Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Consciousness, thoughts anyone?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 42 (547103)
02-16-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dimebag
02-15-2010 8:07 PM


First off: Fucking Pantera - Hell yeah!
From Message 8:
Are our conscious experiences mere virtual reflections of the underlying neural patterns which they represent, or are they a real and quantifiable (i hesitate to use the word) substance?
I doubt they're "substance"; is anyone even really looking into that?
Aren't they an emergent property? I wouldn't say they're 'mere virtual reflections' but more of an synergistic accumulation that has becaome an evolutionary snowball.
From Message 9:
I imagine conscious experience to be like the detectors of the LHC, and when a specific collision, or discharge, or whatever occurs... something is shot out, somewhere, and somehow it is detected on some kind of quantum detector screen. This minute scintillation of activity is then what makes up our conscious experience, and when all those little scintillations are somehow woven together they produce a recognizable experience.
I think of it more as an overarching or encompassing phenomenon, more of a web or network than something being shot out or a discharge.
I do think that the senses play a LARGE part in how we consciously experience anything.
Yeah, that, and language. Don't you think in words? If you didn't have words, how much different would your thinking be?
I would be hesitant to say that consciousness serves no purpose at all.
I doubt that it had much evolutionary advantage, I mean, I doubt it was selected for (obviously, there is an advantage to being conscious). I think its more of a by-product of other selective pressures though.
When we become aware of something, and it becomes conscious to us, a wider realm of possibilities as far as action, thought, decisions, are opened up to that event, compared to if it had remained unconscious.
But its seems to be such a gradual gradient rather than an either/or phenomenon.
Where can we comfortably draw the line between those animals that we can say have consciousness and those that don't? The vertibrates? Chordata?
I don't think that that "awakening" would be something that natural selection would act on. Its too individualistic, too 'zoomed-in'.
And for us, think back to our immediate ancestors (but far back enough for previous species). Without much of any actual language, I doubt there was enough deep thinking going on to confer enough evolutionary advantage for selective pressure to even notice.
Or what about some worm that had just enough sense for enough awareness to be considered consciousness. How close would he be to his non-conscious brothers? Even noticeably different?
The problem with this is then people say, how can consciousness have any causal affect, because if that conscious experience is completely non physical, how can something non physical affect something physical?
Well, personally, I think that consciousness (in the sense of our sentience) might be just that something that is resulting from the non-physical interacting with the physical. I do believe in my soul, and viewing the mind as the doorway between some spirit realm and this one, I could see our sentience as the summation of those experiences. Break the brain/mind and you've closed the door.
But yeah, if you aren't down with dualism and would rather talk science, then there's no reason to go down that route.
My thoughts on consciousness:
(Probably describes its function rather than its nature. This also pertains mainly to consciousness as a whole, rather than only conscious experience)
I think consciousness acts as a medium through which messages, experiences, thoughts, etc. may be sent globally to entire systems of non conscious networks, without which, such messages would either be dissipated, or not be fully realized by the entire system.
Basically, it allows more flexible, adaptable, and ingenious responses than would be possible without a system with such an ability.
I think this is why it may have evolved, and as such, I think most creatures with senses that are developed enough would posses consciousness.
Well that sounds better than the jist I was getting from you earlier.
I think our conscious experience is wholly separate from the brain, as far as it has no specific location within space that we can determine, though this may change with research. But, everything about it pertains to the brain, and to the world that surrounds the brain, so the experience and the existence seems anchored in space, in the brain.
Going with the web/network analogy, the consciousness would be like the internet (the internet, itself, as a thing). Its made up of a bunch of wires and servers (like synapses and neurons) but as a whole it is much more than the sum of its parts.
How far in understanding the internet could you get by looking at the wires and servers? Would you get any of the memes? Would you find the lulz? I doubt it. You might find evidence of it, but not it, itself. I think consciousness might share this elusivity.

