On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:24:37 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I didn't say that you *have to* use a scale to build a melody, but you can.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> We're talking past each other. I'm talking about the reality of what sound
> actually is: a sensory-motor experience aka qualia which cannot be reduced
> or described in any meaningful way. You are talking about how musicians
> compose that qualia into richer experiences, using technical methods. You
> are overlooking that, for instance, you can't make an aqueduct without the
> existence of water first. There's nothing to harmonize or augment or
> measure or point to without the fundamental physics of hearing sound as
> sound.
>
>
And framing the problem of constructing an aqueduct requires some agent and
a universe. You say something like "material sub-personal physics of
metaphysics of physical universe of sense to conceive of a bridge" but I
don't need to go that far.



>
>>
>>
>>>   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.
>>
>
> Skipping rope.
>
>

You mind elaborating? Both ropes and skipping stir emotion in those
concerned with them.


>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>
> Argument from authority. Not that it matters, but my wife is a musician
> and music teacher, so I hear a lot of music lessons.
>
>

You're the one telling me that me that my scores and programs are nothing
but conceptual noodlings, so I ask if you've ever cooked noodles. And the
answer is "no", which is plausible and consistent with what you argue.


>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I'm not questioning your qualifications, I'm just saying that they may not
> be relevant. This is a physics issue, not a composition issue.
>
>>
>>
>
I wasn't listing my qualifications, ok. Be wary of your projections.

Concerning "this", we're talking auditory perception with background to
plant use and altered states of consciousness. If you want to approach
things from physics, then talk acoustics + altered spaces of consciousness.
I doubt that your theory can shed light on this.


>
>>>> 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 sounds like you are saying that you think you disagree with me but you
> aren't sure why.
>
>

Mostly, open problems that you claim to but haven't convincingly posed or
solved from this end.


>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> The relationship is simply that they are nested. It is the use-mention or
> map-territory relation. The paper and ink on the map is physical. The
> experience of reading the map as a territory is physical, but the nested
> abstraction of the imagined territory itself is not an independent
> presentation, it is a representation dependent on the private physics of
> the map reader. Hallucinations are physically real entopic or eidetic
> experiences - you are physically hallucinating, but the castle in the
> puddle in your mind is not physical beyond the fact of its experience as an
> image.
>
>

See? This doesn't explain, answer, or re-frame the problem fruitfully in
any sense. The statement is merely restated and elaborated with complex,
albeit catchy, analogy in a closed loop.


> Simply remapping language can ruse us into tricking ourselves into
>> discovering something, when were just making the same statements with
>> different containers.
>>
>
> People have a lot of dire warnings for me.
>

Not from me. I don't even know how you get to such conclusion. I guess you
can construe one general comment on language's slippery semantic overload
problem of operators and primitives to be "just about Craig", if you want
to.


> I think it's funny, and a little sad. We never seem to learn that the
> truth and the future don't arrive quietly and politely.
>
>

You've got to be kidding me, right? You being tongue in cheek again, I
guess.

Getting back to sound and consciousness: Your sermon in the last sentence
about future really doesn't apply to me. Tomorrow one of my apartment's
bedroom walls will be torn down, due to humidity I detected, and I will
awaken in tomorrow's future to jackhammer noise, quite impolitely I might
add :)


>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  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 act of waking up recontextualizes the realism. Within the dream, the
> dream seems real enough, as it does when you are awake. Each level of
> realism is internally consistent. If the dream is illogical, then your own
> sense of logic is commensurately diminished so that it seems normal. The
> same is true in waking life, but exponentially less so in comparison.
>
>

Which is obviously wrong as "waking life" includes altered states and all
kinds of fanatical idiots that make dreaming pink elephants, or
hallucinating them for vain pleasure or euphoria, seem quite a bit saner
than somebody who "has awakened to their ultimate cause of x", without a
hint of humility, never admitting to possible wrongs. Pink elephant subject
is aware of the dream. The relevant HSBC executives or Libor scandal guys
think, mostly with no altered state inducing substances in their physical
bloodstream, that they were just doing what had to be done in reality.

So who is dreaming "with more and less sense of logic": the drunk on the
street with pink elephants passing out in delirium, or the "very awake"
dishonest traders and what are the consequences? I don't think this is as
clear as you imply.



>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> I suspect that I only look like that for people who need me to look like
> that. There are other opinions:
>
> "Um…who are you? This is the most incredible metaphysics I’ve ever read. I
> mean, this is IT. The entire edifice of “the world,” subjective and
> objective, reducing to a single abstract yet understandable THING. It’s the
> dream of all philosophy. Bravo." - PhiGuy110
>
>
Ok, good for you, I guess.

Note however, my statement above includes "may". Does your model address
altered states of consciousness beyond "pathetic fallacy"?

Because:

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
Why would you state that, if you ultimately think:


>
>>>>
>>> It's fun to think of language or drugs or ideas that way, but ultimately
>>> it's another appeal to the pathetic fallacy.
>>>
>>
>>
Since beyond that statement your theory would have to be mute on the
thread's subject, it would seem.

>From what I understand, Comp handles the trance question better than your
model.


PGC


-----




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.
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.
>
>
>

-- 
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