Civility

[fas42]

38 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

OK, I will check into it further ...

 

I note that some people are aware of temp files being used - but whether resampling is still done is unclear - what surprises me is that the tool doesn't analyse the tracks, and do simple things like making sure that the initial silence on the tracks matches - a straightforward, adjusted per track delay would eliminate these discrepancies.

[wgscott]

5 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Briliant. Thanks.

 

I actually wonder about anti-religious bigotry here.

 

Well, if people are crazy enough to believe a bunch of sand in a box is a ground, it isn't too much of a stretch to imaginary deities wearing Birkinstocks and long grey beards chucking lightning bolts and smiting non-believers.

 

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Well, if people are crazy enough to believe a bunch of sand in a box is a ground, it isn't too much of a stretch to imaginary deities wearing Birkinstocks and long grey beards chucking lightning bolts and smiting non-believers.

 

 

More accurately, if someone is "crazy enough" to reduce the moral life and thought to Birkinstocks, grey beards, and "smiting", then it is hardly any stretch at all to boxes of rocks.

[Ralf11]

I like Birkinstocks - very functional.  Besides, nobody let's you wear corks inside anymore.

[wgscott]

Do you have John Lennon glasses too?

[crenca]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

Do you have John Lennon glasses too?

 

I admit, to my everlasting shame, that I wore a pair of glasses that actually were branded "John Lennon" for a number of years. They were round, but also not exactly the same either.  I recall that I chose them because they were the best of a handful that had cable temples (which I insist on) that the store had that day. I assume Yoko got the money...

[wgscott]

The real ones are what the NHS gives out for free.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

6 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

I actually wonder about anti-religious bigotry here.

 

Well, if people are crazy enough to believe a bunch of sand in a box is a ground, it isn't too much of a stretch to imaginary deities wearing Birkinstocks and long grey beards chucking lightning bolts and smiting non-believers.

 

This is Birkinstocks Bigotry or maybe just Birkinstocks Sarcasm - BS!

[mansr]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

That's fine ... foobar ABX definitely resamples, I was amazed to see this behaviour, at the time - just pause the plug in, and run something like MediaInfo against the work files it creates and uses.

Could it be that if the files to compare have different sample rates, they are resampled to a common rate? Seamless switching would require this. Otherwise there'd be a pause while the DAC is reconfigured.

[lucretius]

12 hours ago, crenca said:

 

No offense but this is an error on several levels - historical is what I will address here:  Christians did not "invent" the "narrow definition" that agnosticism implies an atheism.  I quoted Greek Mythology earlier.  The Roman's main beef with Christians (and to some extent Jews) before Constantine was that their theology and practice denied the gods of Roman civil religion (which by that time included the emperors themselves) - the most common thing the said of Christians was that they were "atheists".

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not denying your "right" to hold to the narrower definition. - I am just pointing out that the term is not precise as you would have it in the larger community of a diverse world...

 

Maybe I wasn't clear.  I don't hold to the narrower definition.

 

 

[lucretius]

12 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

have you taken a pregnancy test?

 

!  Bad wording on my part!  I wondered how long it would be before somebody brought this up.

[lucretius]

13 hours ago, mansr said:

How can you be sure you're not just a part of a cosmic gedankenexperiment? Does it matter?

 

Does it matter? No.  Your "reality" doesn't change.

[lucretius]

7 hours ago, wgscott said:

imaginary deities wearing Birkinstocks and long grey beards

 

Sounds like hippies!

[Samuel T Cogley]

22 hours ago, mourip said:

 

Add two more...

 

Agnostic:  a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

Mystic: a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

 

My point was that some people put great effort into fitting everything they encounter into their personal worldview.  Or put another way, there are lots of people that believe the god they worship is "my" god too, regardless of my willingness to accept that "immutable truth".  That is zealotry and/or fanaticism.

