I tried to bring these qualities to my cover of this song. Check it out at my myspace page. Hope you enjoy!

http://www.myspace.com/brandontilford

Check it out at my myspace…

http://www.myspace.com/brandontilford

Or download it directly from here: Slow Dancing in a Burning Room

I wonder. If we meet intelligent extra terrestrials one day (we must! — what a drag it’d be to find out we’re the only ones in this vast universe), will they have also discovered music? Would they even have the ability to hear such harmonic tones? If they do, would they hear them the same way? Would their intelligence register them in a very different way? Would the same tones evoke completely different emotion? Or is there something universal about the combination of various tones in communicating the same message? I’d like to believe the latter, but I don’t really know.

I want to believe that every musical recording I make is a permanent snapshot of my emotions at that time…something that communicates how I feel infinitely better than words ever could. Can people understand me through my music? Or is it just like any other form of communication in life — people only hear what they want to hear?

There is a lot of music I’ve recorded that I haven’t shared with the community yet (wait, I have a community…what?). I’m hoping to remedy that soon and get it to you guys! Some recordings are covers, but I have many original recordings to share too. Coming soon, I hope!

I’m sorry I haven’t posted until now. I wish I wasn’t such an immensely private, shy individual. I’ve kept to myself for so long. Months and months. Encourage me to reach out, please. I don’t know exactly what I’m asking…I think I just want out of this hole that I’ve been digging.

Until next time, my dear friends,

Brandon

P.S. Does anyone else besides me find Radiohead so incredibly intoxicating?

Not having answers to these questions can make me feel lost sometimes. I readily admit that. When I see everyone around me thinking they have the answers to most, if not all, of these questions, it’s a bit disheartening. I wish I felt that way sometimes. But most of the time, I experience just the opposite. I am GLAD I don’t have all the answers. It makes life much more interesting and exciting. Like a puzzle where some of the pieces are missing and unknown, where I only have the lower left corner and bits of the top put together with holes in them. Something like that. Frustrating, yet exhilarating and challenging. There is a reason that physicists are both eager and fearful of reaching the “Theory of Everything” a.k.a. the end of the road in theoretical physics.

Do good and evil exist in an abstract sense? We’re all capable of doing practically anything, given the right variables. The fact that even the most “evil” people are capable of executing acts we might consider “good” (and vice versa) is, to me, a small indicator (though not directly logical) that none of us are good or evil, but only capable of committing a plethora of actions that we label “good” and “evil” based on how they affect society in both locally and widely pervasive ways.

Another thing I’ve been thinking about: my mind is growing increasingly scientific. Skepticism is highly esteemed in the field, and thus it has seeped more and more into my being. Is it possible for me to still consider faith a virtue when it is at odds with skepticism? I wonder if it’s possible to simultaneously live two lives, one being a skeptical approach to the reductionist side of things, and the other being a faith-based view of holistic matters. I’ve read that some people do just that. If you are one of those people, then…how do you do it?

Religion and science both describe the same world. I don’t understand how you can just separate them into two realms that never touch each other.

I’ve been kind of underground lately…behind the scenes. Reconstructing my life. And it’s going well, by the way, for those of you who are curious. Working on math, playing piano….two things that cease to make me happy.

I got a new macbook. I’m typing away on it as we speak in my local starbucks. You see? Nothing has changed about me, really. I’m still a mac fanboy. I still love my coffee. I still love all those other things that define me.

Why do I feel so different, then? Hmmm.

*to be continued*

-B

For thousands of years, the supernatural has culturally been a pervasive topic on the minds of humans, and a majority of people today believe in a god. I believe that socially, atheists and agnostics have just as much an obligation to give reasons for their beliefs as theists, deists, and pantheists have for their respective beliefs.

Philosophically, though, does there exist a “natural state of things” that we can accept as reasonably knowable by everyone? If such a state existed, then any idea outside that state would require burden of proof by the bearer of the idea.

Can the material world qualify as this “natural state?” The metaphysical idealists would say no, but a vast majority of philosophers are metaphysical materialists or dualists, so I wish to set idealism aside.

Every one of us can touch a lemon and come to a reasonably similar consensus about its texture, color, mass, volume, and density. Can the same be said about God? Hardly. Some people believe in a vengeful, hateful, jealous God, while others believe in a compassionate, loving God. Some believe in an all powerful entity, while others believe God has limitations. Some believe in a single God, and some believe in multiple gods. Some people don’t even believe in a god at all and instead prescribe to some immaterial life force or soul that empowers us all. Where can one even remotely find something called a “consensus” in all that?

Therefore, I believe it is up to theists, deists, and pantheists to “prove” their idea in a philosophical arena. And by prove, I mean accumulate evidence that reads to a reasonable conclusion that something immaterial exists. Nothing in metaphysics can be “proven,” after all.

