Re: Helmholtz P5

On 24 Aug, 03:56, LJS <ljsche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:48 pm, knucmo <stevejoua...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 23 Aug, 14:49, LJS <ljsche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Wow! I don't know how I missed that one! Selling Ice Creams! Shark
Deaths! Are you sure that was posted in this group or was it
rec.Marinebiology. Maybe it came after so much crap and in the section
that had a button that said "read more" in my reader that I missed.
Sorry,that sounds like it may have been absurd enough to rate a reply..
As does this post.

No logician will care for cheap attacks at the man, especially when as
they are irrelevant to the issue.

Well you are paraphrasing me once again! Will this extremely long
response prove any more on point or just more unrelated crap?

I have no idea of what you are talking about. Your response was to my
statement about the HS and tonality of the CPP. I have not even seen
you sharks and ice cream and have no idea of why you would say so. Are
you now changing what A and B are? I guess this is your "philosophy of
logic" that allows this. I do not. I clearly asked if this was a
misprint or something and no reply. Now you maybe read it and have to
change the whole thing. This is just too silly.

Once again, you are incapable of abstraction or thinking in terms of
analogies. You just use it as an opportunity to get on your hobby-
horse and rant. But this is moot - you do not care for the fact that
you make logical errors during debate, so even if I do spot enough
fallacies to make a rhetorician blush, I will not point them out to
you, because you are obviously convinced that you are incapable of
invalid argument.

The HS has been around since the beginnings of time. This story that
you are quoting is correct, but it does not parallel the statement
that you made. You can't just say that a holiday where the ice cream
is bought is related to the number of shark attacks as this is not the
same context at all! Tonality did not occur on a "holiday" or at any
one particular time. It evolved. From one interpretation of the HS to
another. As I have said all along, the HS is the Common Factor of ALL
periods of music. It may be that that you actually do know something
about logic, but it is your total ignorance of the music that causes
you to be unable to find the correct axioms or postulates to base you
logic upon! I really don't care which is true. This statement is still
wrong. If you take in all the alternate theories that describe ONLY
ONE period of music into account, then the HS IS the third factor, and
this is the factor that is the real cause. THIS is where your logic is
wrong! You don't know how to select the axioms and postulates! This is
a prime example of "garbage in, garbage out" and is why your logic
does not come up with a valid outcome.

To reiterate, I do not think that tonality caused the harmonic series,
as it would contradict everything I said about how the harmonic series
is an acoustic series, and how tonality is a musico-conceptual
framework.

And this is different from all your other contradictions?

I have made no 'other contradictions'.

You have
constantly pointed out things that suggest the HS IS very related to
tonality and then just change the conclusion!

I have pointed out things to do with concords and discords, and how
Helmholtz tried to derive his theory of tonality from the laws of
physics. This is a Helmholtz post, remember? Even if it has been
hijacked.

What I do know is, is that the harmonic series has been

around longer than the common practice period has, and without the
harmonic series, no tones could be produced.  Steve says the same
thing, perhaps more elegantly than me, in his posts.  Of course, the
mere mention of Steve is nearly sufficient to send you off into a mild
spumous froth.

And here is another statement that needs explanation, but you say it
like it really means something! What is "and without the

harmonic series, no tones could be produced"  supposed to mean? Or better phrased, "What do YOU mean by this". You say it like it is important. So what does it mean? Is a sine wave not a tone? is a square wave not a tone?

BUT even if this would be true, it would only be more evidence that
the HS was the cause of EVERYTHING musical! If it is responsible for
the very existence of even a tone, then it is even more of a factor
than I have ever claimed it to be! So what are you saying he Steve?

Well, pitched instruments have some sort of device which can oscillate
frequenices, sometimes, multiple frequencies at the same time. When
these frequencies are produced, they interact with the air and cause
sound waves, and these waves travel, allowing us to hear the musical
instrument. These frequencies that we hear are the 'harmonics' of a
wave, and this is the component frequency of a signal that is a
multiple of the fundamental frequency. In other words, we hear the
fundamental and its overtones. I don't think Helmholtz would disagree
there.

AND then you clearly state that the Tonality of the CPP may have
caused the Harmonic series and that there is some unknown third factor
(??? like what, devine intervention?)


or that  CPP tonality could be
'caused at the same time' as the HS is the cause of the CPP.!!!

Again - reread the series of posts:

I said: 'Correlation does not imply causation'. (CDNIC)
You responded: 'I don't accept this statement. I just can't.'

You gave no argument for this - instead you said you 'Just can't'.
Again this is emotional resistance, rather than reasoned argument.

No, it just doesn't deserve a response. If two things are  extremely
correlated and one came first and then the other became correlated to
it, then the first is very likely (as I said, NOT absolutely!) to be
the cause. Then you do your song and dance and use this as a red
herring when it still does not have any relevance to the argument. You
have a hard time sticking to musical facts so you try to use
misleading logic based on semantic interpretations and false axioms.

Incorrect - any logician will tell you that correlation does not imply
causation, nor is the implication 'very likely'. This is just the
emperor's new clothes you are wearing - you can dress up your
statement in anyway you like - It's 'very likely', if not absolutely,
or 'it must mean something', it is still an error in reasoning.

That is why I can't accept it. You just can't seem to stay in the
realm of MUSIC! You have said NOTHING about the music, you always have
to argue something else! I don't care about something else! I care
about the music. I did not come into rec.sillylogicalargumets. You
came into rec.musictheory.

A basic knowledge of logical debate would do everyone a world of good,
yourself included.
.

Loading