On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:43:06 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be
>>>>>> encoded in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> form of representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential 
>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form.
>>>>>> The mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in
>>>>>> logic, or computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but 
>>>>>> again,
>>>>>> we have to distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical
>>>>>> tools to point on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we
>>>>> assume that it exists independently of them?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Because virtually every creative person... I'll just let Steve Jobbs
>>>> make the point (Wired, 1995):
>>>>
>>>> *Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people
>>>> how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t
>>>> really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a
>>>> while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and
>>>> synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that
>>>> they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their
>>>> experiences than other people.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, that’s too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our
>>>> industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough
>>>> dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad
>>>> perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human
>>>> experience, the better design we will have.*
>>>>
>>>> Now, I assume Jobbs doesn't mean that creative people connect material
>>>> things physically with strings, and that we're talking concepts that have
>>>> assumed the same form, for millions of mathematicians, musicians,
>>>> engineers, painters etc.over the ages, regardless of the particular
>>>> configurations of their sensory apparatuses as biological beings.
>>>> Arithmetic and the major scale don't depend on the senses- this is
>>>> backwards.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Arithmetic and the major scale do depend on the senses.
>>>
>>
>> Do you use the major scale to build things?
>>
>
> You would if you were building melodies.
>
>

Didn't think you did, as your statements mimic those of art critics who can
drop some big names but otherwise have little to do with the daily craft.
Because the amount of unsupported statements you make + their implications,
if they were at least backed up by the "experience" you hang on so high a
pedestal, we could have more of a discussion. Instead, you mostly keep
throwing unsupported hyper-complex statements on hearing, musical mind,
creativity, and frames that have little to do with a working knowledge of
music.

But you'd make an excellent art critic, no doubt.


>
>>
>>
>>> You cannot create the major scale without an aural sensation,
>>>
>>
>> Aural sensation could be some infinite sum input, the magnitude of which
>> we feel, more or less accurately, depending on our histories.
>>
>
> That is possibly a valid analysis about aural sensation, but it is neither
> necessary nor sufficient to produce it.
>

That is false. The majority of a composer's task involves adding and
subtracting. In fact, you could teach a person to compose in any style with
just "too much" or "too little" referring to a point in the piece (some
measure or point). That's how most compositional craft is acquired because
numbers, like musical chords and melodies, have qualities that are hardly
reducible. Otherwise, composers could just bang out one hit or brilliant
symphony after the other, if they could refer to some string with the same
numeric relations of "good music", that they had learned.



>   You could have quantitative inputs and magnitudes and histories without
> feelings or sensations.
>

Show me one example where you can refute that possibility with absolute
certainty.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> and you cannot conceive of arithmetic concepts without sensory examples
>>> and meta-sensory correlations of those examples.
>>>
>>
>> Those sensory examples and correlations are implied by arithmetic and
>> thus the major scale. I use this in very, by your standards, "sensory
>> realist" concrete terms as well, not just in discussions such as these:
>> when teaching music theory I relate/map harmonies and interval studies, to
>> human stereotype imagery, as a starting point for ear-training/music
>> appreciation. Something to grab onto at the start, that becomes superfluous
>> as the arithmetic ratios become more visible in introspection.
>>
>
> I don't doubt the harmonic and arithmetic aspects of music, I only say
> that without the sensory experience of hearing sound they are conceptual
> noodlings that would be of no general interest.
>
>
Well I doubt that you compose much, so why/how would you even know?

High-school bands, 5 years of Piano lesson or something, doesn't suffice to
make such statement plausible, even if just from "experience" point of view.


>
>> We all feel hungry, for example, because we all have stomachs, not
>>> because there is some Platonic hunger that exists independently of stomach
>>> ownership.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hunger is also a linguistic marker for insufficiency of a value.
>>
>> You never encountered a music that was lacking in some respect or the
>> other? Never an equation unbalanced?
>>
>> If you work with sound, then orchestration problems, appropriacy of
>> gesture and phrase are already visible on the score before it gets played.
>> Even before that, in the composers mind coding it. You don't need a
>> physical orchestra, or even a simulated one to state things like "with this
>> program: brass too f, more mf", or "track 17 plus 3.8 db", or "needs
>> marimba".
>>
>> Both in hunger, and "physical" orchestration to digital mixing and
>> composition, you have some value of a program that's insufficient. In
>> addition to this, I do not, as your above statement implies, hold that
>> physical and platonic realms are as separable as you imply. Body is merely
>> an emanating structure, not platonically false in some alien realm, from
>> machine's consciousness, so very real, but as one possible consequence of
>> mind rather than primitive, as with your thinking.
>>
>
> You are using hunger in a figurative sense though - projecting the
> pathetic fallacy onto inanimate structures.
>

Again, you have a limited view of pitch and number relations. Another
unsupported statement about which can only speculate. I cannot see evidence
either way; but my weak intuition does not harmonize with your knowledge.


