um, that is to say, you say he is not a thinking person...or, at least, wasn't a thinking person. You consider yourself a "thinking person"...therefore, you consider your capacity to think as being greater than his...right? Wrong? Please...inform me of where my deduction falls down....but never mind, you can publicly denounce my opinion on any number of apparent merits. Of course, straw man arguing your way through a conversation may work for your ego, but a part of you will probably feel uncomfortable...maybe not today, but at some point you'll heave an inwards sigh and start accounting for your inability to address the point...um...on that day, please, feel free to contact me; you clearly have something to offer. At the moment, however, I feel it's too clouded by your pride and general refusal to acknowledge fault to be given room to shine. It's a shame. Seriously, being wrong isn't anything bad; when you're right all the time, that's all you get to be. It's lonely and you wouldn't want that. Anyway...feel free to disregard this at your leisure <3
Xxx

Yup, not reading that. I'll grant you the same thing I have granted you every other time I've refused to read your careless ramblings.

FSO,
I was about to go into the theory of string theory, and how the Higgs boson has changed our understanding of the intractability of (certain) human nature, as evidenced by someone (who shall, for obscure reasons, remain anonymous) on this thread.....

But instead, as today is the Bard's 450th birthday, I thought I'd celebrate it by composing a little quote of my own, which, of course, is destined for immortality :

'Pity the man who cannot see his own failings and instead attribute them to others.'

You, as a woman of letters, may like to compose one and post it here too, for the erudition of that person who, for obscure reasons, is anonymous......

I would amend that to "Pity the man who cannot see his own failings and instead attributes them to others."

Ah, I stand corrected.

I blame it on the poor standard of English during said Bard's time.

Remember, it's always somebody else's fault........

bennevis...I'm sure your deliberations would have been competently composed, reasonably exhibited and equally entirely devoid of the articulacy and care in perception from the intended target. I enjoy short snippets, I must admit, far more though when they are artistically compiled. Hmm...I *did* have a quotesque thought today whilst deliberating between houmuses...houmusi..two variants of houmus in Tesco today (to red pepper or not to red pepper...um...I decided on *to* red pepper, for what it's worth. What a world ); "The primary directive of any one's life must be love, to seek *or* to give, for to live for any other excuse is an endless and comfortless death borne of the mortality in that sad creature's greatest conviction; it is not all of life to live, but to die is only to be and have ever been only in one's self." It could do with some work, granted, um...as with everything to do with me it requires refinement and whatnot... I suppose a short one might be something like "Life is merely an excuse to learn how to love"...but pfft...short and sweet was never my style Um...the Higgs boson, as I'm sure we both know is set to open up the whole standard model to scrutiny and, essentially, as you stated, deconstruct what people currently consider the universe into a very different set of rules. I like string theory...it doesn't account for love though
Xxxx