yes I am a huge Pantera fan, along with alot of metal and rock.
What's some other bands you like (that I might not of heard of)? I've been listening to Children of Bodom, Unearth, Killswitch Engage.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dimebag, posted 02-15-2010 8:07 PM Dimebag has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Apothecus, posted 02-16-2010 6:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 26 by Dimebag, posted 02-16-2010 7:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 17 of 42 (547105)
02-16-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dimebag
02-14-2010 9:51 PM


quote:
1. How is consciousness produced by the various parts of the brain.
We really don't know.
quote:
2. What consciousness is, its nature, how it can be defined.
I think the best thing is to wait until we work out how it works - only then can we really understand what it is. This may take a long time unfortunately!
quote:
3. Why is consciousness required by our brain, when similar outcomes could be achieved (apparently) through a non conscious process.
Why do you say that? Awareness of self can be an important input to decision making.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dimebag, posted 02-14-2010 9:51 PM Dimebag has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 42 (547134)
02-16-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
02-15-2010 4:38 PM


Re: Dennett and Chalmers
Aren't there medical conditions that leave people as 'floating consciousnesses', with nothing coming in from the outside world?
I guess that would require a sense of passing time - which might be argued to be a sense.
Also, it would take place after the person had experiences and stored memory.
I would be reluctant to agree that a person being born and not experiencing reality with their senses would be considered "conscious." Because really, what would they be conscious of?
If memory serves when he talks in details about them he suggests that zombies are no different than us in his theory and that the problem with the concept is that it assumes there is a difference to conclude there must be a difference!
We are both working off memory, but I recall he specifically suggesting that the premise fails to be established. Like you suggest, that there is an assumtion on there being a difference, but that is because he believes the subjective aspect of consciousness is not coherent concepts.
Thus any subjective quality you place on experiences, such as "ouch, that hurt," isn't really accurate. It's just reactionary and due to neurons and nerves, etc....
The problem I have with that, which is where I agree with Searle, is the fact that we can and do talk about experiencing things subjectively, is the reason we should consider that there is a difference between us and a zombie. That is what consciousness is, as you suggested to Dimebag, it is awareness of ones place in reality.
A zombie would lack that. That is the difference.
I have not seen Dennett suggest that 'subjective experience' is not a coherent concept
To be more clear, he states that the subjective aspect of consciousness, or qualia - I believe he means the same thing here - is what should be consider non-existent and unscientific.
This is how he makes a case for the premise of the "zombie" being wrong. By suggesting that the subjective aspect of consciousness is a real thing then one can differentiate between a zombie and a human. But, if it is non-existent (not a real thing) then there is no way to differentiate between the two.
But again, this is where I disagree. I think, personally, but based off of a few theories on consciousness, that the subjective aspect of consciousness is what consciousness is.
The term, for obvious reasons, is not common in the UK
Ah yeah, I forget the monetary difference. What's the equivalent to the street name "dimebag" in the UK?
Maybe we could let Straggler field this question.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2010 4:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Wounded King, posted 02-16-2010 3:49 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2010 3:53 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 02-16-2010 4:56 PM onifre has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 19 of 42 (547135)
02-16-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by onifre
02-16-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Dennett and Chalmers
What's the equivalent to the street name "dimebag" in the UK?
10p mix up?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 02-16-2010 3:29 PM onifre has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 42 (547136)
02-16-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by onifre
02-16-2010 3:29 PM


What's the equivalent to the street name "dimebag" in the UK?
10-pence sack?
...unless they just use grams.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 02-16-2010 3:29 PM onifre has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 21 of 42 (547138)
02-16-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by onifre
02-16-2010 3:29 PM