> It is our sense of the music which reaches out for equilibrium and
> fulfillment. It is to suit our senses. A dog or plant may not have our
> sense of music at all. Literal hunger though, is an animal experience; a
> self-revealing sensory demand to consume food. It's vocabulary is in
> super-signifying images of deliciousness which gradually become more
> all-consuming for our attention. That is not the same thing as sniffing out
> a better groove or more cowbell (not to diminish composing, just making the
> distinction).
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Sensory data is interpreted by consciousness
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. I doubt that there is any such thing as "data", and
>>> that sensory experience and consciousness are actually different ranges of
>>> the same thing, which is a physical reality, and the only physical reality.
>>>
>>>
>> Interpretation can be explicit through cognitive analysis, but otherwise
>>> it is direct and implicit. Perception is nested relativity, not data
>>> processing. There is sub-personal perception going on, and computation is
>>> necessary to organize that, but organization is not the cause of
>>> consciousness.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If sensory experience, perception, consciousness, cognitive analysis are
>> all reducible to physical reality, then going sub-personal on me seems
>> surprisingly like you need more than that physical reality.
>>
>
> I think that you are using the conventional view of what physical means.
> My view deconstructs that completely and builds a new one from scratch. To
> me, physical means only that there is a detectable presence involved,
> either publicly as a body which exists, or privately as a feeling which
> insists. As long as we are talking about a presentation and not an
> abstraction within a presentation (which is still physical on the bottom
> level), then it is physical. Non-physical refers only to nested
> representations. I dream of a mansion and the dream is a phenomenon of
> private physics, but the mansion within the dream has no physical realism.
> It isn't made of phenomenological bricks.
>

You can remap everything in language to suit your means, as word fields and
connotations run rampant. You still contradict yourself: you can't have
non-physical "nested representations" without clarifying their relationship
to the physical. Simply remapping language can ruse us into tricking
ourselves into discovering something, when were just making the same
statements with different containers.


>
>>
>>>  that perpetually dreams itself a preferred infinite fiction/computation
>>>> to encompass that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It seems like that, but no. We have dreams, and we have non-dreams.
>>>
>>
>> Some trance states are more or less disconnected from apparent physical
>> reality is as far as I'd go, but I bet weakly we are dreaming in some
>> linked fashion. Perhaps with some momentary exceptions, which perhaps can
>> be brought about by plants, various trance states, and molecules.
>>
>
> Okay sure, from an absolute perspective, the entire cosmos is nested
> dreams. I was trying to say that relatively, there is a difference between
> levels of dreaming, and that difference is physically real.
>
>

Perhaps, but how would you know before you're awake? You may wake up at
some point and say: "Oh, that was quite a literally physical dream last
night."


>
>>
>>> The whole of realism is not a side effect of compression algorithms.
>>>
>>>
>> What is the "whole of realism", with you again? I forgot how you term
>> this because of the multiplicity of your linguistic primitives, sorry no
>> irony.
>>
>
> I'm talking about, at the very least, the entire history of the human
> endeavor. All of the human lives on this Earth, with all of their impacts
> on each other spanning generations, the struggles, the triumphs, etc are
> merely compression artifacts in comp. It's like saying that the horse is
> just the stinky end of the cart.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The construction of plausibility of said computation is more a property
>>>> of consciousness itself, and not something that comes to us by observing a
>>>> leaf => we are already dreaming at that point.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The assumption of construction comes from applying sub-personal and
>>> impersonal logic, which are reflections of personal logic, erroneously,
>>> back onto the source. You are mistaking what you see in the mirror for
>>> evidence that the unseen is unreal.
>>>
>>>
>> My ontological bets are weaker and sadly not as decidable as you imply.
>> Also, you have your imagery upside down => if I have a bias than it would
>> be that I have the intuition that certain unseen numbers and their form are
>> real. And mirrors are to be found in arithmetic as well as music: "row,
>> row, row your boat" to mirror fugues.
>>
>
> The unseen that I am talking about is the perceptions of the subject. Yes,
> you are also seeing numbers superimposed as ghosts in the mirror where
> there are none.
>
>

I am not that certain and am asking and from my end, although it is clear
which way I lean. If you make the grand claim about the nature of my
perception, the burden of providing some evidence or background to support
your statement is on you. Otherwise, you may look like somebody that is
obscuring things by constantly playing hide-and-seek linguistically.


>
>>
>>>
>>>> Also note Jobbs' use of "diverse experiences", which ties in directly
>>>> with the plant teachers and how experimentation with altered states can,
>>>> given some circumstances, be of value.
>>>>
>>>> And here I have to confirm Bruno's Salvia preference: to say DMT is
>>>> merely some extension of mushrooms and not astonishing, is to confirm that
>>>> one's method is not yet fully developed, or there is some physiological
>>>> incompatibility. This is not the case and dissociative states can be
>>>> achieved with most any classical psychedelic is one doses appropriately.
>>>> And the same happens with lysergic acid diethylamide, mescaline, psilocybin
>>>> containing mushrooms etc. the more you engage the less you need. Thus I
>>>> vote diversity concerning plant or molecular helpers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm all in favor of responsible entheonautics
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed, adding that that isn't responsible in our day and age :)
>>
>
> Not for me, not, but the kids seem to be able to find themselves a
> temporary piece of freedom large enough to explore.
>
>
Infantilizing, but ok.

