Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Talk about things that are not necessarily related to music or the guitar.
PeteJ
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by PeteJ » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:00 am

I suspect that musicians have a more natural understanding of the world than many because they spend their lives studying the interaction of vibrations, hierarchies of meaning and structure, mathematics, psycho-acoustics and so forth. (Heinrich Schenker would be a case in point). So it seems possible that playing CG makes one a better philosopher. Tough one to prove though. It also seems possible to argue that one would have to be pretty dense to decide to spend so much time fighting with an impossible instrument.

Pat Dodson
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:32 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by Pat Dodson » Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:14 am

Jeffrey Armbruster wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:35 am
Never, never, never, never...(burp)...never!!! give up.

But do put off some pieces until later. But say, I will return!
:lol: So true!

User avatar
robin loops
Posts: 2972
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:57 am
Location: California

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by robin loops » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:41 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:00 am
I suspect that musicians have a more natural understanding of the world than many because they spend their lives studying the interaction of vibrations, hierarchies of meaning and structure, mathematics, psycho-acoustics and so forth. (Heinrich Schenker would be a case in point). So it seems possible that playing CG makes one a better philosopher. Tough one to prove though. It also seems possible to argue that one would have to be pretty dense to decide to spend so much time fighting with an impossible instrument.
And we spend so much time observing it (the world) through the window of our practice rooms :lol:
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
-James-

chiral3
Posts: 1688
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:08 pm
Location: Philadelphia Area, PA / New York.

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by chiral3 » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:27 am

robin loops wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:41 pm
PeteJ wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:00 am
I suspect that musicians have a more natural understanding of the world than many because they spend their lives studying the interaction of vibrations, hierarchies of meaning and structure, mathematics, psycho-acoustics and so forth. (Heinrich Schenker would be a case in point). So it seems possible that playing CG makes one a better philosopher. Tough one to prove though. It also seems possible to argue that one would have to be pretty dense to decide to spend so much time fighting with an impossible instrument.
And we spend so much time observing it (the world) through the window of our practice rooms :lol:
Too true. More generally:

"It is important to understand that by numbers to leave numbers, or form to leave form, I am describing a process in which technical information is integrated into what feels like natural intelligence. Sometimes there will literally be numbers. Other times there will be principles, patterns, variations, techniques, ideas." - Josh Waitzkin
Whatever catastrophe or dynamic equilibrium this will eventually lead to will be a mathematical not a moral phenomenon. - A Fryer

Rognvald
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:21 am

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by Rognvald » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:42 am

" It is becoming increasingly common for scientists and philosophers to conclude that the perennial philosophy is correct, consciousness is prior to everything else." PeteJ


And, without human consciousness, the universe ceases to exist. Playing again . . . Rognvald
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

Guero
Posts: 428
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:14 am
Location: Baltic Sea, Germany

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by Guero » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:02 am

I suspect the correlation is between IQ score and not CG playing.
If you take a look at all the dumb folks out there, the vast majority does not play CG. :D

PeteJ
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by PeteJ » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:17 pm

Rognvald wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:42 am
" It is becoming increasingly common for scientists and philosophers to conclude that the perennial philosophy is correct, consciousness is prior to everything else." PeteJ


And, without human consciousness, the universe ceases to exist. Playing again . . . Rognvald
If you take out the word 'human' I'd agree. But then, for the view I'm endorsing it wouldn't really exist in the first place, and consciousness would be prior.

Not evangelicising, just noting the variety of views.

Rognvald
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:21 am

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by Rognvald » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:32 am

PeteJ wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:17 pm
Rognvald wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:42 am
" It is becoming increasingly common for scientists and philosophers to conclude that the perennial philosophy is correct, consciousness is prior to everything else." PeteJ


And, without human consciousness, the universe ceases to exist. Playing again . . . Rognvald
If you take out the word 'human' I'd agree. But then, for the view I'm endorsing it wouldn't really exist in the first place, and consciousness would be prior.

Not evangelicising, just noting the variety of views.

Pete,
I am not a physicist but have devoted a lifetime to literature and philosophy. However, there is an outstanding article detailing the link between the mind and quantum physics that is very intellectually approachable and clear to us laymen. We have not found any other sentient beings other than humans(this is not said in humor although it well could be) and without a "sentient being" there can be no consciousness and without consciousness . . . no universe. I think you will enjoy this article. www.bbc.com/earth/.../20170215-the-stra ... nd-and-qua...
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

PeteJ
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by PeteJ » Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:47 am

Rognvald - I cannot grasp how you can conclude that human beings are the only sentient beings. I can only think that you use a highly unusual definition for 'sentient'. Are you saying my dog is not sentient?

