M Database Inspector (cheetah)
Not logged in. Login


13 rows, page 3 of 4 (4/p)
1 2 3 4

Export to Excel select * from life where story like '%computer%' order by date limit 8, 4 (Page 3: Row)
date Desending Order (top row is first)
ordinal
title
story
Sat, May 12 2007 100 Stanley Jordan In his Master Sessions Video, Stanly Jordan talks about
how mistakes and stress correlate,
and if you make mistakes when you practice,
usually caused by stress, then the natural stress
later to occur when on stage or recording,
will make the same mistake repeat on stage.
The solution, he says,
is simply not to make mistakes when praticing.
This is easy to achieve, he continues,
all it takes is patience:
never play any faster than the speed
where you are sure you will
not make a mistake.

This system works of course really well.

I am nevertheless trying to improve upon
Stanly Jordan's thoughts and this system:

The stress-mistake correlation is rather a simple
Pavlovian response of muscle memory systems.
When you practice and make a mistake,
there is always a reason in the brain to have
caused it to direct the fingers to make this exact mistake.
Stanley Jordan noticed, that you only make mistakes
when stress comes along,
like when the phone rings, or the cat suddenly snarls,
or the music you are practicing with - just paced up a bit -, too fast for your fingers.

You are practicing, and you have already made that
particular mistake, representing a specific piece of noise
that you heard when you first made it,
which you will identify if you ever hear it again,
and you will hear it again, if you are stressed again,
all else also being the same,
so, don't make the mistakes when you practice
and you will not be able to repeat them when you are later stressed, he concludes.

But if you can hear the same mistake the second time,
not having followed Stanly Jordan's instructions to avoid it,
it means, from Stanly Jordan's accord of years of experience,
that it takes only one time, not two, for the mistake to occur,
for our muscle memory systems to record this mistake
with accuracy and be able to repeat it when conditions
so demand.

And this recording,
Stanly Jordan does not suggest how to prevent in full.

Mistake will continue to occur forever,
much less thanks to Stanly Jordan,
and hopefully even a wee bit less with this.

While Stanly Jordan points out the correlation
between mistake and stress,
and despite his otherwise usual infinite attention to detail,
in this case he is missing, I beleive,
some very improtant relevant details:

The individual mistake which occurs at a particular
timepoint in the music,
occurs with stress occuring at that same point in time,
and the timing of the surrounding split seconds
are all that is relevant.
You are not generally stressed for appearing on stage
and will overall make more mistakes.

Muscle memory records this particular
exact mistake (as I claim, with a single occurance),
as a result of the stressoccuring,
which can not possibly be unrelated to the content of the music itself.
This is why the stress finds its way to occur
at that particular instant in time in the music.
It is only when you recorded the mistake more
times than the non-mistake that the the misake will occur without stress.
This will happen if you are stubborn to repeat a mistake 'until you get it right'. You never will.
To quote Stanely Jordan: slow down until you always
get it correct,
and speed back up only as fast as you can always keep it correct, until you get it right.

But Freud tell us, that when your are stressed
is when your subconcious takes over,
which is why you make mistakes only
when you are stressed.

He is not wrong of course, and none of this
contradicts any of the above.

But it tells us something new and useful:

Who says that if the subconcious takes over
bad things will happen?
Maybe with some understanding, we can harness it?

After all, this is what psychologists have been
doing since Freud anyway,
and musicians since the first time caveman shot his arrow
from inside the hollow echoy skeleton of a mamooth,
or something like that.

Stress, first and formost, causes the quick and agile
subconcious systems to act,
faster than what it would take a more controlled operation.

Freud calls this Pavlovian response, when extreme: a trauma.

Meaning to say:
you will automatically and uncontrollably forever be stressed,
without any logical reason,
by that which happened to have occured in the time vicinity
of the traumatic event.

I must add that if the traumatic event itself is very short
and can be stamped with a single timestamp,
then the potential variety of correleted surrounding events
for the systems to record is very small.

But our subconciousness is partly many millions of years
old and partly a mere two million years in early
stages of development.
It encompasses many primitive and ancient systems, and
this happens to be one of them.

The way our subconciousness knows to tell degrees of
traumatic events apart is simple: it doesn't.

it responds traumatically, or Pavlovianly,
to the event, to the dgree of its illtemper.
Much like Staley Jordan says Staccato and Legatto are
merely digital words in the language to describe
two randomly selected numbers from a scale of one to ten
in a convenient but ineffetive method -
in my view -
traume, a simple pavovian response and the stress-mistake
correlation -
are dgrees of similar behaviour of similar systems
in our brain.

The new trick I am trying is based on
harnessing denial as a tool.
I am trying reverse psychology on my muscle memory
systems.
I am trying to train myself so that
whenever I make a mistake,
I immidiately stop everything, as if in panic,
and follow this rule as religiously as practical,
especially if I was recording until a second ago.

I am trying to make my subconciousness deny the mistake
ever occured, with a long thought process to match
and fight the muscle memory recording sequence,
by mimicing extra stressthe second I noticed
the mistake had occured.
From the elevated excitement from the beafed up evnt of the mistake, I expect to help eliminate, at least to a dgree,
the recording of the mistake.
It is also hard for such a mistake to be recorded in muscle
memory because there is no correlation sequence.
If there is absolutely no note in history that has ever
been recorded by muscle memory to follow the mistaken note,
then the mistake itself is at the far end of this muscle
memory sequence and its recorded strength must be very weak.

