filenoise
dantronic
gotta tell you guys. I found the kernel file for Windows(98) and turned it
into a wav. It's a nine-minute long symphony, it's amazing. It keeps
changing, it never gets boring. You should try it for yourself. Just look
for the largest file (40M or so) in your windows folder, you have to
duplicate it from DOS mode so that it's not being used. And read it as a
stereo file if you can.
Dayv!
Sounds like a good starting point for a more realised effort, why not
manipulate it further rather than just listening to it in its original
form?
--
-Dayv!
"It's a higher power trying to tell me
through bunnies that we're all gonna die!"
Locke
|dantronic <d...@dantronic.com> was all like:
|> I'm going to try to make this an MP3 and post it somewhere, but until then I
|> gotta tell you guys. I found the kernel file for Windows(98) and turned it
|> into a wav. It's a nine-minute long symphony, it's amazing. It keeps
|> changing, it never gets boring. You should try it for yourself. Just look
|> for the largest file (40M or so) in your windows folder, you have to
|> duplicate it from DOS mode so that it's not being used. And read it as a
|> stereo file if you can.
|
| Sounds like a good starting point for a more realised effort, why not
|manipulate it further rather than just listening to it in its original
|form?
Because the license agreement from Microsoft prohibits the manipulation
of the source code, of course (I think most license agreements do that,
at least).
CU,
Locke
NP: Snog "Dear Valued Customer"
--
_ __ ___ _ __ ___ \\|||//
| | / \ / _/| |/ /| _| / @ @ \
| |__| || || |_ | \ | _| (| \ |)
|____|\__/ \__\|_|\_\|___| \__=__/
| |
Brett Banditelli
wrote:
i always like taking files that are large,but when waved not too long,
then slowing them down
dantronic
I'm sure they've sued Negativland already for some reason.
mofolotopo
the "fair use" clause of the copyright act and be allowable. No doubt
MS probably would take you to court, but I bet they'd lose. Besides,
do you think one of the programmers would be driving around listening
to the radio and suddenly say "Oh my God! That sounds like my mouse
driver!". Nah, as long as you don't make a big point of where you got
it from I'm sure you're in the clear. And even if they did come down
hard on you, there are oodles of lawyers out there willing to work pro
bono on copyright cases that establish new law.
>Because the license agreement from Microsoft prohibits the manipulation
>of the source code, of course (I think most license agreements do that,
>at least).
>
>CU,
>Locke
>
>NP: Snog "Dear Valued Customer"
JT
_loc...@innocent.com says...
> In rec.music.experimental Dayv! came up with ...
> |manipulate it further rather than just listening to it in its original
> |form?
>
> Because the license agreement from Microsoft prohibits the manipulation
> of the source code, of course (I think most license agreements do that,
> at least).
Well unless you started making wads of cash off it (unlikely) I doubt
they'd even know.
np: Tool- Lateralus
--
"I've found I can't listen to VNV like that anymore,
everything blends together too much."
http://www.mp3.com/1148pm
Chris Bryant
>I'm going to try to make this an MP3 and post it somewhere, but until then I
>gotta tell you guys. I found the kernel file for Windows(98) and turned it
>into a wav. It's a nine-minute long symphony, it's amazing.
Of course everyone knows that OSX sounds much better (c;
/:set\AI
varing degrees- including myself- it is an important aspect of my approach
which I call "memetic alchemy"- here is the basic "mission statement":
/:set\AI Transmedia Laboratory in San Francisco [est 1995]
focus of research and expression:
"Memetic Alchemy":all forms of information and expression are encoded
digitally [photographs/digital images/ paintings/ video/ audio field
recordings/ improvised ritual sounds/ EVP recordings/recordings of
analog/digital modular-synthesis-feedback-networks/ text/ various data and
files/ occult symbololy/cosmologies/numerologies/ automatic
writing/artificial intelligence and artificial-life algorithms/ neural
networks/ deep space telemetry/ genetic code/remote-viewing data/
mathematical/fractal algorithms/ brainwaves etc] this digital information is
then processed/ merged/ manipulated/ converted to other media formats and
woven into "memestructs": [digital multimedia constructs- primarily
soundscapes /digital image/collage/and digital video]- to
experiment/explore/unfold their deeper/other meanings and conscious/
subconscious/ metaconscious implications- a kind of trans-symbology-
exploring patterns of Meaning beyond the conceptual boundries of
Burroughs/Gysin "cut-up" techniques
sys/disconnect/:set\
"dantronic" <d...@dantronic.com> wrote in message
news:9eivps$3h4$1...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu...
JT
NEW-SP...@yourpain.com says...
> dantronic <d...@dantronic.com> was all like:
> >
> > I'm going to try to make this an MP3 and post it somewhere, but until then I
> > gotta tell you guys. I found the kernel file for Windows(98) and turned it
> > into a wav. It's a nine-minute long symphony, it's amazing. It keeps
> > changing, it never gets boring. You should try it for yourself. Just look
> > for the largest file (40M or so) in your windows folder, you have to
> > duplicate it from DOS mode so that it's not being used. And read it as a
> > stereo file if you can.
>
> Sounds like a good starting point for a more realised effort, why not
> manipulate it further rather than just listening to it in its original
> form?
Tetsu Inoue did this for his part in the Archittectura (sp?) series. He
scanned in the blueprints of the building then converted them to sound
and looped/layered/etc them.
/:set\AI
to control its own internal synth engine-
you can do many other manipulations of ANY kind of file- especially good ole
.RAW format manipulation-
one thing I personally like to do allot is to take a wave file that I have
created- load it into Photoshop as a .RAW file- apply subtle- or radical
image processing such as hue or color adjustments- and of course photoshop
filters on the file- then load the file back up as a wave- infinite
possibilities!
Photoshop is one of my favorite AUDIO processing/editing tools!
"JT" <po...@message.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1579e3487...@netnews.att.net...
Locke
|"Memetic Alchemy":all forms of information and expression are encoded
|then processed/ merged/ manipulated/ converted to other media formats and
|woven into "memestructs": [digital multimedia constructs- primarily
|soundscapes /digital image/collage/and digital video]- to
|experiment/explore/unfold their deeper/other meanings and conscious/
|subconscious/ metaconscious implications- a kind of trans-symbology-
|exploring patterns of Meaning beyond the conceptual boundries of
|Burroughs/Gysin "cut-up" techniques
Ain't that a hot steaming load of bullshit? I mean, the sound we
experience is in it's analogue representation, so the AD and DA
conversions remove all patterns of meaning that the original signal
might originally contain. The result of any AD/DA conversion depends
largely on the parameters of said conversion (in terms of sound:
bitrate, sampling frequency) and very little on the actual data played.
It may be funny to play a bitmap or some software and find some patterns
in the sound, but it does not tell you the least bit about the original
source. Al this techno babble about 'patterns of meaning' is nothing
more than pure crap. Sorry if you disagree ...
CU,
Locke
NP: Nine Inch Nails "Pretty Hate Machine"
Brett Banditelli
wrote:
>/:set\AI said ...
>|"Memetic Alchemy":all forms of information and expression are encoded
>|digitally [blablabla ... etc] this digital information is
>|then processed/ merged/ manipulated/ converted to other media formats and
>|woven into "memestructs": [digital multimedia constructs- primarily
>|soundscapes /digital image/collage/and digital video]- to
>|experiment/explore/unfold their deeper/other meanings and conscious/
>|subconscious/ metaconscious implications- a kind of trans-symbology-
>|exploring patterns of Meaning beyond the conceptual boundries of
>|Burroughs/Gysin "cut-up" techniques
>
>Ain't that a hot steaming load of bullshit? I mean, the sound we
>experience is in it's analogue representation, so the AD and DA
>conversions remove all patterns of meaning that the original signal
>might originally contain. The result of any AD/DA conversion depends
>largely on the parameters of said conversion (in terms of sound:
>bitrate, sampling frequency) and very little on the actual data played.
>
>It may be funny to play a bitmap or some software and find some patterns
>in the sound, but it does not tell you the least bit about the original
>source. Al this techno babble about 'patterns of meaning' is nothing
>more than pure crap. Sorry if you disagree ...
well i remember being table to determine a sound but different bitmaps
with putting a line in certain places, i didnt have understanding to
the point that i could actually make a disired sound, but did note
changes
/:set\AI
whatever information is lossed or gained in the process IS PART of the
process- you cannot remove yourself from reality to observe it- the measurer
affects what is measured- etc
"Locke" <_loc...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:akd0ht8hr2rk5emov...@news.online.de...
