User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

Line 474:

::::::::::::::::::::::: I just looked it through. I'm not quite sure. Don't you think he might confuse "consonance" with some other quality like "resolution", "stability", or something more complicated? On the other hand, perhaps the term "consonance" has other meanings I don't quite understand... Also, historically the attitudes and even "rules" related to "consonance" have changed. But I don't think it changed the understanding of consonance. In my understanding, not the notion itself was changing, but some kind of attitude, understanding of "acceptable degree of dissonance". Closer to modern times, "dissonant" structures became more and more acceptable and more wanted, pleasing in some ways. And I think this is good. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 22:31 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, we won't know for sure if we don't talk to him, that much is a given. However, it is definitely the case that there's more than one type of "consonance"- harmonic entropy minima being a notable example. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, we won't know for sure if we don't talk to him, that much is a given. However, it is definitely the case that there's more than one type of "consonance"- [[harmonic entropy]] minima being a notable example. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::: I think I know one of the problems we're having- the fact is that differing fields of study use the same words in different ways and with different meanings. That might be contributing to our communication issues just between the two of us. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Line 482:

:::::::::::::::::: There are definitely a lot of merits to that approach, but in my experience, incomplete data can lead to wrong conclusions. This is especially true in cases where the data is wrongly interpreted- or worse, outright ignored- though it would be ill-advised for me to talk about specific examples of these sorts of things here and now for a variety of reasons- not the least of which is the potential for pointless arguments. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: I should have said that it also depends on individual traits, but I thought this is too obvious. Incomplete data? This is what is our brain is sharpened for. I have some arguments in favor of dealing with incomplete data and looking at this incompleteness as a normal thing. First of all, data is always incomplete, when it comes to science. Not all people can interpret an incomplete set of facts objectively, but being misled by other people is worse. Come to think about, this is because we actually tend to be convinced too easily. This is the result of our social skills, social adaptation mechanism. The observation of so many heated discussions should not fool us, this is not the dominant trend. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 08:45 UTC''

::::::::::::: By the way, do you really still use MP3?! It is not just obsolete, it is stone age, with ridiculous quality and compression. Top Web standard is .opus, is supported by everything. Probably, MP3 is alive only due to the existence of the devices like car audio — nothing is so conservative as those weird people designing such devices. :-)

@@ Line 474: / Line 474: @@
 ::::::::::::::::::::::: I just looked it through. I'm not quite sure. Don't you think he might confuse "consonance" with some other quality like "resolution", "stability", or something more complicated? On the other hand, perhaps the term "consonance" has other meanings I don't quite understand... Also, historically the attitudes and even "rules" related to  "consonance" have changed. But I don't think it changed the understanding of consonance. In my understanding, not the notion itself was changing, but some kind of attitude, understanding of "acceptable degree of dissonance". Closer to modern times, "dissonant" structures became more and more acceptable and more wanted, pleasing in some ways. And I think this is good. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;22:31&nbsp;UTC''
-:::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, we won't know for sure if we don't talk to him, that much is a given.  However, it is definitely the case that there's more than one type of "consonance"- harmonic entropy minima being a notable example. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, we won't know for sure if we don't talk to him, that much is a given.  However, it is definitely the case that there's more than one type of "consonance"- [[harmonic entropy]] minima being a notable example. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 :::::::::::::::::::::::: I think I know one of the problems we're having- the fact is that differing fields of study use the same words in different ways and with different meanings.  That might be contributing to our communication issues just between the two of us. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 482: / Line 482: @@
 :::::::::::::::::: There are definitely a lot of merits to that approach, but in my experience, incomplete data can lead to wrong conclusions.  This is especially true in cases where the data is wrongly interpreted- or worse, outright ignored- though it would be ill-advised for me to talk about specific examples of these sorts of things here and now for a variety of reasons- not the least of which is the potential for pointless arguments. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
-::::::::::::::::::: I  should have said that it also depends on individual traits, but I thought this is too obvious. Incomplete data? This is what is our brain is sharpened for. I have some arguments in favor of dealing with incomplete data and looking at this incompleteness as a normal thing. First of all, data is always incomplete, when it comes to science. Not all people can interpret an incomplete set of facts objectively, but being misled by other people is worse. Come to think about, this is because we actually tend to be convinced too easily. This is the result of our social skills, social adaptation mechanism. The observation of so many heated discussions should not fool us, this is not the dominant trend. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;08:45&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::::: I should have said that it also depends on individual traits, but I thought this is too obvious. Incomplete data? This is what is our brain is sharpened for. I have some arguments in favor of dealing with incomplete data and looking at this incompleteness as a normal thing. First of all, data is always incomplete, when it comes to science. Not all people can interpret an incomplete set of facts objectively, but being misled by other people is worse. Come to think about, this is because we actually tend to be convinced too easily. This is the result of our social skills, social adaptation mechanism. The observation of so many heated discussions should not fool us, this is not the dominant trend. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;08:45&nbsp;UTC''
 ::::::::::::: By the way, do you really still use MP3?! It is not just obsolete, it is stone age, with ridiculous quality and compression. Top Web standard is .opus, is supported by everything. Probably, MP3 is alive only due to the existence of the devices like car audio — nothing is so conservative as those weird people designing such devices. :-)