As for the idea that there is no consciousness without a sentient being, this is your unverified opinion and is as far from a scientific fact as it would be possible to be. But we would need to define 'sentience' before arguing this one.

You have a theory about consciousness, fair enough, but it is not in any sense scientific. You dismiss one entire tradition of philosophy and knowledge as if it never existed and condemn yourself to the bewildered muddle that is modern 'scientific' consciousness studies. It's your choice, but to me it is an irrational and profoundly unscientific one.

We don't have to agree, but you cannot show that consciousness is not prior to space-time and matter. As you say, without consciousness, no space-time universe. I'm not trying to change your philosophical view, just trying to suggest it is a lot less scientific than mine or at worst no more so.

I never understand why scientific-thinkers so often believe that the idea of consciousness being primary is unscientific. On what grounds? What makes your view more than a speculative opinion?

I'm sure neither of want to simply argue for the sake of it, but I'd be up for trying to get to bottom of this one.

User avatar
Andrew Fryer
Posts: 2392
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:13 pm
Location: London SE5

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by Andrew Fryer » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:14 pm

I say, I say, I say, my dog's got no nose.
How does he scent?
He doesn't - he's not scentient.
Last edited by Andrew Fryer on Sun Sep 17, 2017 4:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
1975 Calatayud y Gisbert, Yamaha CG131S.

Rasputin
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 12:25 pm

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by Rasputin » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:03 pm

PeteJ wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:47 am
I never understand why scientific-thinkers so often believe that the idea of consciousness being primary is unscientific. On what grounds?
I think science is really a method, and that if you are going to use it to full effect you have to leave your preconceptions at the door. In principle it does not commit you to any particular view about what (if anything) fundamentally exists, and what is just a combination of more basic things. Still, the idea that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity seems to me to be bound up with the scientific method. If it turns out that consciousness can be explained in terms of particles and forces (or whatever the basic phenomena of physics are these days), whereas particles and forces cannot be explained in terms of consciousness, then I think it is possible to say that the view that consciousness is primary is unscientific. If it could be a derived phenomenon, then regarding it as primary is multiplying entities beyond necessity.

I think it has been argued that consciousness is reducible to physical phenomena, but I'm not sure any scientist has considered the converse question of whether physical phenomena can be reduced to consciousness. I suspect that it may be an unscientific hypothesis in that it is not testable. The physical interactions going on right now in Alpha Centuri don't seem to have anything to do with my conciousness, and I have no access to anyone else's. Any scientist looking at this is going to run into the same problem. Therefore, on the basis that consciousness can be explained in terms of physical phenomena, anyone trying to argue that the view that consciousness is primary is a scientific view will have to rely on an unscientific hypothesis in the course of their argument. Surely though, such an argument would be self-contradictory, in that a view that cannot be argued for on scientific grounds cannot be a scientific one. On that basis I think it is arguable that the view that consciousness is a derived phenomenon is a scientific view, but the view that it is primary is not - even if we do not know whether physical phenomena can be reduced to consciousness. I think the scientists get a bye on that.

User avatar
robin loops
Posts: 2972
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:57 am
Location: California

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by robin loops » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:59 pm

It is human nature to believe that we are the center of everything, but just as the sun does not revolve around us, we also are not the center of the universe nor consciousness. Some believe that the universe was made specifically for us to inhabit. Others that it exists specifically because we inhabit it (and create it with our consciousness). The reality is, our existence is simply a result of the laws of the universe and our consciousness is simply the result of those laws having been set in motion.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
-James-

Rognvald
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:21 am

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by Rognvald » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:07 am

"Rognvald - I cannot grasp how you can conclude that human beings are the only sentient beings. I can only think that you use a highly unusual definition for 'sentient'. Are you saying my dog is not sentient? " PeteJ


Pete,
I'm willing to give this a little more time so in answer to the above question, how do you know your dog is a sentient being? If humans did not exist( a thinking sentient being), a dog's "consciousness" would not be known. The dinosaurs existed for 200 million years. Without a sentient being(human), their existence would be unknown. You cannot claim a universe has existed for 15 billion years without a sentient being. Ergo without human consciousness, there is no universe . .. there is nothingness. This is both Science and Metaphysics and is why I referred you to the previous article which deals with the scientific aspect of human consciousness and I hope I have made myself clear in regards to the metaphysics. This is what scientists and philosophers call the "Anthropic Principle" in which I firmly believe. There can be no discussion of existence without this principle. Playing again . . . Rognvald
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

Pat Dodson
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 11:32 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by Pat Dodson » Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:25 am

For those interested in folklore, mythology and philosophy, a lighthearted question. A friend's 4 year old daughter, Amelia announced last night that when she grows up she'd like to be a gnome. :) What are Amelia's chances of achieving this?