/:set\AI
> experience is in it's analogue representation, so the AD and DA
> conversions remove all patterns of meaning that the original signal
> might originally contain. The result of any AD/DA conversion depends
> largely on the parameters of said conversion (in terms of sound:
> bitrate, sampling frequency) and very little on the actual data played.
you don't seem to understand importance or significance of random factors-
discrepancies/ errors/ loss in the process of manipulating/converting data
is JUST AS IMPORTANT as the source data itself
>
> It may be funny to play a bitmap or some software and find some patterns
> in the sound, but it does not tell you the least bit about the original
> source.
the changes which affect the original source- whether intentional or random-
are INTEGRAL TO THE OVERALL PATTERN- these "patterns" I'm looking for aren't
simply structures that can be discerned from the source- they are the
structures which I perceive in my Reality- which includes ALL aspects of the
process-
> Al this techno babble about 'patterns of meaning' is nothing
> more than pure crap. Sorry if you disagree ...
you do not have the right or the ability to make judgments about another
person's process of expression- shame on you-
my process is MY process- it is not for you
sys/disconnect/:set\AI
Dayv!
>
> well i remember being table to determine a sound but different bitmaps
> with putting a line in certain places, i didnt have understanding to
> the point that i could actually make a disired sound, but did note
> changes
Well, of course different files will make different sounds. Similarly,
it is unsurprising that different (uncompressed) file types will have
different characters of sounds or tendencies of patterns, since they are
written by specific data algorithms for different purposes. Locke is not
saying that the sounds of any given file are random, he's saying that
there is no meaning in the sounds heard, simply an arbitrary audio
representation of binary data that carries no information to the listener.
Locke
|sorry if you don't get it- but it has become my life's work and expression
This is a discussion board, and debate of artistic ideas and concepts
is what happens here.
|whatever information is lossed or gained in the process IS PART of the
|process- you cannot remove yourself from reality to observe it- the measurer
|affects what is measured- etc
Fair enough, but this does not explain what the 'meaning' is that you
claim to find in these patterns. i will even use your own argument
against you and say again that there is no meaning in these patterns
at all. All the meaning you were talking about is made up by your own
mind (i.e. 'the measurer') while trying to interpret completely
meaningless random data.
Not that there is something wrong in experimenting with arbitrary data
and parameters, but if you claim to find a meaning there you should be
able to explain what this 'meaning' actually is.
CU,
Locke
NP: Nurse With Wound "Silvie and Babs"
/:set\AI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Locke" <_loc...@innocent.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.experimental
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 5:53 AM
Subject: Re: filenoise
> In rec.music.experimental /:set\AI said ...
> |sorry if you don't get it- but it has become my life's work and
expression
>
> This is a discussion board, and debate of artistic ideas and concepts
> is what happens here.
correct- it is NOT for outright bashing- especially uninformed bashing- when
you indicated that "meaning" was lost when a source of information is
converted by A/D and D/A processes- you clearly showed that you did not
understand an important fact: that you cannot begin to find truly important
meaning in something if you try to remove it from ANY aspects of the reality
in which it is imbedded/entangled- such a removal removes the "essence" of
the thing itself!
If I make a scan of an image to convert /manipulate the data and observe-
and say- there was a dead insect smeared inside the scanner- I am not going
to rescan my image! the dead insect's information is just as important to me
in addressing the "meaning" of the image as the image itself-
I am interested in the patterns [which I perceive] in ALL of my Reality- not
just specific parts- I am not a Cartesian thinker- much of my research was
conducted through the Sante Fe Institue- you don't get much closer to the
"Tao of Science" than that!
>
> |whatever information is lost or gained in the process IS PART of the
> |process- you cannot remove yourself from reality to observe it- the
measurer
> |affects what is measured- etc
>
> Fair enough, but this does not explain what the 'meaning' is that you
> claim to find in these patterns. i will even use your own argument
> against you and say again that there is no meaning in these patterns
> at all. All the meaning you were talking about is made up by your own
> mind (i.e. 'the measurer') while trying to interpret completely
> meaningless random data.
Meaning IS what is created by your own mind- It cannot be anything else! the
patterns and meaning I find are ONLY what I see/hear- they cannot be
anything else- perhaps you where thinking of some sort of superficial
objective patterns? each and every pattern ever discovered is a HUMAN
artifact- none directly explain anything about the universe- they can only
give a basic shadowy outline of the world's structures- this is just basic
Platonism-
>
> Not that there is something wrong in experimenting with arbitrary data
> and parameters, but if you claim to find a meaning there you should be
> able to explain what this 'meaning' actually is.
MEANING: any perceived structure in information which predicts/recognizes
how said structure interacts with other structures in the observer's brain-
PATTERN: any perceived structure or relationship which appears non-random to
the observer
the fallacy of meaning became quite clear to me during the early days of my
AI research- about ten years ago one of the big topics was how to create a
"common sense" database- It quickly became clear that such an endeavor was
doomed- the reason is because the human brain is a vast collection of
simpler agents connected in hierarchies of complexity- this structure has
been honed by natural selection for millions of years- as well as the fact
that "knowledge" itself is a metacomplex tangle of interconnected meaning
webs that cannot simply be "programmed" into a database
a good example of this is Marvin Minsky's script: thief/careless/prison-
any human could instantly glean a huge amount of meaning from this three
word story- enough to fill a novel- the power of such a simple string of
three words to generate a huge and complex web of ideas perfectly
demonstrates how much "meaning" and "knowledge" is dependent and entangled
in the environment that it exists in-
If I find substantial and important meaning/patterns/structures/inspiration
in my process FOR MYSELF- then the process is 100% successful- which it is-
Locke
|From: "Locke" <_loc...@innocent.com>
|> This is a discussion board, and debate of artistic ideas and concepts
|> is what happens here.
|
|correct- it is NOT for outright bashing- especially uninformed bashing- when
|you indicated that "meaning" was lost when a source of information is
|converted by A/D and D/A processes- you clearly showed that you did not
|understand an important fact: that you cannot begin to find truly important
|meaning in something if you try to remove it from ANY aspects of the reality
|in which it is imbedded/entangled- such a removal removes the "essence" of
|the thing itself!
Okay, I'll stop with this discussion here since it leads into a
philosophical debate about 'meaning' which I'm not interested in right
now, especially not in a music group. I still don't fully agree with
you, but at least I can see where you're coming from, so thanks for your
explanations.
CU,
Locke
NP: People Like Us "Hate People Like Us"
James Whitehead
<_loc...@innocent.com> writes
>In rec.music.experimental /:set\AI came up with ...
>|From: "Locke" <_loc...@innocent.com>
>|> This is a discussion board, and debate of artistic ideas and concepts
>|> is what happens here.
>|
>|correct- it is NOT for outright bashing- especially uninformed bashing- when
>|you indicated that "meaning" was lost when a source of information is
>|converted by A/D and D/A processes- you clearly showed that you did not
>|understand an important fact: that you cannot begin to find truly important
>|meaning in something if you try to remove it from ANY aspects of the reality
>|in which it is imbedded/entangled- such a removal removes the "essence" of
>|the thing itself!
>
>Okay, I'll stop with this discussion here since it leads into a
>philosophical debate about 'meaning' which I'm not interested in right
>now, especially not in a music group.
Here then is the end of music and experiment...
> I still don't fully agree with
>you, but at least I can see where you're coming from, so thanks for your
>explanations.
>
>CU,
>Locke
>
>NP: People Like Us "Hate People Like Us"
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<_loc...@innocent.com> writes
>In rec.music.experimental /:set\AI said ...
>|sorry if you don't get it- but it has become my life's work and expression
>
>This is a discussion board, and debate of artistic ideas and concepts
>is what happens here.
>
>|whatever information is lossed or gained in the process IS PART of the
>|process- you cannot remove yourself from reality to observe it- the measurer
>|affects what is measured- etc
>
>Fair enough, but this does not explain what the 'meaning' is that you
>claim to find in these patterns. i will even use your own argument
>against you and say again that there is no meaning in these patterns
>at all. All the meaning you were talking about is made up by your own
>mind (i.e. 'the measurer') while trying to interpret completely
>meaningless random data.
Obtaining random - therefore meaningless data is extremely difficult -
maybe impossible thing to do, the hiss made on an FM radio is actually
the signal of hydrogen and contains quite a bit of information - the
better random generators use noise within the electronics - but that
again proposes that particles behave randomly...
>
>Not that there is something wrong in experimenting with arbitrary data
>and parameters, but if you claim to find a meaning there you should be
>able to explain what this 'meaning' actually is.
Not so i think - imagine digging up some metal artefact from some lost
civilization, it would be reasonable to suppose it had a meaning - use
or purpose yet not know what it was. Even today we use expressions which
once had meaning - by jove.