Since Stanly Jordan's system already insures
that if I combine the two systems it is statistically
improbable to make the same mistake twice,
and as the first and only recording is very weak,
it is less likely that such a mistake,
having been more lighly recorded,
will reoccur on stage

So whats the big deal,
all musician stop playing and start over when
they make mistakes almost all the time.

The difference is in the detail.
Almost is simply not nearly good enough.
If you practice casually without paying much
attention to these details, and set some other standards,
you might make, according to your set standards,
say 10 mistakes an hour on average,
and for nine of them you will stop and start over,
just like I am describing here.

You are not doing a 90% job at all.
You are merly recording about a mistake an hour
in your muscle memoey systems,
and having recorded this information over years,
by now your entire musical arrangment is woven
with recorded mistakes hoping for the stressful
event to appear in their lucky recorded moment in time,
or otherwise a competitor mistake will sprout and win instead.

I can't really say this is a discovry.
My habbits of how to react to mistakes
are a subject I have been toying with for some time now,
and every time I put on Stanly Jordan's master video
again I make sure I am by the computer when the part
where he talks about the stress-mistake correltion comes
on, trying to dig yet another minute detail from his elaborate description of vast experience.

This is also why it is hard for me to measure or report
how well this theory at all works.
This is how I try my best to practice most of the time,
with a very strong conviction it betters my learning speed.
I believe by now I have enough experiemnts to support this conviction.
Stanley Jordan
Stanley Jordan
Thu, May 31 2007 600 Evolution Take 1812 The Babel Fish is ancient.
A new predator arrived at the territory.
An unknown species.
The neo predator feeds only on websites of a specific kind.
If they are sufficiently symbotic with its needs,
he takes control.
It feeds the websites, creating a dependency,
thereby transorming and adjoining
them to become part of his territory of control.

Full Size Full Size Full Size
Shira Dottan
Shira Dottan

Shira
Shira

Full Size Full Size Full Size Full Size Full Size Full Size
Fri, Jul 13 2007 155 Gauss His true genious was to connect mathematics and reality,
by prooving and classifying from reality,
the true axioms of mathematics.

In math, we first take axioms for granted to be true.

If we use a system of logic where the axioms are not true,
then the system can only be used for teaching logic:

What is true then, in an axiom, if we can not proove it is true,
to make it different from the axioms that lead to
no Aristotelian logic constructs that we will ever use?

This is in fact the difference. They pertain to reality,
and Gauss has shown us that,
through mathematics.


In complexity theory -
a field in computer science theory that deals with
the complexisty of computer programs -
there is this set of very complex problems called
NP complete.
These are defined by means of a concept called Reduction.

A reduction is a logical transofrmation of one problem
to another.
If one can reduce problem A to problem B,
then B must be a harder problem or equal,
and if B were soleved,
then A is considered solved,
because it is reducible to a solved problem.

Computer science theorist have collected a large set
of such problems, showing reductions in both directions,
thereby establishing equivalence of the problems,
without ever solving any.
They are too complex, probably, to be actually solved.
But if one is ever solved in the future,
then automatically all others are solved too.
From a theoritical standpoint,
this concept is very powerful.
A world of logic consturcts with many reductions
after long research, has been built,
atop a foundation yet to be discovered.

Reduction is a mathematical construct, not just a concept.
It is a methemtical description of what logically
constitutes what is termed by this, and proof
of why it is logically correct.

Gauss connects math to reality. It is implied
by looking at his conclusions from the mathematical point
of view of reductions, and follow aristotelian logic.

The primary concept is obvious:
Reality can be counted,
and pure mathematical deductions can be drawn.

But if a certain demographic of reality can be
prooven statistically to be correct,
whereas we know this fact also to be correct
from other observations of reality,
then we can take the statistical conlusion from Gauss
to be inhetrently correct, because we know it to be true
from other sources.

This being the case we start a process of reduction
that will in the end up saying the follwing:

The axioms are prooven to be true, (in as far as reality is true,)
in all cases where the conclusions regarding reality,
which we otherwise know to be true somehow,
where the axioms are used in mathematically
arriving at the same known conclusion.

The details of the reduction process itself are not important
in this case, but it is worth noting
that the same can probably be prooven
by other means, even though mathematical proofs
in general do not necesserily work if you reverse
the order of deduction.
"A prooves B" does not necessarily imply "B prooves A",
and so a reversal may or may not be logically correct.

In other words, Gauss has classified the axioms
of mathematics that were used for prooving the central
limit theorem as correct.

The axiom, and the thorem are equivalent,
to the extent that conclusions from the theorem,
can be shown from other means to be correct.

For example, if election poles match statistical predictions,
then it is proof that A+B always equals B+A.

Full Size
Mon, Sep 17 2007 100 Internet Matrix You can sit by your computer and order
furniture, equipment, food - what not.

Say you can order food and it will arrive all the way to your mouth.

With a few more years of technology, its not that hard
to stay by the desktop while urinating too.

And if the computer is also your source of livelihood,
why would you ever leave the screen?

Emerging service oriented architecture demands
uniformity of consumption, globalization,
and a hack prone matrix.

Full Size Full Size Full Size