Carl-Richard

At least popcorn is a plant food and whole food :,)

5.6 Sol summary (link) of "CCTV on Trial: Matching Video Images with the Defendant in the Dock": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224946256_CCTV_on_Trial_Matching_Video_Images_with_the_Defendant_in_the_Dock And there are real examples of cases where wrongful interpretation of video evidence has lead to wrongful life without parole convictions (rather than death penalty as those states had abolished or de facto abolished the death penalty): for example, https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/13464; https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/12431; https://exonerationregistry.org/cases/13020. Anyways, you seem to think it's acceptable in principle when you say "pretty close to 100%", as it would mean that innocent lives would be lost given enough time. But we can keep exploring the numbers just to map out the magnitude. Any other things than "catch a tape of someone" you have in mind?

@MuadDib Can you not spam irrelevant things?

I asked "if" that was the case. You're not making it easy when you're not explaining what you mean. Here is a good faith argument: empirical observations are presumably by all reasonable philosophical inquiry less than 100% certain (we can discuss that if you disagree). Therefore, all legal proceedings are less than 100% certain, and thus all death penalty convictions are less than 100% certain and given enough time will inevitably lead to the death of innocent people. Is this an acceptable risk to you?

@Joshe Sugarcoat seems to have some T going on (not "that kind" of T, you know what I mean 👀). When I identify a strong Fi user, I see them making assertions without using many connective prepositions like "because", "as", "therefore", because that is how logic is expressed (connecting different things explictly through linguistic structure). I could point out three examples of this on the forum, but they likely wouldn't appreciate it as "being logical" is generally seen as a virtuous thing. Intuitive Fi users in a discussion will often suggest possible conceptual interpretations that could be conceptually rich and possibly valid, but they will less often justify them or again explicate them in connection to other things that could be relevant in the discussion (and they can often end up being quite irrelevant to the discussion overall; it's just something that they "thought about" because they value it and they want to share that).

If you're insinuating I have dementia and I'm not following the discussion and that I should re-read the entire discussion instead of you answering a simple question, I respectfully decline the offer. Do you think the death penalty killing innocent people is acceptable or not?

Yup that pic is equivocating reproduction with sex. Clavicular cares a lot about sex. And as if one person represents the rest of society. That's what we call a schizopost.

I think basically all questions about solipsism on this forum evaporate when you realize it's a model, a conceptual framework, and not absolute. People have a misplaced importance to it, like it's some undeniable metaphysical given. It's not. The absolute is reality is One. Saying anything else becomes a way for the mind to confuse model with reality. If you want to start talking about characters within the One, you're presupposing separation. If you want to talk about "happenings" (one happening vs another), you're presupposing time. And if there is a happening over here and over there, you're presupposing space. You can talk about these things, but you're already way inside model making, inside the relative. And then you can start to ask "what is the best model?". What is the best model for explaining or understanding what is happening granted separation, time and space? That's what solipsism (which is a bad model in this case if you ask most people) is about. That's what frameworks like analytical idealism, constitutive panpsychism, or just physicalism/materialism, is about.

No, you're just being elitist about the term (lovely trigger word that is). It's a fact that you will play more dissonant if you don't know squat about scales, about consonance vs dissonance, etc. (music theory), and that undue dissonance is not preferred (and that's generally what is meant by the colloquial "works according to music theory": how dissonant it is). Of course a jazz nerd will reject the colloquial "works according to" (which is born out of mostly consonance-hugging classical music and perhaps pop music). They feed on dissonance. They break with almost the entire concept of "works according to". Jazz is like "how dissonant do we want to go right now, and is it done in a cool artistic way or an accidental clumsy way?". You said it yourself: you have 12 notes that can be played to any chord, and they exist on a spectrum of consonance vs dissonance for a given chord. You just have to choose them in a way that sounds cool, in a way that makes your ears happy and your audience clappy (and there is theory on this too which you went into, not an expert on this of course).