>
>CU,
>Locke
>
>NP: Nurse With Wound "Silvie and Babs"
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
MA-NEW-...@yourpain.com> writes
>Brett Banditelli <ben...@tamaqua.com> was all like:
>>
>> well i remember being table to determine a sound but different bitmaps
>> with putting a line in certain places, i didnt have understanding to
>> the point that i could actually make a disired sound, but did note
>> changes
>
> Well, of course different files will make different sounds. Similarly,
>it is unsurprising that different (uncompressed) file types will have
>different characters of sounds or tendencies of patterns, since they are
>written by specific data algorithms for different purposes. Locke is not
>saying that the sounds of any given file are random, he's saying that
>there is no meaning in the sounds heard, simply an arbitrary audio
>representation of binary data that carries no information to the listener.
>
could extract meaning- even recognising what the files contain, if say a
particular set of machine instructions result in a particular sound....
is nothing more spectacular than someone listening to Morse code and
getting meaning....
--
James Whitehead
Dayv!
>
> In article <9eqrkr$hv8m$3...@ID-82567.news.dfncis.de>, Dayv! <laughingLOOK-
> MA-NEW-...@yourpain.com> writes
>>
>>it is unsurprising that different (uncompressed) file types will have
>>different characters of sounds or tendencies of patterns, since they are
>>written by specific data algorithms for different purposes. Locke is not
>>saying that the sounds of any given file are random, he's saying that
>>there is no meaning in the sounds heard, simply an arbitrary audio
>>representation of binary data that carries no information to the listener.
>>
> Well it depends on the listener i would not be surprised if someone
> could extract meaning- even recognising what the files contain, if say a
> particular set of machine instructions result in a particular sound....
> is nothing more spectacular than someone listening to Morse code and
> getting meaning....
The human brain does not operate fast enough to recognise instructions
going by that quickly. That would be like looking at an incandescent bulb
and being able to see it pulse with the alternating current or
interpreting the morse code of an entire novel compressed into a five
minute burst of beeps. Sure, we might be able to recognise the character
of the data, but nobody will be able to say "this audio representation
of a bitmap file had the woman's left eye corrected for retinal
reflection of the camera's flash."
--
-Dayv!
"I'm gonna fuck you in my red hot car."
James Whitehead
<laughingLOOK-M...@yourpain.com> writes
define, however in order to extract some meaning the whole picture would
not be needed. I'm certain that to begin with differentiating ASCII text
from machine code would be a simple matter. How fine the differentiation
could be achieved is difficult to say but i wouldn't be surprised if
recognition of bitmaps couldn't be achieved. If you think about what is
happening in the retinal system anyway...
--
James Whitehead
Dayv!
> define, however in order to extract some meaning the whole picture would
> not be needed. I'm certain that to begin with differentiating ASCII text
> from machine code would be a simple matter. How fine the differentiation
> could be achieved is difficult to say but i wouldn't be surprised if
> recognition of bitmaps couldn't be achieved. If you think about what is
> happening in the retinal system anyway...
I'm willing to say that some people might be able to differentiate
file types, but I am certain that no human could listen to a bitmap played
as a wav with no time changes and recognise the *content* (or, if you
prefer, meaning) of the image.
Locke
|Obtaining random - therefore meaningless data is extremely difficult -
|maybe impossible thing to do, the hiss made on an FM radio is actually
|the signal of hydrogen and contains quite a bit of information - the
|better random generators use noise within the electronics - but that
|again proposes that particles behave randomly...
The thing about the hiss on radio being a signal of hydrogen sounds
really awkward. AFAIK the hiss is the result of fluctuating
electromagnetic waves which have many sources, from thermic movement of
particles in the atmosphere to emissions from man-made electric
equipment and much more. Probably you were thinking of cosmic radio
waves altered by cosmic hydrogen, but that's only one source for the
hissing on radio, and filtered through your radio's circuits it does not
contain much information about hydrogen anymore. You know, there is a
reason why astrophysics use elaborate radio telescopes instead of
listening to hissing radios all night.
In principle you're right that completely random data is difficult to
obtain (although non-deterministic behavior of particles does exist on
quantum level), however if the information contained within the data is
not decipherable, then the data is meaningless and could be considered
random. And since we're talking about music here, the methods of
examination are limited to the channel of air vibration of a limited
frequency range coming to your ears. This means that all information
that does not travel through this channel must be considered useless
during this discussion.
|Not so i think - imagine digging up some metal artefact from some lost
|civilization, it would be reasonable to suppose it had a meaning - use
|or purpose yet not know what it was. Even today we use expressions which
|once had meaning - by jove.
No prob ... all I am saying is: Once the meaning is lost, it is lost.
You can discover the remaining structures, experiment with them, but
please don't tell me there is an underlying meaning left after your
conversion methods removed all the information necessary to retrieve the
original meaning. That's new-age techno babble, and nothing more ...
CU,
Locke
NP: Black Lung "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars"
Marian Try Slaughter
wrote:
I'll vouch with dayv! on this one.
And from experience, its relatively easy, after a few listens to figure out what
different file types sound like. But in no way can you tell what the files
contain.
np: autechre - cichlisuite
If I had enough ink, I could write music like that.
Simon - mhm27x5
James Whitehead
<laughingLOOK-M...@yourpain.com> writes
between a blue rectangle and a white rectangle .bmp, the blue is louder
and appears wider distributed across the stereo field.
Second test - a bmp of the Union Jack and another of the Stars and
Stripes - quite different! The Union flag give two bursts of quite deep
tones, the Stars and Stripes is quiet at first then becomes very noisy
and not so tonal ... So i can recognise differences in form and in
colour - this at least provides some evidence that given many years of
training quite fine differentiation's could be achieved. (Even at my
present level of ability i could semaphore messages using BMPs)
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<_loc...@innocent.com> writes
>In rec.music.experimental James Whitehead came up with ...
>|Obtaining random - therefore meaningless data is extremely difficult -
>|maybe impossible thing to do, the hiss made on an FM radio is actually
>|the signal of hydrogen and contains quite a bit of information - the
>|better random generators use noise within the electronics - but that
>|again proposes that particles behave randomly...
>
>The thing about the hiss on radio being a signal of hydrogen sounds
>really awkward. AFAIK the hiss is the result of fluctuating
>electromagnetic waves which have many sources, from thermic movement of
>particles in the atmosphere to emissions from man-made electric
>equipment and much more. Probably you were thinking of cosmic radio
>waves altered by cosmic hydrogen, but that's only one source for the
>hissing on radio, and filtered through your radio's circuits it does not
>contain much information about hydrogen anymore. You know, there is a
>reason why astrophysics use elaborate radio telescopes instead of
>listening to hissing radios all night.
Yes i was aware of this - but the first guy to discover cosmic radio
sources i think was a TV aerial rigger who noticed a pattern in the
noise - i.e. information. Sure scientists use radio telescopes - though
are these elaborate or just more finely tuned and bigger! If we are
talking of quantities of information the discovery of the cosmic sources
seems pretty big...
>
>In principle you're right that completely random data is difficult to
>obtain (although non-deterministic behavior of particles does exist on
>quantum level),
in theory ....
>however if the information contained within the data is
>not decipherable, then the data is meaningless and could be considered
>random.
this looks like a tautology to me - most codes used by the military are
intended to be non-decipherable!
>And since we're talking about music here, the methods of
>examination are limited to the channel of air vibration of a limited
>frequency range coming to your ears. This means that all information
>that does not travel through this channel must be considered useless
>during this discussion.
There are examples of music which is not confined to air vibration - but
letting that pass for a moment - what subtitles are being carried is
complex, only if for certain the information has been filtered can we
say its lost, and then how do we know that the filtering has been
effective.
>
>|Not so i think - imagine digging up some metal artefact from some lost
>|civilization, it would be reasonable to suppose it had a meaning - use
>|or purpose yet not know what it was. Even today we use expressions which
>|once had meaning - by jove.
>
>No prob ... all I am saying is: Once the meaning is lost, it is lost.
But you never know its lost for sure - and if someone discovers a
rosetta stone then bingo the information re-appears.
>You can discover the remaining structures, experiment with them, but
>please don't tell me there is an underlying meaning left after your
>conversion methods removed all the information necessary to retrieve the
>original meaning. That's new-age techno babble, and nothing more ...
>
Nothing new-age... I'm not saying anything of the sort. A meaningless
text is only meaningless provisionally... and from my experiences
recently claims about what will happen and what does are often
different. Quantum theory approximates the reality that musicians
*experiment* with. Cases are the DC offset being silent- not so in
practice - or being aware of a 1 Hz sine wave.... which should be below
both my and my hi-fis ability to perceive... yet i can sit and watch the
gently moving speaker cones - an example of non-audible perception of an
idea based on vibration in air - is this music?
>CU,
>Locke
>
>NP: Black Lung "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars"
NP : Stockhausen for ensemble
Downwards
play a vibration in the rhythm of your limbs
play a vibration in the rhythm of your cells
play a vibration in the rhythm of your molecules
play a vibration in the rhythm of your atoms
play a vibration in the rhythm of your smallest particles
which your inner ear can reach
change slowly from one rhythm to another
until you become freer
and can interchange them at will
:-)
--
James Whitehead
Dayv!