Re: Dennett and Chalmers
Important stuff first:
Ah yeah, I forget the monetary difference. What's the equivalent to the street name "dimebag" in the UK?
We have the less creative 'ten bag' or 'twenty bag'. It's fallen out of fashion now but we would go:
teenth or a Louis (1/16 of ounce - think French kings)
a henry (1/8 of ounce (English king))
daughter (1/4)
Loz (1 ounce)
But most of our dealers are Arabs and Pakistani so 'ryhming slang' died out and we just have to go literal most of the time.
I would be reluctant to agree that a person being born and not experiencing reality with their senses would be considered "conscious." Because really, what would they be conscious of?
I would also be reluctant. There is a sort of self-referential quality to consciousness so one could be aware of one's existence but I don't think anyone can confidently declare if it possible to become conscious under those conditions.
We are both working off memory, but I recall he specifically suggesting that the premise fails to be established. Like you suggest, that there is an assumtion on there being a difference, but that is because he believes the subjective aspect of consciousness is not coherent concepts.
I'll dig out 'Consciousness Explained' and re-familiarise myself with the outline, watch a few of his lectures and try and regurgitate it later

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 02-16-2010 3:29 PM onifre has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 22 of 42 (547141)
02-16-2010 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
02-16-2010 5:15 AM


Dr. Adequate quotes:
To quantify or qualify
quintessence (quasi-physical)
or quibble of such quiddities
is quirkish, quaint and quizzical.
You cannot quine a qualium
....[deletia]....
Aw shit, my cryptogram frequency tables just got shot to hell!!!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-16-2010 5:15 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 23 of 42 (547142)
02-16-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by onifre
02-15-2010 1:42 PM


the stuff of dreams
Onifre, way back in this thread, notes:
I would hesitate to simply refer to it as "awareness" of ones self and ones enviroment. In my opinion, there are deeper levels of consciousness that require no environment (REM sleep, hallucinations, etc.) that are specific, assumingly, to humans.
Now I know Oni has seen sleeping dogs dreaming and cats suddenly stare at nothing....but I'm thinking here that Dreaming may be the best evidence of consciousness in the species at hand. Does an amoeba dream? An ant? A turtle? What animals sleep? Why is there sleep? There was another thread in this forum somewhere that i fergitz. What is the evolutionary advantage to sleeping? I think....
I read somewhere that dreaming is what happens when your brain, needing to compress the daily intake of new data into the storage system, may find itself opening "boxes" of other stuff in there and rearranging the packing of the storage space to accommodate the new stuff for later use. Sometimes the packing activity is too loud and seeps up into your consciousness as a dream.
However, while I would say that all conscious beings dream, it does not imply that in order to have consciousness you have to be able dream. It's a nice romantic thought and all, but it doesn't follow.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by onifre, posted 02-15-2010 1:42 PM onifre has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 24 of 42 (547146)
02-16-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dimebag
02-14-2010 9:51 PM


Neurotransmitters
Interesting topic!
I'm really enjoying getting into the philosophical aspects of consciousness through this thread, since, unsurprisingly, I'm more versed in the biological and biochemical aspects of the brain. Serotonin, norepinephrine, acetylcholine and others mediate and may even be thought to cause certain cortical processes (e.g. false memories, etc...), and serve as a basis for consciousness. Mess with any of them through chemical or physical means, and consciousness becomes, shall we say, altered.
I'd have to do a little reading in my buried textbooks about general anesthesia, but I'd be particularly interested in how it seems to "remove" consciousness from a philosophical versus biological standpoint. And do the various prescription antidepressant or psychotropic medications (to say nothing of the myriad illicit substances out there ) actually serve to create an artificial consciousness by way of altering the neurochemicals?
Just thought I'd put a different spin on the subject.
Have a good one.
p.s. It's a shame about 'ol Darrell, innit? An all-around likeable guy and damn fine guitarist.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dimebag, posted 02-14-2010 9:51 PM Dimebag has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 25 of 42 (547148)
02-16-2010 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2010 10:45 AM


Bands
I've been listening to Children of Bodom, Unearth, Killswitch Engage.
Wow, CS, I'm impressed. Some pretty heavy stuff there. Coincidentally, I recently went to a Megadeth concert for which Children of Bodom opened, along with Job For A Cowboy and In Flames. How the hell those guys can get up there and make some of the sounds they make without causing lasting tracheal damage is beyond me. Megadeth is more my speed, but it was cool to see some of the heavier shit out there.
Recently I went to see Metallica (AWESOME!), and Lamb of God and Gojira opened. Ever listen to either of them? They're OK, if a little "me too".
But give me a little Cowboys From Hell anyday.
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2010 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2010 9:11 PM Apothecus has replied