Nightly dream characters might be real. Mic drop. People with dissociative identity disorder report having different alters being present as dream characters in the same dream, and afterwards, each alter reports experiencing that dream from different perspectives (each alter reports this when the person is awake and they're currently in control of the person). So who knows: maybe all dream characters are dissociated alters? The difference between nightly dream beings and normal beings is the latter seem more consistent than the former (you see them more regularly and their behavior seems to have some long-term consistency / coherence over time). But perhaps nightly dreams could be a bit like sitting on a train and getting off at a station for a few minutes then jumping on the train again. The relative shifting and short-lasting nature of the experience doesn't necessarily prove that the place you're visiting is not real (or that the characters within it are not real). It could be just that you're on a short visit. And if the characters in the nightly dreams look quite exactly like characters in "real" waking life (they look like waking, breathing, walking, talking humans), what other justification do you have to call them not real? If you ignore materialist fantasies like "they're inside your brain", I don't see many options.

How did the voices start (how was your experience the first time you thought you were hearing voices)? Did you become curious about the voices? Did you try to "investigate" them?

Haha pure blues solos sound so weird to me now after only listening to jazz and prog for so long. Like sitting inside a tight cab ("wot, u british bruh?" — no, just foreign). There is a similar kind of transition that I remember hearing for the first time and thinking ("that surely can't be standard"). (Happens at 2:23, but start earlier for context): By the way, I think a reason the Eric Clapton song works is because after the transition, they "warm you up" with a simple two-chord progression that is not really dissonant for a bar until they drop the weird chords. It's like your brain has had time to switch and then the weird chords become pleasantly surprising rather than intolerably dissonant. Another way to use dissonance in a "pleasant" way (in a solo) is with few quick dissonant notes dispersed around many consonant notes. It's like there is an equation for "offensiveness" of dissonance where volume (amount of dissonant notes relative to consonant ones) and time (time between dissonant notes) factor into it.

I actually haven't listened to much of the less well-known songs on that album, and now I realized the first half of that song must have inspired the beginning section of this song so much (the descending/ascending melodic dual guitars): Also, a good example of strategic use of dissonance in one of Marty's smaller solos in that song you linked (the ending note).

😁 @Joshe @Natasha Tori Maru But what about the F's? 🤔

If you have to only choose one type, you do it for me 😆

It is if you accept that innocent people will die. If you ask a scientist can we be 100% certain about any scientific observation, they will say no. And law is arguably even messier, especially granted corruption. You could simply bite the bullet on this and that it's acceptable rather than crying that we're actually going into this. But if you can't accept it, maybe think twice about voting for the death penalty. Maybe it will be you who gets executed wrongfully.

You trying to NJ an NP 🧐

Why can you only choose one? 🧐

Without reading the context, you sounded very hungry. Survival machine indeed.

What authority? I meant you could invent some rule or specific standard of evidence so we know what you mean. Because the specifics are kinda important. If not, when you're going to vote for the death penalty in your country (which you are going to do unless you're just virtue signalling), how do you know whether you agree with the program? How do you know whether it's different (or how different it is) from the US death penalty system? For example, what actions do you think should qualify for the death penalty, and for a conviction, do you e.g. need full unanimity in the jury, multiple converging lines of evidence, etc.? But again, even if you don't have that, I think it's a safe assumption (but if you disagree, we can discuss that) that all forms of empirical evidence granted limited knowledge are less than 100% certain, and given enough time, you will kill innocent people. We will just be arguing how big that number will be (and if "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the US produces the 1 exonerated per 9 executed number, I would bet it would not look very good either way). And you don't seem to solve for corruption. Even if the justice system were to be technically capable of 100% certainty granted no corruption, corruption would of course "corrupt" that number.

"Common sense" does not hold up in court. "Breivik" is not very specific. You could give something like a statute or type of evidence. Or are you suggesting to build the entire dealth penalty framework on case law?

It's not meant to, but it inevitably does, by the simple fact that people like harmony (consonance) and playing inside scales or chords more than outside and they will tend to do so when they have the wherewithal to do so. People who don't know as much about such things will hover in and around until they find something that works or sounds good, which sometimes could lead to a relatively simplistic or formulaic playing style or it could lead to a very interesting and open (and dissonant) one (or a mix of both). And of course there is the phenomena of simply learning a scale and "letting the scale tell you what to play" rather than having it as a template for which notes could sound good (roughly paraphrasing Guthrie Govan); your insight is in a sense a response to that common tendency in especially new players, that it doesn't have it be that way (but yet indeed, it's a common thing that happens). And some genres and players are more prone to such "scale tyranny" than others, e.g. technical death metal neoclassical arpeggio virtuosos (Necrophagist, Obscura, etc.). What is exactly so cool about the two first solos I linked is that they are quite dissonant at times, and that if you are a scale fanatic, you will again be more likely to sit within harmony and use dissonance at most very strategically or sparingly.