> between a blue rectangle and a white rectangle .bmp, the blue is louder
> and appears wider distributed across the stereo field.
> Second test - a bmp of the Union Jack and another of the Stars and
> Stripes - quite different! The Union flag give two bursts of quite deep
> tones, the Stars and Stripes is quiet at first then becomes very noisy
> and not so tonal ... So i can recognise differences in form and in
> colour - this at least provides some evidence that given many years of
> training quite fine differentiation's could be achieved. (Even at my
> present level of ability i could semaphore messages using BMPs)
A couple points:
You are talking about extremely simple bitmap images.
You've listened to these bitmaps with an awareness of the image they come
from. If you were given a wav made from an imae unknown to you, would you
be able to describe the image without converting it back to a bitmap?
dantronic
/:set\AI wrote in message ...
dantronic
:D
Chris Bryant wrote in message ...
James Whitehead
<laughingLOOK-M...@yourpain.com> writes
Similar thought then - imagine someone reading the above thread to me in
Chinese - i would have the same problem, but that wouldn't stop some
people (in china) understanding it and other texts which contain great
subtly. Secondly the idea of having to translate the sound of the .BMP
into images need not arise. OK so hold up the keyboard and exclaim the
Chinese for it - i could figure this out quite quickly, but that's not
how i learnt the word keyboard in the first place. (or did i already
know what this was called?)
Imagine a blind red coat in the war of independence using a scanner and
wav player - he soon realises that the sound of a certain .bmp brings
with it being shot at- whilst at another his chums arrive... this
redcoat understands the "flags" - does he not - without any conversion.
--
James Whitehead
Dayv!
>
> In article <9f034g$1k1i6$1...@ID-82567.news.dfncis.de>, Dayv!
> <laughingLOOK-M...@yourpain.com> writes
>>
>>
>>You are talking about extremely simple bitmap images.
>>
>>You've listened to these bitmaps with an awareness of the image they come
>>from. If you were given a wav made from an imae unknown to you, would you
>>be able to describe the image without converting it back to a bitmap?
>>
>
> Similar thought then - imagine someone reading the above thread to me in
> Chinese - i would have the same problem, but that wouldn't stop some
> people (in china) understanding it and other texts which contain great
> subtly. Secondly the idea of having to translate the sound of the .BMP
> into images need not arise. OK so hold up the keyboard and exclaim the
> Chinese for it - i could figure this out quite quickly, but that's not
> how i learnt the word keyboard in the first place. (or did i already
> know what this was called?)
>
> Imagine a blind red coat in the war of independence using a scanner and
> wav player - he soon realises that the sound of a certain .bmp brings
> with it being shot at- whilst at another his chums arrive... this
> redcoat understands the "flags" - does he not - without any conversion.
OK, I'm not even discussing this with you anymore. You spout
nonsensical claptrap as if it supports your argument when all it does is
obscure it.
np: Lustmord vs. Metal Beast
dantronic
certainly NASA- if you listen to survey data you can pick out different
patterns than by looking at it.
Andrew Cox wrote in message ...
>My question would be - why would you want to? It would be a good party
>trick, but not of any real use artistically.
>
>
>--
>Remove localhost to reply.
Locke
|between a blue rectangle and a white rectangle .bmp, the blue is louder
|and appears wider distributed across the stereo field.
|Second test - a bmp of the Union Jack and another of the Stars and
|Stripes - quite different! The Union flag give two bursts of quite deep
|tones, the Stars and Stripes is quiet at first then becomes very noisy
|and not so tonal ... So i can recognise differences in form and in
|colour - this at least provides some evidence that given many years of
|training quite fine differentiation's could be achieved. (Even at my
|present level of ability i could semaphore messages using BMPs)
Now repeat this experiment with different file formats (b/w, 256, 65536,
16777216 colors, 8 bit, 16 bit, 20 bit sound, different resolutions and
sampling frequencies ... whatever). Would your red coat still survive?
What about program code? How does Microsoft and Linux programs differ
(other than the obvious fact that the Microsoft tunes are longer)?
CU,
Locke
NP: The Wirtschaftswunder "Pop Adenauer"
Locke
|In article <4k65ht4lq3kjik67f...@news.tiscali.de>, Locke
|<_loc...@innocent.com> writes
|>not decipherable, then the data is meaningless and could be considered
|>random.
|
|this looks like a tautology to me - most codes used by the military are
|intended to be non-decipherable!
Only to those who don't have the key to the code. Which is exactly my
point, if you throw away the key the information becomes undecipherable
and meaningless.
| ... - what subtitles are being carried is
|complex, only if for certain the information has been filtered can we
|say its lost, and then how do we know that the filtering has been
|effective.
We know this for certain because the transcription method we're talking
about is a lossy process. A D/A conversion (playing digital data as
music) is irreversible.
|>No prob ... all I am saying is: Once the meaning is lost, it is lost.
|
|But you never know its lost for sure - and if someone discovers a
|rosetta stone then bingo the information re-appears.
Okay, replace the first 'lost' in the above sentence by 'irreversibly
lost'.
| ... Cases are the DC offset being silent- not so in
|practice - or being aware of a 1 Hz sine wave.... which should be below
|both my and my hi-fis ability to perceive... yet i can sit and watch the
|gently moving speaker cones - an example of non-audible perception of an
|idea based on vibration in air - is this music?
Well, the DC offset is not really a signal but an artefact produced by
the equipment you've used. All you should be hearing from it is a short
click impulse when the DC is switched on and another one when it is
switched off.
The 1 Hz tone is not music in my book either because it's outside of
your perceived frequency range. The visual stimulation of the moving
speaker cone is not a musical one, and there is no moving air involved
in the process.
CU,
Locke
NP: The Wirtschaftswunder "Pop Adenauer"
T-mu
In article <9f0i6a$h27$2...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, "dantronic"
<d...@dantronic.com> wrote:
years ago i saw a man on tv identify classical vinyl records from the
grooves. he took a look at the 12" from a 0.5-1 meter distance and
identified the piece.. obviously the label was covered... it was one of
those 'guinness records'-type of shows. party tricks indeed... :)
in william gibson's 'idoru' one of the main characters is a man capable of
finding relevant information from huge amounts of abstract data, 'nodal
points' as it is on the story, i think. good book. recommended.
t-mu
James Whitehead
<_loc...@innocent.com> writes
>In rec.music.experimental James Whitehead came up with ...
>|In article <4k65ht4lq3kjik67f...@news.tiscali.de>, Locke
>|<_loc...@innocent.com> writes
>|>however if the information contained within the data is
>|>not decipherable, then the data is meaningless and could be considered
>|>random.
>|
>|this looks like a tautology to me - most codes used by the military are
>|intended to be non-decipherable!
>
>Only to those who don't have the key to the code. Which is exactly my
>point, if you throw away the key the information becomes undecipherable
>and meaningless.
code breakers and scientists have no keys yet decode messages...
>
>| ... - what subtitles are being carried is
>|complex, only if for certain the information has been filtered can we
>|say its lost, and then how do we know that the filtering has been
>|effective.
>
>We know this for certain because the transcription method we're talking
>about is a lossy process. A D/A conversion (playing digital data as
>music) is irreversible.
but this lost data can be re-constructed - paelentologists do this all
the time.
>
>|>No prob ... all I am saying is: Once the meaning is lost, it is lost.
>|
>|But you never know its lost for sure - and if someone discovers a
>|rosetta stone then bingo the information re-appears.
>
>Okay, replace the first 'lost' in the above sentence by 'irreversibly
>lost'.
we are getting philosophical here but that lost data can in principle be
found.
>
>| ... Cases are the DC offset being silent- not so in
>|practice - or being aware of a 1 Hz sine wave.... which should be below
>|both my and my hi-fis ability to perceive... yet i can sit and watch the
>|gently moving speaker cones - an example of non-audible perception of an
>|idea based on vibration in air - is this music?
>
>Well, the DC offset is not really a signal but an artefact produced by
>the equipment you've used. All you should be hearing from it is a short
>click impulse when the DC is switched on and another one when it is
>switched off.
Which is what i do - however when we first discussed this the thought
was that i should hear nothing, only the empirical experiment produce
the click, OK this is then explained, but now i'm getting other
artefacts in other DC offsets and have yet to receive any explanation.
>
>The 1 Hz tone is not music in my book either because it's outside of
>your perceived frequency range. The visual stimulation of the moving
>speaker cone is not a musical one, and there is no moving air involved
>in the process.
If you argue that music must and is only heard then you rule this out,
and also any feeling of vibrations, or the pleasure of reading a musical
score. What of the guy reading the music off a grove on an LP? Further
tones of about 15 htz down to about 5 produce gentle breezes from the
speakers, so somewhere the sine wave from 5 htz down ceases to be music?