  
Dimebag
Junior Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 10
Joined: 02-14-2010


Message 26 of 42 (547154)
02-16-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
02-16-2010 10:45 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
I doubt they're "substance"; is anyone even really looking into that?
Aren't they an emergent property? I wouldn't say they're 'mere virtual reflections' but more of an synergistic accumulation that has becaome an evolutionary snowball.
What I meant by 'substance' was not like, we could extract someone's consciousness and hold it in our hands, but rather, for consciousness to be caused by some physical system, somewhere right at the end of that causal chain there has to be a 'particle', or a 'field'
or a 'wave', or even a 'probability' (covering my quantum bases) that can be pointed at, measured or quantified, which is responsible for consciousness, or IS consciousness. Otherwise if there isn't, we are dealing with a wholly virtual and non real experience; an illusion.
If you refer to consciousness as an emergent property, then it has to be composed of smaller individual parts which combine to create this emergent property, and they would be measured. I am not saying someone will find the 'consciousness particle' which is soully responsible for consciousness, but there must be some interaction between two or more 'things' to produce consciousness if it is an emergent property.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I think of it more as an overarching or encompassing phenomenon, more of a web or network than something being shot out or a discharge.
Again, the shooting out or discharging was an analogy to represent how I think of consciousness forming, I doubt there is literally anything shooting anywhere.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Yeah, that, and language. Don't you think in words? If you didn't have words, how much different would your thinking be?
I do think language plays a huge part in communication, higher level thought, categorisation, self expression etc. but I don't think it is an essential requirement for consciousness. When you speak, are you at all conscious of how you form the individual phonemes of your words? The are formed in an unconscious network. You may have a conscious intent to express a concept, but to go from concept to understandable content it must be formed in a vast verbal network, which then sends signals to your vocal chords and tells them how to contract, as well as your lungs, tongue, lips. These are all unconscious processes.
I believe thought has little to do with consciousness, and indeed alot of thought is unconscious or at a low level of consciousness, which is why philosophy is so difficult; because we are barely conscious of our own thoughts.
I do think memory plays a hugely important part to consciousness, for it allows us to categorize what we see, hear, touch, and smell consciously, so that when we later encounter something similar, it is recalled, categorized, and kept in the memory, and consequently, the consciousness for longer periods of time. This is referred to as 'working memory', and allows the processing which can be used to plan, to think, to reason, and to do the multitudes of things we do every day.
Catholic Scientist writes:
I doubt that it had much evolutionary advantage, I mean, I doubt it was selected for (obviously, there is an advantage to being conscious). I think its more of a by-product of other selective pressures though.
I think we can agree that consciousness is linked very closely to awareness, and without awareness ,both of one's surroundings, and one's self, most organism's would be at an evolutionary disadvantage. No one can say yet if awareness can be achieved without consciousness, although consciousness can be achieved without awareness.
Actually I lie partially; in the case of blindsight, where the striate cortex is damaged, a subject may be not conscious of visual stimuli, but are still able to react to it. Thats not to say that if you left such a victim at a full blown traffic intersection they would be able to safely cross that road, for without conscious perception of depth, direction, speed, etc. noone can safely react to any moving object. Even in cases of blindsight, the patients swear adamantly that they are not aware of any features of the objects they are presented with, but when asked to 'guess' the features of an object, they react with more accuracy than people purely guessing. So the level of awareness is very low; one could almost say it is subconscious.
Catholic Scientist writes:
But its seems to be such a gradual gradient rather than an either/or phenomenon.
Where can we comfortably draw the line between those animals that we can say have consciousness and those that don't? The vertibrates? Chordata?
I don't think that that "awakening" would be something that natural selection would act on. Its too individualistic, too 'zoomed-in'.
And for us, think back to our immediate ancestors (but far back enough for previous species). Without much of any actual language, I doubt there was enough deep thinking going on to confer enough evolutionary advantage for selective pressure to even notice.