I asked you what the standard of evidence should be, but you didn't answer. I think you can't give any specifics, only a vague idea or ad hoc examples. If you don't have a specific objection or amendment to current standards of evidence, we would have to go with those current standards for what a realistic implementation would look like, and the wrongful conviction numbers for those are abysmal (apparently for every 9 people executed, 1 person is exonerated from the death row in the US). But my bet is that even if you have some implementable incredibly high standard of evidence, the nature of law, the nature of the universe is such, that over enough stretches of time, you will get mistakes, you will get an imperfect picture, and you will of course get corruption, no matter how Scandinavian-ly brain damaged you want to be (corruption exists there too). And there isn't just an issue of determining whether something happened. It's determining whether they should deserve the death penalty for it, which itself can be an issue of contention (as seen in the Nathaniel Woods case in the video above). Nevertheless, again, over far enough stretches of time (and with finite knowledge), I think you will end up with wrongful convictions (you could probably create an extension of Hume's problem of induction to argue for this). And then you are left with the inevitable conundrum of killing innocent people in order to simply induce an incremental feeling of justice for someone who may support the death penalty and perhaps some victims who are more likely to also support it in that case. And that conundrum presents the issue of creating the same kind of victims in order to soothe some other victims for those exact same crimes or simply bystanders, which is itself a self-perpetuating and self-defeating game.

And this one you will also never play based on music theory, but you need amazing musicality, creativity, fearlessness, flow AND music theory. It is the greatest solo in the history of metal: 3:09 It's said that when Marty Friedman played this solo in the studio, Dave Mustaine stood up and shook his hand.

When I was 14, I was skeptical at people in my class adopting political party views seemingly at the drop of a hat. I thought they must have not done much thinking or known a lot about each party's position and simply adopted it because whatever (friends, family, happenstance). Then at like 25, I looked back at that same memory and then I contrasted it to how I adopted atheism at the same time (14). And I realized "huh, seems like everybody just adopts shit that they know very little about when they're young". If you want to pin this to a stage, it's probably post-orange reflecting back at a memory of orange and/or blue reacting to what they perceived as blue and/or purple (but what might indeed have been orange and/or blue, because perhaps the people who subscribed to a particular political view did so based on some thinking and not just pure group-think, just like what I felt I did with atheism). My late teens (cannabinoided up) I started thinking in real kind of hippie lines of thinking. My plan for life was essentially work an unskilled job and smoke weed with a girlfriend and that's pretty much it. I started literally believing in like 1960s "Turn on, Tune in, Drop out" 'philosophy' (Tim Leary, Ram Dass; taking "Drop out" quite literally with respect to school as was allegedly not intended even by those people despite a speech by Tim Leary where he said drop out of school and basically any job that exists), Terrence McKenna stuff, I started believing the ego was somehow "bad" and made some weird decisions and conclusions (e.g. that trying hard to practice guitar to become better is ego so shouldn't do it and also shouldn't go to music school for a year with a friend because then I would practice to become better and that's ego). I started to believe in determinism / no free will as I was listening to Sam Harris and I started taking it a bit too literally sometimes acting like I had no say in what I did when that is a misunderstanding of what no free will actually is. You could call it Green (but taking everything so literally could suggest otherwise) but I also felt I had to catch up on a lot of Red so that too probably. I also had a moment of clarity where I turned down alt-right rabbit holes because I felt "it wasn't consistent witth my values, where I come from" and embraced my soc-dem roots and later started experimenting with socialist ideas. And today, I'm apparently some kinda New Age (post-modern, "mix-and-mash your own" smorgasboard spirituality/religion), New religious, somewhat Christian-apologist, somewhat Muslim-apologist, psychic phenomena -entertaining, analytic philosophy -eating, degree guy coding websites and writing academic articles, who believes religion is actually 'based' and we need more of it and that dogmatism is an ubiquitous problem not limited to religious fundamentalists, yaddi yadda.