And there is moving air involved. I see only imagination as limiting
what music is.
Have fun
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<_loc...@innocent.com> writes
>In rec.music.experimental James Whitehead came up with ...
>|Just a quick test - without any training i can tell the difference
>|between a blue rectangle and a white rectangle .bmp, the blue is louder
>|and appears wider distributed across the stereo field.
>|Second test - a bmp of the Union Jack and another of the Stars and
>|Stripes - quite different! The Union flag give two bursts of quite deep
>|tones, the Stars and Stripes is quiet at first then becomes very noisy
>|and not so tonal ... So i can recognise differences in form and in
>|colour - this at least provides some evidence that given many years of
>|training quite fine differentiation's could be achieved. (Even at my
>|present level of ability i could semaphore messages using BMPs)
>
>Now repeat this experiment with different file formats (b/w, 256, 65536,
>16777216 colors, 8 bit, 16 bit, 20 bit sound, different resolutions and
>sampling frequencies ... whatever). Would your red coat still survive?
>
>What about program code? How does Microsoft and Linux programs differ
>(other than the obvious fact that the Microsoft tunes are longer)?
>
i thought originally the point was made that .bmps could not be
differentiated - now we are talking of subtleties. Elsewhere in this
thread some guy can see the music in a record grove - isn't that a
pointer to what might be possible - but as said elsewhere a somewhat
pointless party trick. Program code has a signature - whether Linux is
sufficiently different for a novice to hear is not clear to me. Some
mainframe computers in the 70s had speakers and some programmers could
hear the code and spot errors - i joke not - a loop was quite obvious.
It was even possible to play tunes if you knew machine code well
enough...
--
James Whitehead
dantronic
>thread some guy can see the music in a record grove - isn't that a
>pointer to what might be possible - but as said elsewhere a somewhat
>pointless party trick.
no party trick. One real advantage vinyl has over other formats is that you
can see where to put the needle within a song. You can also get a sense for
a song just by looking at it- how long is it, are there repeated sections,
what is the dynamic range like.
The most unique vinyl track to look at is of course John Cage's 4'33"...
tronic
np: Jethro Tull/Thick as a Brick
Locke
|Obviously it would take time - and practice to differentiate subtleties,
|i thought originally the point was made that .bmps could not be
|differentiated - now we are talking of subtleties.
The coding/decoding process is not a subtlety here. It's as important
as the data in the original file, yet it's an arbitrary factor that
does not contain any meaning in lieu of the original picture or
whatever you were using).
Also, nobody said you couldn't differentiate between different data
files, no doubt that there are certain patterns, my question is how
much 'meaning' do these patterns contain.
CU,
Locke
NP: Laibach "Jesus Christ Superstars"
Locke
|>about is a lossy process. A D/A conversion (playing digital data as
|>music) is irreversible.
|
|but this lost data can be re-constructed - paelentologists do this all
|the time.
Please understand that the word "irreversible" means that exactly this
is NOT possible.
|If you argue that music must and is only heard then you rule this out,
|and also any feeling of vibrations, or the pleasure of reading a musical
|score.
Yes, music is this what can be heard. Feeling certain vibrations,
visual stimuli etc. can add to the experience. Reading a musical
score is a bit difficult since there is no real sound involved. But
the ability to do this requires a lot of experience with 'real' sounds
so that the music can made up in your mind. You could call it
'virtual music' if you like.
| I see only imagination as limiting
|what music is.
So When I call a cucumber 'cucumber' and not 'music', it's only my
lack of imagination at work here? Get real ...
CU,
Locke
NP: Laibach "Jesus Christ Superstars"
mofolotopo
>Now repeat this experiment with different file formats (b/w, 256, 65536,
>16777216 colors, 8 bit, 16 bit, 20 bit sound, different resolutions and
>sampling frequencies ... whatever). Would your red coat still survive?
>
>What about program code? How does Microsoft and Linux programs differ
>(other than the obvious fact that the Microsoft tunes are longer)?
The Microsoft tunes freeze up halfway through and have to be
restarted.
http://www.mp3.com/danwarren
T-mu
In article <lk2dht8hcqd8e6h3o...@4ax.com>, mofolotopo
<bi...@my.ass> wrote:
>>What about program code? How does Microsoft and Linux programs differ
>>(other than the obvious fact that the Microsoft tunes are longer)?
somebody mentioned sinclair zx81 and i remembered the countless hours i
listened to that and spectrum loading the programs.. or did only spectrum
play the data through it's speaker? can't even remember anymore.. hmm, i
think zx81 didn't have sound at all... :)
too bad my spectrum just disintegrated with time... well, there's the
emulators (macspectacle, nice one, for example) but ... no ... loading noise
...
James Whitehead
<d...@dantronic.com> writes
something else (table of elements 28 NI nickel...)
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<lo...@mad.scientist.com> writes
>In rec.music.experimental James Whitehead said ...
>|Obviously it would take time - and practice to differentiate subtleties,
>|i thought originally the point was made that .bmps could not be
>|differentiated - now we are talking of subtleties.
>
>The coding/decoding process is not a subtlety here. It's as important
>as the data in the original file, yet it's an arbitrary factor that
>does not contain any meaning in lieu of the original picture or
>whatever you were using).
>
>Also, nobody said you couldn't differentiate between different data
>files, no doubt that there are certain patterns, my question is how
>much 'meaning' do these patterns contain.
>
Imagine a blind person hearing BMPs - they may well be able to detect
meanings that we fail to see - at least i see no reason why this could
not be so...
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<lo...@mad.scientist.com> writes
>In rec.music.experimental James Whitehead said ...
>|>We know this for certain because the transcription method we're talking
>|>about is a lossy process. A D/A conversion (playing digital data as
>|>music) is irreversible.
>|
>|but this lost data can be re-constructed - paelentologists do this all
>|the time.
>
>Please understand that the word "irreversible" means that exactly this
>is NOT possible.
This is a philosophical position, and one which i may agree with however
much it seems logically wrong.
>
>|If you argue that music must and is only heard then you rule this out,
>|and also any feeling of vibrations, or the pleasure of reading a musical
>|score.
>
>Yes, music is this what can be heard. Feeling certain vibrations,
>visual stimuli etc. can add to the experience. Reading a musical
>score is a bit difficult since there is no real sound involved. But
>the ability to do this requires a lot of experience with 'real' sounds
>so that the music can made up in your mind. You could call it
>'virtual music' if you like.
I would differ here - i find the work of stockhausen as much music as
any heard sounds. Obviously 4'33" is not music in your book, but appears
in many others.
>
>| I see only imagination as limiting
>|what music is.
>
>So When I call a cucumber 'cucumber' and not 'music', it's only my
>lack of imagination at work here? Get real ...
Exactly - scraping a cat gut with a horse tail is only lack of
imagination also.
regarding cucumbers maybe they do make sounds?
--
James Whitehead
skyblur
> In rec.music.experimental James Whitehead said ...
> |Obviously it would take time - and practice to differentiate subtleties,
> |i thought originally the point was made that .bmps could not be
> |differentiated - now we are talking of subtleties.
>
> The coding/decoding process is not a subtlety here. It's as important
> as the data in the original file, yet it's an arbitrary factor that
> does not contain any meaning in lieu of the original picture or
> whatever you were using).
>
> Also, nobody said you couldn't differentiate between different data
> files, no doubt that there are certain patterns, my question is how
> much 'meaning' do these patterns contain.
>
The act of rendering code -> .wav (I think this is what
you mean by 'coding/decoding') processes the code so all that
remains audible is its structure, which I presume is of relevance
to the artist, and what they attempt to communicate.
All other aspects, including the function or "meaning" of the original
code, are rendered as gibberish. These aspects are intentionally destroyed.
The reason being, the listener wouldn't usually contemplate the
structure divorced from the original context (of meaning, function and so on).
It's necessary to tear down this scaffolding, in hopes the foundation
will survive.
So now that we have it, *why* would the raw structure be of interest?
I think this question goes to the viability of the whole "filenoise"
concept.
-skyblur-
skyblur
> In rec.music.experimental James Whitehead said ...
> |>We know this for certain because the transcription method we're talking
> |>about is a lossy process. A D/A conversion (playing digital data as
> |>music) is irreversible.
> |
> |but this lost data can be re-constructed - paelentologists do this all
> |the time.
>
> Please understand that the word "irreversible" means that exactly this
> is NOT possible.
>
> |If you argue that music must and is only heard then you rule this out,
> |and also any feeling of vibrations, or the pleasure of reading a musical
> |score.
>
> Yes, music is this what can be heard. Feeling certain vibrations,
> visual stimuli etc. can add to the experience.
But can you fully separate out which parts of the experience
correspond to which sensations? Most of the time yes, but
what about "marginal" sounds (low amplitude, high/low frequencies)
or sounds in which it's extremely hard to discern frequency content
(clicks, or noise-textures)? Extra-musical elements
must have something to do with how we hear, because it is the
brain which registers the sound as phenomenon, and the brain is
susceptible to other sensations, owing to the *unified* nature of sensation
in pre-evolutionary times.