Or what about some worm that had just enough sense for enough awareness to be considered consciousness. How close would he be to his non-conscious brothers? Even noticeably different?
Sorry about my wording there, I wasn't trying to say that consciousness is like a switch that is turned on and then everything is illuminated. I think, as someone else has said here, that it operates more on a sliding scale, starting from barely conscious to highly conscious. Im sure there is still some room on the consciousness scale above us (and those pesky dolphins) so that one would be considered more conscious than us. I believe there is a theory which states that the more connections any information system has, the more conscious it can be considered. I don't necessarily prescribe to this view COMPLETELY (i don't think the internet is conscious.... yet) but it does have a point.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Well, personally, I think that consciousness (in the sense of our sentience) might be just that something that is resulting from the non-physical interacting with the physical. I do believe in my soul, and viewing the mind as the doorway between some spirit realm and this one, I could see our sentience as the summation of those experiences. Break the brain/mind and you've closed the door.
But yeah, if you aren't down with dualism and would rather talk science, then there's no reason to go down that route.
That is your belief, and you are entitled to that. I prefer to think that the separation of mind/brain is more conceptual, and once we look close enough, we will be able to pin down how consciousness is formed, and link it to the brain, thereby pinning it to the physical (not necessarily visible, touchable.... but present within our universe, operating under the same physical rules as all other bosonian and fermionic forces/particles. There will be no need to refer to the mind in another 'realm', and it will resolve mind/body duality.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Going with the web/network analogy, the consciousness would be like the internet (the internet, itself, as a thing). Its made up of a bunch of wires and servers (like synapses and neurons) but as a whole it is much more than the sum of its parts.
How far in understanding the internet could you get by looking at the wires and servers? Would you get any of the memes? Would you find the lulz? I doubt it. You might find evidence of it, but not it, itself. I think consciousness might share this elusivity.
The thing is, the internet is just an expansive switching board, which wouldn't be so difficult to understand. It is the content, which is contained on the servers which would be impossibly difficult to understand without a monitor, a keyboard, or some way to decode a hard drive and convert the concepts contained within them, into actual usable facts. I get what you are saying though, but the content of the internet is not real, it is just a code, which can be displayed on a screen in a pattern which we may understand. It is that pattern which we need to discover, for our conscious experience is that pattern on that screen. Everything else just allows that pattern to get there.
Catholic Scientist writes:
What's some other bands you like (that I might not of heard of)? I've been listening to Children of Bodom, Unearth, Killswitch Engage.
Lets see, lately I've been into Chimaira, Devin Townsend (Ziltoid the Omniscient!), Strapping Young Lad, Alice in Chains, Devil Driver, Fear Factory, Opeth, Black Label Society, Mnemic. But then I still love stuff like Satyricon, Necrophagist, Satriani, Steve Vai, Malmstein. Anything awesome really.
EDIT:
Also thought I would add something. I imagine say, a dog's conscious experience to be similar to our own when we are purely within the experience, like when you are playing a sport, driving a car, etc. It is mostly an experience of senses, unconscious reactions, not much conscious intervention. This is how I think about consciousness from a purely conceptual standpoint. There are many other levels of consciousness that have been added, built upon, but when it comes down to it, that is the root of consciousness. Atleast the root of conscious experience that we have anything in common with. Obviously there has to a small degree of conscious intervention for there to be any use to consciousness, and maybe this is how consciousness evolved. Unconscious conditioning can be seen as the precurser to conscious intervention. It is a conditioned response in reaction to a stimulus. Now if that stimulus becomes conscious atleast on a very low level, many other options are made available to an animal, whereas the previous reaction would have been fear and fleeing, they may be able to rationally determine if something is a threat, if it is useful, if it is harmless. Im not sure if dogs have this ability to discriminate on such a level, but I'm trying to explain how different degree's of consciousness could prove advantageous.
Edited by Dimebag, : Poor grammar, probably still is.
Edited by Dimebag, : Thought of something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-16-2010 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-17-2010 3:29 PM Dimebag has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 42 (547163)
02-16-2010 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Apothecus
02-16-2010 6:01 PM