PeteJ
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: Is there any correlation between IQ scores and CG playing?

Post by PeteJ » Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:10 pm

Rasputin wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:03 pm
PeteJ wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:47 am
I never understand why scientific-thinkers so often believe that the idea of consciousness being primary is unscientific. On what grounds?
I think science is really a method, and that if you are going to use it to full effect you have to leave your preconceptions at the door. In principle it does not commit you to any particular view about what (if anything) fundamentally exists, and what is just a combination of more basic things. Still, the idea that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity seems to me to be bound up with the scientific method.
Agreed
If it turns out that consciousness can be explained in terms of particles and forces (or whatever the basic phenomena of physics are these days),
This is not true. The issue is not even debatable. Nobody knows that consciousness can be explained in this way and nobody has ever done it.This is the leap of faith that I cannot understand and that is not in any sense 'scientific'. It is a conjecture, and the unfalsifiability of solispsim means it will always remain one. It is not an empirically testable claim. I'd be interested to know why you believe it is true.
whereas particles and forces cannot be explained in terms of consciousness, then I think it is possible to say that the view that consciousness is primary is unscientific. If it could be a derived phenomenon, then regarding it as primary is multiplying entities beyond necessity.
I'm saying there are no entities and you won't come up with an idea more parsimonious than this. Who said particles and forces cannot be explained in terms of consciousness? Many physicists (Bohr, Eddington, Schrodinger, Weyl...) do not share your view. Indeed, it was QM that led them to their opposing view. I would say that 'entities' will never be explained in terms of matter because matter is inexplicable as more than a product of consciousness (an argument Kant makes pretty well).
I think it has been argued that consciousness is reducible to physical phenomena, but I'm not sure any scientist has considered the converse question of whether physical phenomena can be reduced to consciousness.
Many scientists do this, and it is becoming a more popular view. For instance, Ulrich Mohrhoff has written a text book for students explaining the maths of QM in which consciousness is primary. It is called The World according to Quantum Mechanics: Why the Laws of Physics make Sense after all' . There is a book by Ken Wilber called Quantum Questions that collects together the views of some of the quantum pioneers on this matter. and they are opposed to yours.
I suspect that it may be an unscientific hypothesis in that it is not testable.
But it is testable. It is just that it not empirically testable. It is testable by a study of consciousness.

Your last paragraph is wrong for this reason. The idea of testability is crucial to both science and mysticism but the latter does not rely on sensory empiricism. We cannot find the source of matter by studying matter, it appears to appear out of Nothing like a rabbit from a hat, but we can see the source of matter and consciousness by studying consciousness. You seem to forget that, say, pain is not an empirical phenomenon. If I say I am in pain you don't complain that this is not a scientific theory. It's not a theory but a fact, but only I can know it. Yoga is called a Divine Science because it requires us to abandon speculation and go look at the facts. This is not usually well understood by its critics.

I think you underestimate the opposition and the strength of its method and explanatory theory. The perennial philosophy is perennial for a reason, this being that it cannot be falsified. Whatever the truth there is no possibility of anyone proving that consciousness is not prior to matter and space-time. Meanwhile those who oppose this view are stuck with the 'hard' problem of consciousness and a long list of other intractable metaphysical questions.

My theory explains metaphysics and yours cannot do this, so although you are free to be sceptical there is some evidence that one theory is more plausible than the other and a lot more useful.

Our disagreement seems to be over testability. Is this right? You say we must rely on our physical senses and cannot admit any other evidence, while philosophers say that our physical senses cannot even establish the existence of space-time or matter and that we must look for more certain ways of establishing the facts. The scientific method as strict empiricists define it is not able to test the theory that there is such a thing as consciousness, so of course they will not be able to deal with it as a scientific problem. But the idea that we must rely only on our physical senses to test theories is unnecessary and rules out any scientific study of consciousness.

Pardon all the words. Don't feel obliged to match my verbosity. If I seem a bit pushy apologies, but I've been arguing this stuff for years and don't see it as a matter of opinion.

Return to “The Café”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChristianSchwengeler, CommonCrawl [Bot], JohnW400, Tubbers and 22 guests