A simple example: a 30 Hz tone (I'm being realistic here) is mostly felt not
heard. The tone can become "louder" by artificially increasing the
vibrations. The feeling is how we judge the quality of this sound. Most
of us certainly can't determine pitch, and so forth.
I guess the musical relevance of all this (psychoacoustics) are that
we can, using "marginal" sounds and/or extra-musical elements, render
sound-phenomena in the brain which could not arise from the raw
physical aspects of air vibrations. Perhaps one could suggest the
physically impossible/unrealizable, yet trick the listener into
perceiving this as direct experience. This anyway expands the palette
of sound materials at our disposal, from what "is" to what we could imagine.
On the other hand, I don't think the listener can simply choose what
to imagine.
> Reading a musical
> score is a bit difficult since there is no real sound involved. But
> the ability to do this requires a lot of experience with 'real' sounds
> so that the music can made up in your mind. You could call it
> 'virtual music' if you like.
>
I agree here. What is musically relevant, at least, must involve that
grey area between sound and non-sound. And has nothing to do with
cucumbers.
> | I see only imagination as limiting
> |what music is.
>
> So When I call a cucumber 'cucumber' and not 'music', it's only my
> lack of imagination at work here? Get real ...
>
> CU,
> Locke
>
> NP: Laibach "Jesus Christ Superstars"
-skyblur-
dantronic
>I think this question goes to the viability of the whole "filenoise"
>concept.
>
>-skyblur-
why is it of interest? it sounds awesome, that's what I posted in the
original message on this thread! The file I was listening to is the kernel
of Windows98, and there are some amazing sounding patterns. Locke was
saying that these patterns have no relevance in relation to the code itself.
I'm just saying it sounds great.
tronic
James Whitehead
<im_v...@yahoo.com> writes
>Locke <lo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message news:<2toahtsh85lss3tnfbtp7sk6g
>skdk...@news.online.de>...
digital age - or in digital media - that what we see and hear are
digital artefacts which only resemble "real" pictures and sounds, and
are in reality just strings of binary....
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<im_v...@yahoo.com> writes
>Locke <lo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message news:<k5saht4flqta1vpfdcfm2lpit
>2nrk...@news.online.de>...
however "music" is a concept - and not something "out there" - at one
time music was only allowed if played within a given key structure, from
the twentieth century onwards this narrow idea has been enlarged - and
by some completely opened out. There are no more boundaries - cucumbers
are as relevant to music as are violins or electric guitars.
Electromagnetic waves being not sound are therefore not music? Sound as
vibrations of air is only an intermediary, would a synthesiser linked
directly to the audio system of the brain not be able to be thought of
as producing music. *Sounds* of bats and dolphins are translated - so to
the sounds of radio stars- but then these are translated into a sense we
are able to use - i.e. sight or sound, though why not smell or touch. We
now know that the universe is not limited to the spectra that our senses
perceive, and it is in this universe that the artist lives. "play a
vibration in the rhythm of the universe"
>> | I see only imagination as limiting
>> |what music is.
>>
>> So When I call a cucumber 'cucumber' and not 'music', it's only my
>> lack of imagination at work here? Get real ...
>>
>> CU,
>> Locke
>>
>> NP: Laibach "Jesus Christ Superstars"
>
>-skyblur-
--
James Whitehead
Avatar
changing the file extension to WAV, but that didn't work. Could you
explain to me what you did?
PLUR,
Avatar
http://www.mp3.com/conceptualphon
"Dayv!" <laughingLOOK-M...@yourpain.com> wrote in message news:<9ej1fq$35kkg$1...@ID-82567.news.dfncis.de>...
> dantronic <d...@dantronic.com> was all like:
> >
> > I'm going to try to make this an MP3 and post it somewhere, but until then I
> > gotta tell you guys. I found the kernel file for Windows(98) and turned it
> > into a wav. It's a nine-minute long symphony, it's amazing. It keeps
> > changing, it never gets boring. You should try it for yourself. Just look
> > for the largest file (40M or so) in your windows folder, you have to
> > duplicate it from DOS mode so that it's not being used. And read it as a
> > stereo file if you can.
>
> Sounds like a good starting point for a more realised effort, why not
> manipulate it further rather than just listening to it in its original
> form?
Brett Banditelli
>OK, this sounds good, but I'm not sure how you did it. I tried just
>changing the file extension to WAV, but that didn't work. Could you
>explain to me what you did?
open it in a wav editor, for the 'file type' find raw
>PLUR,
>Avatar
::gunshot::
Brett/banditelli
--
*** You were kicked from #velvetacidchrist by Disease_ (not in my house)
<Amoeba> Brett, if you were female, I'd want you to stay away too.
<Benat2> but since im male that doesnt apply?<Amoeba> let me rephrase.
<Amoeba> Stay the hell away from me.
Avatar
> I'm going to try to make this an MP3 and post it somewhere, but until then I
> gotta tell you guys. I found the kernel file for Windows(98) and turned it
> into a wav. It's a nine-minute long symphony, it's amazing. It keeps
> changing, it never gets boring. You should try it for yourself. Just look
> for the largest file (40M or so) in your windows folder, you have to
> duplicate it from DOS mode so that it's not being used. And read it as a
> stereo file if you can.
OK, this is a great idea, as are all the other posts on filenoise
here, but I have one question--HOW DO YOU DO IT!? I can load music as
a picture, I can save it as a RAW file, I can change the extension
back and forth, but the result is never playable as a WAV. Do I need
another program? (I'm using a PC with Windows ME, if that matters.)
PLUR,
Avatar
Dayv!
>
> OK, this is a great idea, as are all the other posts on filenoise
> here, but I have one question--HOW DO YOU DO IT!? I can load music as
> a picture, I can save it as a RAW file, I can change the extension
> back and forth, but the result is never playable as a WAV. Do I need
> another program? (I'm using a PC with Windows ME, if that matters.)
Try changing the file extension in an MS-DOS (aka "Command Prompt")
window.
--
-Dayv!
One of the Ewoks was a porn star.
James Whitehead
<laughingLOOK-M...@yourpain.com> writes
A raw file or pcm file just contains data - a WAV file has a header in
front of this data which details the size of the data its sample rate
and number of channels. If you load a pcm or raw file into an editor
that can play it you should be able to save it back as a WAV - the
program adds the header data. Just renaming a raw or pcm file to .WAV
will not work. I presently use acoustica - a nice simple editor
http:/www.aconas.de - but you could try searching any shareware site for
file conversions - alternatively you could write a program which adds a
header -
Byte Data
1 R
2 I
3 F
4 F
5 lsb file size 32 unsigned integer
6 minus 8
7
8 msb
9 W
10 A
11 V
12 E
13 f format header
14 m
15 t
16
17 18 size of fmt - data
18 0 in this case 18 bytes
19 0
20 0
21 1 PCM
22 0 Data
23 1 2 channels 1 - mono
24 0
25 68 sample rate samples per second
26 172 44100 in this case
27 0
28 0
29 136 16 average bytes per second
30 88 177 this is mono
31 0 2
32 0 0
33 2 4 block bytes out put at once
34 0 16 bits = mono
35 16 bits per sample
36 0
37 x filler
38 x filler
39 d
40 a
41 t size of data
42 a
43 length of data
44
45
46
47 data begins here
Notice its possible to set any sample rate you like and more than two
audio channels! Steven Fenton at edition ... has sent me some very low
sample rate files of earthquake data and of the Indian atomic bomb tests
--
James Whitehead
JT
news:3zAqaCAL...@jliat.demon.co.uk:
> Steven Fenton at edition ... has sent me some very low
> sample rate files of earthquake data and of the Indian atomic bomb tests
So you gonna share them? :D
--
"does punching yourself in the gut while you jizz induce a more
powerful climax?"
http://www.mp3.com/1148pm
/:set\AI
1-It seems to me that there has been too much emphasis on the idea that
media conversion can or cannot reveal SIMILAR information about the source
of information- such that if you take an image and convert it into a sound
using various digital methods- that you may- or may not reveal more of the
SAME "meaning" or structures/ideas/forms from that image-
to me- it seems more important that when you perform ANY kind of format
change- regardless of how badly the information is mangled-you simply gain a
different and new perspective of that information- or rather DIFFERENT
information entirely- the idea is that by converting to a different medium-
you might be able to perceive OTHER patterns/structures in the image- simply
because your brain's various sensory processing systems utilize many
different kinds of relational modeling and perception systems-
this is one of the foundations of Complexity research- the basic idea that
by converting just some of the information about a complex dynamic system
into mathematical forms- that you might be able to see coherent patterns and
determinable structures where none could previously be detected-
for instance- an image which appears to be totally chaotic to the visual
cortex may reveal that it contains very ordered structures when processed by
the brain's audio processing systems- depending on if the conversion method
used produces sound which can make those patterns apparent to the listener
as say- rhythmic structures- [and various kinds of conversion methods may
reveal different patterns- or different aspects of the same pattern]- the
patterns ARE IN the image- but they simply aren't the kinds of patterns that
the visual cortex has evolved to easily detect- or detect at all- of course
one can not easily be certain if a perceived pattern is in the original
image or is in fact an artifact of the conversion-but...