Re: Bands
Wow, CS, I'm impressed. Some pretty heavy stuff there. Coincidentally, I recently went to a Megadeth concert for which Children of Bodom opened, along with Job For A Cowboy and In Flames. How the hell those guys can get up there and make some of the sounds they make without causing lasting tracheal damage is beyond me. Megadeth is more my speed, but it was cool to see some of the heavier shit out there.
Recently I went to see Metallica (AWESOME!), and Lamb of God and Gojira opened. Ever listen to either of them?
Now I'm impressed! Been an In Flames fan for a long time. Lamb of God is hit or miss. I either really like the song or don't like it at all. Gojira is a little too avant garde for me, maybe it's because their French. They're talented nonetheless.
As far as the new Metallica, I'm not a huge fan of it but it beats the last 4 previous albums of theirs but a country mile. The Megadeth is impressive with their new lead guitarist. Probably their best since Rust in Piece. Marty Friedman is tough shoes to fill, but the new guy is just sick.
I'm going to Mayhemfest in August in Atlanta. The anticipation is killing me.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Apothecus, posted 02-16-2010 6:01 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 02-16-2010 9:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 29 by Apothecus, posted 02-16-2010 9:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 28 of 42 (547165)
02-16-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hyroglyphx
02-16-2010 9:11 PM


Re: Bands
Now I'm impressed! Been an In Flames fan for a long time. Lamb of God is hit or miss. I either really like the song or don't like it at all. Gojira is a little too avant garde for me, maybe it's because their French. They're talented nonetheless.
I haven't heard any of this shit before, sounds sick. Post videos in the Great Gigs thread.
As far as the new Metallica, I'm not a huge fan of it but it beats the last 4 previous albums of theirs but a country mile.
Agreed a thousand times! Last good show I saw from them was Binge and Purge in 93 or 94, can't remember.
I'm going to Mayhemfest in August in Atlanta. The anticipation is killing me.
My lady friend is dragging me to see Dave Matthews.
But, we're also going to see the Drop Kick Murphys in March!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2010 9:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Apothecus, posted 02-16-2010 10:03 PM onifre has replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 29 of 42 (547166)
02-16-2010 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hyroglyphx
02-16-2010 9:11 PM


Re: Bands
Hey Hyro.
Mise well keep it off topic, eh? ...
As far as the new Metallica, I'm not a huge fan of it but it beats the last 4 previous albums of theirs but a country mile.
Have to totally agree with you here. Fortunately, I can count on one hand how many tracks from the Death Magnetic album they played--the rest was all classic Metallica. Doesn't it just suck when you slap down 80 bucks and all you hear from the band is the new shit, most of which just blows? I think Hetfield and crew have been around long enough to know what the fans want.
I guess Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax are collaborating for a tour in Europe, but I'm crossing my fingers that they'll bring it over here. Can you imagine? How could you not go to see all four of the biggest thrasher bands of all time? *shivers*
Mayhemfest looks quality. Enjoy that.
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2010 9:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 30 of 42 (547170)
02-16-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by onifre
02-16-2010 9:36 PM


Re: Bands
Hey Oni.
My lady friend is dragging me to see Dave Matthews.
Aw, c'mon dude. Don't be a Dave-hater. I do like the occasional death metal excursion, but I like to say I'm an equal opportunity music lover, except when it comes to country.
But c'mon. Be open. At least go for the bass and acoustic guitar work, horns, and bare-bones musicianship. Sometimes I can hate a genre but still be moved to tears by the sheer musical talent of a performer. But hey, if you're tortured and you really need something to focus on, watch what his hands do on the neck of his guitar. It's really amazing. He's all OVER that thing, just differently than someone like Hetfield or Mustaine.
What do you listen to, mostly?
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 02-16-2010 9:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by onifre, posted 02-16-2010 10:15 PM Apothecus has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024