--- Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dan replied:
> >One of the interesting parts of this is that this question is not well
> >suited to empirical verification. We are discussing ideas that are
> >worthwhile, but never get communicated to the outside world. I think it is
> >safe to say that there exists at least some BS artists who insist that
> they
> >had great ideas for a number of different things but they just can't put
> >them into words. They also cannot put them into code, they cannot sketch
> >them out, they cannot build them, etc.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Me:
> > > For example, as a composer, I sometimes think in sound. Most of the
> >time if
> > > I hear a certain melody or harmony or tone color in my head, I can
> > >translate that to written music or synthesizer settings or code in
> >c-sound, but
> > >sometimes I hear one of the above (especially tone colors) that I can't
> >translate immediately
> > >into any written, verbal, or "setting" form.
>
> Dan:
> >Why not? If it is fully formed, what keeps you from it? I'm not trying
> to
> >criticize you, I just don't understand how you cannot know exactly what
> you
> >want but not be able to map it onto any nominal means of recording musical
> >thought.
>
> I originally wrote that when I was pretty tired, and have two replies to
> that.
<snip>
And I replied:
Perhpas the sound you are hearing in your head is not a sound that physics
(the universe) will allow.
It could be that your are hearing two sounds simultainously that if actualy
realized the waves would cancle or combine into someithing quite different.
This doesn't make it invalid mind you. It simply keeps one from expressing
the idea in this universe. AND this is only one very simple example.
There may be others which although they could be realized would take an
inordanant amount of time to do so.
Consider any NP complete problem and the specification of that problem, or
better yet the proof. It may take an inordanant amount of time to express
this symbolicaly, but the answer can be found instantainiously.
Consider an idea which although real, and realizable is beyond the ability of
our symbolic languages to express in one lifetime. You could necisarily not
proove that you have had such an idea.
This is not of course to say that we may overcome more and more of this
limitation at some point. NP complete problems now can be specified and
proved with the use of a quatum computer. (real or otherwise).
Our language is, however, still very fieble. We don't even have words or a
concrete method of explaining the slight variations between phonems.
There certinaly are ideas, and concepts which are beyond description....but
once again, you either have to have one such idea, or you have to take my
word for it..... or not.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