2-...this may not make the discerned pattern irrelevant- if one chose to
entertain epistemological concepts such as those found in the ancient
Cabalistic practice of Gemetria or the more radical ideas of Jungian
"Collective Unconscious"- that is- the idea that by breaking down
information structures such as words or symbols- and giving them some other
form of arbitrary or "inspired" value- that other seemingly unrelated
structures with the same or equivalent value would reveal some "hidden" or
universal relationship which may lead to useful "understanding" of Reality-
or as I would contend- of Human Psychology- of neurological function- having
said that- I must say that generally I am a skeptic and a reductionist-
however I am weird/crazy enough to allow myself to examine these ideas with
a [somewhat] open mind-
not because of any kind of primitive vitalistic superstitions on my part-
nor have I seen the film "Pi" one too many times- it just seems to me that
their are relationships in the web of reality [or the human brain's modeling
of Reality] that we really haven't yet been able to even see- let alone
understand or express- not hokey new age "spiritual" or existential
connections- but more like mundane structures which simply allow things to
get done- basic principles of organization which serve as the structural
"particles" or cohesive framework "components" of complex systems- in this
case- organizational structures in human psychology- and how said structures
might bring into focus otherwise unclear details of both individual and
collective psychology- I am far more interested in how the human mind
creates models of the world than the structure of the world itself [as well
as how model and actual compare/differ]
[I must say it is refreshing to see so many grounded and reductionist-minded
posters in this thread- most of my friends who appreciate experimental
music/art are of the "skyclad-pagans-dancing-with-Pan-under-the-moon"
variety]
3- in all of this the AESTHETIC seems to have been lost! what about how
conversion type processes SOUND? the plain fact is that because of these
wonderful digital tools- a huge new world of sonic generation has been
opened- many of the textures which are created by these media format
conversion methods are simply amazing- which- I believe was the main point
of the original post if I'm not mistaken-
sys/disconnect/:set\AI
dantronic
in the program, go to open a file, and select type> .RAW
then you can open any file and convert it to a sound file.
it will ask you to convert stereo or mono- stereo is usually more
interesting
then you can save as a wav.
To use at the windows kernel, you have to start up in DOS mode so that the
computer isn't using it. then copy it somewhere. To find it, just look for
the largest file in the Windows directory (40Meg or so)
Avatar wrote in message <54bf1e09.01060...@posting.google.com>...
James Whitehead
starshipwreck <starsh...@oohay.moc> writes
>i feel i should remind us that
>we are not digital,
>and hence do not hear or see digital anything.
>the sound coming to your ears are perfectly
>good soundwaves.
>
>they may have once been represented as strings of binary,
>but they themselves are the same kind of sound you get
>from any old sound source.
I think whether we are or are not digital is either a philosophical or
scientific hypothesis - does nature continue into ever finer objects or
is it constructed out of bits. There is I think even the idea that
reality could be a simulation... further as this is
rec.music.experimental isn't the examination of this process up for
grabs? Your second proposition is interesting and i would say
essentially wrong. Lets compare a person playing a guitar in a room - a
listener will hear a monophonic source with reflections - this is
nothing like what is captured by a recording studio and coded and played
back via a stereo hi-fi. With both systems there are artefacts which are
separate. With the introduction of digital encoding we even loose the
slightest connection with the original source. To someone interested in
"classical" music (and here i mean non-experimental) it may be of no
importance, but the question of media is of importance to the
experimental musician/artist. Sound might be far more complex than the
*any old* as it is in some cases part of a representation of a larger
phenomenon. A thunder storm for instance is only perceived in any old
terms as the rumble - but what of a close strike when the air tingles
and the ground shakes? Physicists will admit to complex interaction of
virtual particles when say middle C on a piano is struck - of no matter
perhaps to any old musician but of potential importance to the
experimental...?
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<po...@message.invalid> writes
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>news:3zAqaCAL...@jliat.demon.co.uk:
>
>> Steven Fenton at edition ... has sent me some very low
>> sample rate files of earthquake data and of the Indian atomic bomb tests
>
>So you gonna share them? :D
>
>
v/a: . . . CD (featuring m. behrens, steven lance ledbetter, jliat, toy
bizarre, jio shimizu, monos, colin potter, hazard, seti.org, and the
indian military)
post box 55579 atlanta ga 30308 usa
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
/:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>three points-
>
>1-It seems to me that there has been too much emphasis on the idea that
>media conversion can or cannot reveal SIMILAR information about the source
>of information- such that if you take an image and convert it into a sound
>using various digital methods- that you may- or may not reveal more of the
>SAME "meaning" or structures/ideas/forms from that image-
my point is that the new meaning might in some cases have a parallel -
but sure it can and is something essentially new. I would also point out
that some would see meaning as a red herring. In art especially there is
a movement which refuses to see meaning in ....
>
>to me- it seems more important that when you perform ANY kind of format
>change- regardless of how badly the information is mangled-you simply gain a
>different and new perspective of that information- or rather DIFFERENT
>information entirely- the idea is that by converting to a different medium-
>you might be able to perceive OTHER patterns/structures in the image- simply
>because your brain's various sensory processing systems utilize many
>different kinds of relational modeling and perception systems-
>
>this is one of the foundations of Complexity research- the basic idea that
>by converting just some of the information about a complex dynamic system
>into mathematical forms- that you might be able to see coherent patterns and
>determinable structures where none could previously be detected-
interesting - and is where i part company with science - as i see art
including music as essentially something which is *not* information..
>
>for instance- an image which appears to be totally chaotic to the visual
>cortex may reveal that it contains very ordered structures when processed by
>the brain's audio processing systems- depending on if the conversion method
>used produces sound which can make those patterns apparent to the listener
>as say- rhythmic structures- [and various kinds of conversion methods may
>reveal different patterns- or different aspects of the same pattern]- the
>patterns ARE IN the image- but they simply aren't the kinds of patterns that
>the visual cortex has evolved to easily detect- or detect at all- of course
>one can not easily be certain if a perceived pattern is in the original
>image or is in fact an artifact of the conversion-but...
>
>2-...this may not make the discerned pattern irrelevant- if one chose to
>entertain epistemological concepts such as those found in the ancient
>Cabalistic practice of Gemetria or the more radical ideas of Jungian
>"Collective Unconscious"- that is- the idea that by breaking down
>information structures such as words or symbols- and giving them some other
>form of arbitrary or "inspired" value- that other seemingly unrelated
>structures with the same or equivalent value would reveal some "hidden" or
>universal relationship which may lead to useful "understanding" of Reality-
>or as I would contend- of Human Psychology- of neurological function- having
>said that- I must say that generally I am a skeptic and a reductionist-
>however I am weird/crazy enough to allow myself to examine these ideas with
>a [somewhat] open mind-
however examination of art in this way will not get you very far - in
art's terms. As art is not some kind of language - again in art's terms.
It is not the sum of the anthropological, psychological or cultural
theory... (i would maintain)
>
>not because of any kind of primitive vitalistic superstitions on my part-
>nor have I seen the film "Pi" one too many times- it just seems to me that
>their are relationships in the web of reality [or the human brain's modeling
>of Reality] that we really haven't yet been able to even see- let alone
>understand or express- not hokey new age "spiritual" or existential
>connections- but more like mundane structures which simply allow things to
>get done- basic principles of organization which serve as the structural
>"particles" or cohesive framework "components" of complex systems- in this
>case- organizational structures in human psychology- and how said structures
>might bring into focus otherwise unclear details of both individual and
>collective psychology- I am far more interested in how the human mind
>creates models of the world than the structure of the world itself [as well
>as how model and actual compare/differ]
Here is a point of departure - the artist rather like the young child
does not "make models" but makes things-in-themselves.
>
>[I must say it is refreshing to see so many grounded and reductionist-minded
>posters in this thread- most of my friends who appreciate experimental
>music/art are of the "skyclad-pagans-dancing-with-Pan-under-the-moon"
>variety]
artists are very grounded - as they deal with reality only not in a
methodological theorizing way -but reality never the less - there are
always skyclads fooling around - after the fact as it is...
