Of all the hacker news comments I’ve ever read, yours made me feel the worst.
One of the greatest living artists talking about the subjectivity of perception and you refer to it as quackery.
It hurts my heart.
One of the greatest living artists talking about the subjectivity of perception and you refer to it as quackery.
It hurts my heart.
I used the term ‘scientism’ because the parent commenter is approaching the subject of science from a dogmatic, oppressive perspective. The entire oeuvre of someone like Jorge Luis Borges is predicated on a creative exploration and interpretation of science.
Scientism would also fit to describe trying to apply scientific criteria and norms where it's not required (or desirable). Like an impromptu creative conversation about what ifs...
It's called having an imagination and asking hypotheticals.
He didn't put out a paper on a physics journal saying that it is so.
In fact many scientists started exactly that way -- from asking wild hypothetical questions. Whether you pursue a specific validated answer is up to your job, Glass is not a physicist.
I guess people who never had a conversation over a shared bong can never understand this.
While I think the OP is being, perhaps, unfair to Glass, I think everyone is being unfair to the OP as well. There are people who believe the perception of time speeding up is objective, for the reasons Glass mentions. I'm not convinced these are Glass's original ideas. And while Glass may not be a physicist, nor is Jenny McCarthy a medical researcher. And yet people still listened to what she had to say to great harm. So I can certainly understand why someone, especially someone recently exposed to people who really believe this idea, might be concerned with someone famous espousing those ideas in the way Glass has done, even if I can't see any harm myself.
>I guess people who never had a conversation over a shared bong can never understand this.
Sure thing, duuuude. Now we're holding a published interview to the high (no pun intended) standard of "college stoners". Great.
Well,
1) Most published interviews are below the standard of "college stoners" (e.g. celebrity BS) -- so it would be a higher bar if we did so.
2) "College stoner" conversations are not that low in themselves. In fact many observations and discoveries by non-stoned people start with similar what ifs and digressions...
Yet, is it perhaps possible that we should consider carefully how far the credibility he so justly deserves should extend. Someone with minimal qualifications talks of how his subjective experience should be considered objective, and some opine that this should be taken seriously on the basis of unrelated merit.
It hurts my head.
There are philistines and people who only care about Justin Bieber, and their aesthetic opinions are not equally valid to someone who is an expert on Bach.
Of course that (culture) is a human construct, but so is physics and math. Animals don't have either, and the universe doesn't care either way.
"What I suggest is that these are not subjective, but rather objective experiences. It’s also a little terrifying. What if 1,000 years from now, a life span felt like it was only a few days?"
He's talking about the objectivity of perception.
https://ianring.com/musictheory/scales/
All this fluff about a "major" scale and its "modes" when we could just say "2741" and derive other relationships from rotating bits and a few other simple relationships.
Everything else, like the "subjective feeling of a Persian Scale" is just quackery. It's just someone who doesn't understand numbers making up nonsense words.