Perhaps the older we get, the more important it becomes to perturb the
brain from taking itself too literally. It is reported by numerous users of
psilocybin, that there is a dosage level in which the "inner voice"
disassociates itself from the subject's control. Sort of like the subject
watching their own cognitive apparatus rambling on about all its obsessions
and alien histories it would never have come to without the induced trance
state. Seemingly a good lesson for anyone that can engage the risk and as
we age; the more we bring to the table, the better it gets, assuming we're
not being stupid, on which no warranty.


>
>
>>
>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> (it's Jobs, btw).
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks man. The false operation goes: "How is Apple
>> Innovator-Megalomaniac spelled again? That extra 'b' distinguishes the
>> proper noun because nah, it can't be the plural of 'job' as in
>> 'employment'. That's wrong." :)
>>
>
> I loved me some Macintosh circa 1995, but haven't had the need for any
> gourmet computer stuff in this century.
>
>

That was premature. I don't prefer Apple or any gear in particular:
whatever helps to get music coded and accurately represented, encouraging
the playing... whatever floats your boat.


>
>> On plants, I liked Richard Doyle's "Darwin's Pharmacy" from Uni of
>> Washington Press 2011 (amazon blurb follows), although nasty to Plato:
>>
>> Are humans unwitting partners in evolution with psychedelic plants?
>> Darwin's Pharmacy weaves the evolutionary theory of sexual selection and
>> the study of rhetoric together with the science and literature of
>> psychedelic drugs. Long suppressed as components of the human tool kit,
>> psychedelic plants can be usefully modeled as "eloquence adjuncts" that
>> intensify a crucial component of sexual selection in humans: discourse. In
>> doing so, they engage our awareness of the noösphere, defined by V.I.
>> Vernadsky as the thinking stratum of the earth, the realm of consciousness
>> feeding back onto the biosphere.
>>
>> (end blurb) One thing he does is frame plants as a complex political
>> force, stating the choice isn't really ours to accept or deny in the long
>> run. I paraphrase "this hyper-sophisticated member of stoner culture
>> peering at magazines like 'High Times', salivating at the intricate
>> zoomed-in high-res beauty of the flower of the latest most advanced hemp
>> variety, and its mythical power to get him/herself high... is also merely
>> the pollen-fooled fly paying for and expending all the resources and energy
>> to spread the plant and ensure its genetic optimization and variety.
>> Coevolution implies cannabis pornography. Also has a nice sample set of
>> quotes on mystical experience of consciousness. Astronauts to Huxley to
>> mystics etc.
>>
>
> Cool. I donno, I guess I have kind of soured on Darwinian/Dawkinsian
> projections of memetic motive.
>

Your judgement has little to do with the reasoning of the book. He throws
your assessment out as irrelevant to his subject in the introduction.


> It's fun to think of language or drugs or ideas that way, but ultimately
> it's another appeal to the pathetic fallacy.
>

Well you can have more certainty in that assertion if you go for a large
portion of psilocybin and tell us who is talking when you're chemically
bound to watch.


> We don't know that we are the tools of organic machines - statistically,
> figuratively, sure, but not literally.
>
>
Which doesn't rule out that we might be such machine. That's just another
claim you make when jury's out. Viewing composition computationally is not
just some philosophical positioning and posing around; even if you refuted
everything I said, and every statement you made here were true: I still
fail to see how that is useful for the workflow of my craft. I would still
think of it in terms of number ratios stripped from the reductive and
transparently linear, inanimate properties you posit without much of
anything to back that up. Why? Because I fanatically made up my mind?

No, I am undecided on most of these things, so I stick with numbers merely
because I get better feedback on the music I write. More smiles and jobs to
do, means better musical dreams and portals. Even if all were physical.

Also we're talking plant teachers here, so I'll return to the topic, when I
have a bit of time the next days, maybe comment on their link to questions
of music and related creativity. An over-hyped, distorted, but still not
trivial affair. If "drugs", a naive term, are just another appeal to
pathetic fallacy, then ts clear you don't have much to say here.

PGC



----


> Craig
>
>
>>
>>
>> "What has the world come to that university presses publish this kind of
>> nonsense?"
>> PGC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Math is as different from language than the physical universe is
>>>>>> different from a book in cosmology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The referents of math are different from the referents of other
>>>>> specialized languages, but that doesn't mean that it is different from
>>>>> other languages. The referents of mathematics are no more infinite than
>>>>> those of art, literature, poetry, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bruno
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**march****al/<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to everything-li...@**googlegroups.**com.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group**
>>>>> /everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>>> .
>>>>> For more options, visit 
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/**grou**ps/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to everything-li...@**googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to