[wgscott]

47 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

My point was that some people put great effort into fitting everything they encounter into their personal worldview.  Or put another way, there are lots of people that believe the god they worship is "my" god too, regardless of my willingness to accept that "immutable truth".  That is zealotry and/or fanaticism.

 

Nah, it is just delusion. 

 

The parallels, doubtless, will be lost on some.

[wgscott]

Kierkegaard said music sounds best when played backwards, and Heidegger was a nazi, which makes him almost worse than Roger Waters and Karl Böhm, combined.

 

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

My point was that some people put great effort into fitting everything they encounter into their personal worldview.  Or put another way, there are lots of people that believe the god they worship is "my" god too, regardless of my willingness to accept that "immutable truth".  That is zealotry and/or fanaticism.

 

Objectivism (i.e. the assertion that there is a real, and it is out there, and it is the reference point used to confirm/deny idiosyncratic perception) is like that however.  It does not bow to "willinginess" on the part of subjectivists to accept the real.  

[christopher3393]

59 minutes ago, wgscott said:

Kierkegaard said music sounds best when played backwards, and Heidegger was a nazi, which makes him almost worse than Roger Waters and Karl Böhm, combined.

 

 

 

He,he. A mile wide and one inch deep. Idle chatter is what Heidegger called it. But do go on, Dr. Bilious.

 

 

[lucretius]

19 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Do you have a conception of "being". Things exist. We say "this is..." We tend to accept that there are beings. Stuff exists. What do all the things that exist have in common? Their existence. There being. Being there. So what is the being of beings? I'm not trying to trick you into anything, btw. What is the being of beings? 

 

Wishing to avoid lengthy discussions of metaphysics,  I nonetheless feel I should express my view.

 

First, I do not accept existence as a property. But what does it mean to exist? Existence is that which has affect or potential to affect. If something has truly no affect on anything whatsoever, we really don't care if it “exists” in any other sense. Existence consists of having extension in time and space. You can call me a materialist – the only things that exist are matter and energy.

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, wgscott said:

Do you have John Lennon glasses too?

 

I am partial to Vuarnet Cats-eyes.  I left the John Lennon glasses to an ex-gf - she was a pure mathematician tho

 

 

* oddly, she was quite sane; while an applied mathematician I used to date was crazy

 

 

I am mildly surprised at the focus on eyewear and that the corks reference was ignored.

[Ralf11]

ok, the cosmic gedankenexperiment thing has come up several times

 

I think I saw a recent reference to a research paper that proved this was not true - fabric of reality type stuff...

[lucretius]

18 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 Spot on. Like st. Denis (pseudo-Dionysius) Mystical Theology. There isn't a good online translation available, unfortunately. This is a good one: https://www.amazon.com/Pseudo-Dionysius-Complete-Classics-Spirituality-Paperback/dp/0809128381/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=69VM5ZCS8W3WW7FQ5P7P

 There is a contemporary philosopher and theologian, Jean-Luc Marion, who has explored this in great depth in relationship to contemporary philosophy. I'm thinking particularly of God Without Being. But it is a really arduous read. If you are interested, I'll try to find something readable.

 

I'm not familiar with Marion, but I am curious to know how "God without being" is different from God is a predicate, e.g. God is love.

 

 

 

[christopher3393]

35 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Wishing to avoid lengthy discussions of metaphysics,  I nonetheless feel I should express my view.

 

First, I do not accept existence as a property. But what does it mean to exist? Existence is that which has affect or potential to affect. If something has truly no affect on anything whatsoever, we really don't care if it “exists” in any other sense. Existence consists of having extension in time and space. You can call me a materialist – the only things that exist are matter and energy.

 

Thanks. Would naturalist fit?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

 

NOT naturist, mind you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturism

[Ralf11]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/what-is-philosophys-point-part-1-hint-its-not-discovering-truth/

 

 

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Thanks. Would naturalist fit?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Yes. Naturalism and (American) Pragmatism are closely related.