Is outstanding musical talent related to intelligence?

Anything about MUSIC but doesn't fit into the forums above.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Flandersh wrote:
aciddose wrote:studies that show a positive correlation between religiosity and academic achievement. If high IQ is positively correlated with academic achievement but negatively correlated with religion, how does one explain these research findings? To me I have to take into account more factors to understand why.
Those are examples of what is concrete.

For these particular examples though the answer seems obvious to me: allowing oneself to operate based upon faith vs. rational thought and questioning authority.

Rote memorization is likely to benefit from the first.
A couple of things are confounded here: 'academic achievement' with 'questioning authority' stands out the most brightly.
I find, intuitively, that A LOT OF 'religious types' are religious in sort of proportion to their tendency to require an Authority alleviating them from thought.

But for me, this grab a wiki article real quick in an argument is more of the religious quality, 'appeal to authority' and my experience of this, here, seems to be that serves to do something other than reasoning through a thing. You seem to be able to notice 'the concrete' shows a problem with your abstraction, there. But you're going to stick with the abstraction? "For these particular examples" and then you resort to a generality. That isn't good, that is to be avoided in reasoning, that is a fundamental confusion.

'In the concrete' there are going to be people 'with faith' that do not have a problem with scientific method or sound reasoning through that.

Additionally, 'faith' is a generality and not concrete.
A. Einstein:
January 19, 1936

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: Do scientists pray? in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men to try and have our own question answered.

We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?

We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.

Respectfully yours,

Phyllis

________

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

________

So, 'religious faith' vs 'atheist' (which is a criteria in that wiki) is too much made of straw to say very much. FTR: I am not religious in the sense of a belief in a particular religion or definition of God out of them. However I find agreement with Einstein's remarks.
Last edited by jancivil on Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

To the OP question. IQ doesn't mean a lot, actually. It's just a wired test that proves nothing. Some scientist don't remember anymore without calculator how much will be 9*7, but the same time able to make difficult calculations on a paper. I think it depends how versatile and deep is your inner world (this is what can be reflected in their music)
Last edited by Igro on Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

Flandersh wrote: The Aristotelian thought that experience is the source of knowledge with respect to the Platonic thought that knowledge is information is one thing. The real question belongs to what experience is. As I have mentioned I base my view upon Henri Bergson in which experience is what is before intelligence. So to understand something in the depth for me is to avoid the distortions of rationalization upon experience; to reveal the pure experience.

Of this reason I do not interpret it in the same way as you do, if I have understood you correctly, and I come to different conclusions than you. This does not say anything about the truth, it only says something about the possibilities and the difficulties in reaching truth. But of all, it says much about science and research, and the work of it. Research studies always involve human influence, making it important to always review the research
My view is that experience enables rational thought. As for defining experience this is quite simple. What Einstein meant to say was that to be told "A = B" is information. To question "why?" is what is required to understand that information, which is knowledge. To come to the conclusion on one's own "A = B" without being told so and without accepting the truth of this information by faith.

It is all rooted in an axiom we have taken up at some point. To be presented not just with "A = B" but with all the information required and then to build from that foundational axiom all the way up to the point where we can ourselves declare "A = B" is the experience he talks about which is required to form knowledge.

Of course the point at which we choose our axiom is arbitrary and so therefore the definition remains abstract, but this is not a "problem", this is the beauty of abstraction. The abstraction remains true for all variations.

Do I know for a fact that is what he meant? No. I would have needed a concrete experience to make that sort of statement. If I would have talked to him in person I may have approximated it, but only by being him could I make it honestly. Even so, abstraction upon abstraction we must accept that he himself would have known what he was saying or that we would have interpreted it in that same way.

Once we bring anything concrete into it, it becomes a horrid mess. I can say it would certainly be interesting to hear his opinion regarding this and I would be very surprised if he had meant anything else. From my point of view, there is no other possibility. My picture may be incomplete, but I am unable to abstract any further from this point and I believe it is not possible.

Completely off topic obviously but as the thread is nothing but bullshit anyway I suppose why not.
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.

Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else (Music related)”