Is atheism or agnosticism a “default” of sorts? If you trapped a newborn baby in a windowless room for its entire life, would it grow up and believe in a god or gods? My guess is no, but I certainly hope that’s an experiment that will never be tested.

Other things:

Happy Independence Day, everyone! I must admit that I’m feeling less patriotic than previous years, though I’m sure that has little to do with the obvious things that might come to my readers’ minds. The United States seems to be losing its competitive edge in the scientific arena. Our policy seems to be heading away from environmental awareness. These kinds of things bother me.

My first day at UAB (August 19th) could not come sooner. I need a boost in my academic and social life, and I’m hoping that it’s the cure.

The new Bond trailer kicks so much ass. Watch now. :)

http://www.007.com/

Finally got Cubase up and running on my mac. Perhaps this will mean new recordings in the near future? Perhaps.

That’s all for now. Later, folks.

-B

[In response to superstring theory,] the skeptical theologian will reply, even a single superforce and a handful of simple particles require an explanation. Why that particular superforce? In fact, why any law at all?

The scientist, however, may wish to challenge the assumption that an infinite mind (God) is simpler than the universe. In our experience, mind only exists in physical systems that are above a certain threshold of complexity. The brain is a highly complicated system. While it is possible to imagine a disembodied mind, there must be some means of expression of the pattern, and the pattern itself is complex. So it could be argued that an infinite mind is infinitely complex and hence far less likely than a universe, many parts of which are far too short on complexity to support a mind.

In other words, Occam’s Razor dictates that the uncaused eternal existence of the universe is a simpler explanation than God because Occam’s Razor requires simpler beginnings, and it can be argued that God is “infinitely complex.”

Perhaps, then, God is not a mind, but something simpler? Does it in any case make sense to talk about a mind existing timelessly? Aren’t thoughts, decisions, and so on things that take place in time? But if God cannot decide (or hope, or judge, or converse) in what sense is he responsible for the nature and existence of the universe? Is such a being anything that we would recognize as a God at all? Despite these doubts, we are still left with the complexity and specificity of the universe to account for. Why this universe?

Why this universe, indeed. If M-theory is correct, however, it’s quite possible that many parallel universes exist, then our universe can be explained by the anthropic principle. IF M-theory has any truth to it.

We have seen how physicists think of space and time as a sort of four-dimensional sheet (or perhaps balloon) with the possibility of other disconnected sheets. Could the soul reside in one of these other universes? Alternatively, spacetime may be envisaged as enfolded by, or embedded in, a higher dimensional space, much as a two-dimensional surface or sheet is embedded in a three-dimensional space. Might not the soul inhabit a location in this higher dimensional space which is still (geometrically speaking) close to our physical spacetime, but not actually in it? From this higher dimensional vantage point the soul could ‘lock on’ to the body of an individual in spacetime, without itself being part of spacetime.

It’s a plausible scenario that has been suggested by philosophers for hundreds of years. I don’t know of any physical evidence for it, though.

Further problems crop up when one turns to the question of time. A soul is not in space, but is it in time? Presumably the answer is yes. If the soul is the source of our perceptions, then this must include our perception of time. Moreover, many recognizably human mental processes are explicitly time-dependent: planning, hoping, regretting, anticipating, for instance.

On the one hand, such notions are strongly tied to our perception of time in the physical world and do not accord well with the alleged separation of the physical and spiritual realms. The difficulty is exacerbated if one entertains the possibility that there may actually be an end to time: there may be no ‘everlasting’ anyway.

In summary, it seems there is a logical incoherency between a belief that the soul experiences “emotions” of some sort, yet is at the same time timeless. The experience of emotion requires the principle of cause and effect. How can something be timeless and undergo cause and effect at the same time?

That’s enough for now. More later, perhaps. Are you exercising your brain?

Other stuff:

I totally failed at the whole “post a piano video every Monday” thing. Alas, life got slightly busier (and I greeted that change with open arms).

I spent the early part of this week figuring out what classes I’ll be taking for the next year or so at UAB. Today was orientation, which was surprisingly a very nice experience. I’m finally taking some serious math courses; it’s about damn time, I say. It’s funny how something as silly as planning my classes has given me a much more positive outlook on life. I feel like I’m going places now. Perhaps I’m just at a place in my life where I very much welcome change.

This one’s from the new Coldplay album that comes out June 17th. It’s “Viva la Vida,” a song from the new Apple iTunes commercial. This is my interpretation. Enjoy. :)

http://vimeo.com/1060197

-B

I felt the song title was really fitting for the style of music in it. Tell me if you agree!

Clockwork Meadow

-B

Last night I was rewiring my studio, and I set it up so that I could record both audio and video of me playing piano. This is just a little experimental trial. I’m not very satisfied with the way viddler compresses audio.

Anyway, let me know what you think! Peace.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/trunce/videos/4/