>
>3- in all of this the AESTHETIC seems to have been lost! what about how
>conversion type processes SOUND? the plain fact is that because of these
>wonderful digital tools- a huge new world of sonic generation has been
>opened- many of the textures which are created by these media format
>conversion methods are simply amazing- which- I believe was the main point
>of the original post if I'm not mistaken-
>
>sys/disconnect/:set\AI
>
the aesthetic hasn't been lost but not discussed - i think some find the
noise produced strange and liberating and may base an aesthetic on this
- however its a pretty (sic) naive aesthetic which you are implying -
you maybe have been around skyclads too long :-?)
--
James Whitehead
/:set\AI
> interesting - and is where i part company with science - as i see art
> including music as essentially something which is *not* information..
Information is the quality of anything which is not nothing- to say
something is not information would be a nonsensical paradox like "I am not
writing this"
> however examination of art in this way will not get you very far - in
> art's terms. As art is not some kind of language - again in art's terms.
> It is not the sum of the anthropological, psychological or cultural
> theory... (i would maintain)
I agree absolutely- it is not about examination but about using expression
as a tool- in the way one would use ritual as a tool- Art is a verb in my
mind- it's limited recordings [image/sound/objects] are of much less
importance- and can often times be destroyed in a mandala-like fashion
> Here is a point of departure - the artist rather like the young child
> does not "make models"...
hmmmm
>... but makes things-in-themselves.
this is quite a good definition of a model! ^_^
sys/disconnect/:set\AI
James Whitehead
>> including music as essentially something which is *not* information..
>
>Information is the quality of anything which is not nothing- to say
>something is not information would be a nonsensical paradox like "I am not
>writing this"
What i have to say on this must be nonsense as i'm talking about what is
not bounded by language - however that doesn't mean its not a reality of
some kind, unless you believe everything is language. Mount Everest or a
Blackbird is not information - i would maintain. To ask what does Mt
Everest mean - is i think pointless - its not in-itself a symbol of
anything - or does it have a use. And anyway hasn't science recently
abandoned information for use? The rothko in the new tate might be seen
as a symbol - used to navigate by, to find the exit or cafe - or i could
take a map reading with reference to Mt Everest - but that's
interpretation. To turn your statement around essentially there is no
information, things in themselves contain no meaning or information.
The only way i can within language point to the idea of other things is
to say that it (language) has incompleteness. Maybe all information
systems must generate paradoxes - but there seems not to be so in art.
>
>
>> however examination of art in this way will not get you very far - in
>> art's terms. As art is not some kind of language - again in art's terms.
>> It is not the sum of the anthropological, psychological or cultural
>> theory... (i would maintain)
>
>I agree absolutely- it is not about examination but about using expression
>as a tool- in the way one would use ritual as a tool- Art is a verb in my
>mind- it's limited recordings [image/sound/objects] are of much less
>importance- and can often times be destroyed in a mandala-like fashion
Sorry - art is a noun. Very similar to idols and idolatry the icon *is*
not an image of the holy other but *is* the holy other.
>
>
>
>> Here is a point of departure - the artist rather like the young child
>> does not "make models"...
>
>hmmmm
>
>>... but makes things-in-themselves.
>
>this is quite a good definition of a model! ^_^
I don't think it is - children are taught that paintings must represent
things - but they certainly don't set out to do this. Teaching art or
doing it (including music) is unlearning -
Wouldn't a model need to refer in someway to something else - and not
itself.
Hmmmmmmm (bee passing or something else?)
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
starshipwreck <starsh...@oohay.moc> writes
>
>i grant you all this.
>in person this would be a lovely discussion
>but i confess i haven't the energy to persue
>the nuances of meaning we've raised via usenet.
sorry about this ....
>
>except to muddy the waters, and as a side-
>note point out that even what we call digital
>information is most definitely only an approximation
>of digital. A '1' or a '0' stored in a computer or on
>a CD or travelling down an optical fiber is in fact
>represented by a conglomeration of physical items:
>photons, electrons, dye molecules. These physical items
>are then interpreted as digital. To the best of my
>knowledge, the only media which is 'truly' digital
>in the sense that it is inherently on or off would
>be items with a quantum state, such as the spin of an
>electron.
I thought quanta behave randomly and have the property to be in several
states at once? But as elsewhere it is only our interpretation of
arrangements that gives meaning.
for instance
:-)
:-(
>
>
>best regards,
>sw
cheers
--
James Whitehead
/:set\AI
"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tBjMmiAA...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> In article <Q45V6.73775$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> /:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >> interesting - and is where i part company with science - as i see art
> >> including music as essentially something which is *not* information..
> >
> >Information is the quality of anything which is not nothing- to say
> >something is not information would be a nonsensical paradox like "I am
not
> >writing this"
>
> What i have to say on this must be nonsense as i'm talking about what is
> not bounded by language - however that doesn't mean its not a reality of
> some kind, unless you believe everything is language. Mount Everest or a
> Blackbird is not information - i would maintain. To ask what does Mt
> Everest mean - is i think pointless - its not in-itself a symbol of
> anything - or does it have a use. And anyway hasn't science recently
> abandoned information for use? The rothko in the new tate might be seen
> as a symbol - used to navigate by, to find the exit or cafe - or i could
> take a map reading with reference to Mt Everest - but that's
> interpretation. To turn your statement around essentially there is no
> information, things in themselves contain no meaning or information.
>
> The only way i can within language point to the idea of other things is
> to say that it (language) has incompleteness. Maybe all information
> systems must generate paradoxes - but there seems not to be so in art.
I think we have different definitions of "information" here- as I said
Information is the quality of anything that is not Nothing [as in AIN-
absolute nothing] therefore everything is information- period [but you could
also say that nothing is information as well]
"language" is a ridiculously tiny sub-sub-subset of information
representation and transmission [symbol manipulation]- so tiny as to become
irrelevant- in fact Art is often used as a method of encoding information
which is normally outside the tenable limits of "language" at least
verbal-type language- experiential/non-verbal information-
>
> >
> >
> >> however examination of art in this way will not get you very far - in
> >> art's terms. As art is not some kind of language - again in art's
terms.
> >> It is not the sum of the anthropological, psychological or cultural
> >> theory... (i would maintain)
> >
> >I agree absolutely- it is not about examination but about using
expression
> >as a tool- in the way one would use ritual as a tool- Art is a verb in my
> >mind- it's limited recordings [image/sound/objects] are of much less
> >importance- and can often times be destroyed in a mandala-like fashion
>
> Sorry - art is a noun. Very similar to idols and idolatry the icon *is*
> not an image of the holy other but *is* the holy other.
definitions again- to me Art can ONLY be a verb- it is an act- a process
ONLY- the created results of that act are only pale reflections of the
process- they can be powerful- yes- but their power only comes from limited
references to the process-
the *is-ness* of "the holy other" which the object "contains" vectors from
the Process- of course "the holy other" [and/or the symbology of the holy
other] has it's own power- but that power is LESS than the power of the
process of it's creation in my opinion- and any other quality is merely
aesthetic [which does not mean that the aesthetic quality in not important-
just not an attribute of ART- but a quality of material form/motion-]
the created object is ALWAYS an incomplete recording of the process
can an object of art be greater that the process which created it- as you
say? I don't think so- If such a thing were to occur- i think it wouldn't be
Art- but something else- more akin to reproducion- or birth-like- since the
"object" would by definition have to posess sentience of it's own-
I'm not entirely sure however- [maybe I should replace the term "Art" that I
use with "the kind of Art/Expression that I am talking about"]
>
> >
> >
> >> Here is a point of departure - the artist rather like the young child
> >> does not "make models"...
> >
> >hmmmm
> >
> >>... but makes things-in-themselves.
> >
> >this is quite a good definition of a model! ^_^
>
> I don't think it is - children are taught that paintings must represent
> things - but they certainly don't set out to do this. Teaching art or
> doing it (including music) is unlearning -
>
> Wouldn't a model need to refer in someway to something else - and not
> itself.
>
> Hmmmmmmm (bee passing or something else?)
> --
> James Whitehead
as far as the model thing goes- I think we are talking about entirely
different things- I would never contend that ALL art is the creation of
"models"- the models I was referring to are the ones which make up the
structure of all Human thought- perceptual models which define the totality
of our Realities/selves-[yes many model types are self-referent- that is
what a "self" is!]- every
idea/concept/thought/principle/memory/experience/action/emotion of the human
mind is as a result of the manipulation of models within the brain
[including the process of Art- of course] I was simply stating that by
realizing this it is easier to understand how EVERYTHING we experience/
think/ observe can have relevant relationships with everything else to some
degree- this structure may or may not also extend into the "actual" world-
which of course by definition- can never be directly observed-
sys/disconnect/:set\AI
/:set\AI
> /:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>Very similar to idols and idolatry the icon *is*
> not an image of the holy other but *is* the holy other.
a side note- THIS is the primary problem that I have with epistemology- this
mistaking the Messenger for the Message- nearly every form of epistemology
starts off on the right track- an enlightened mind comes to "understand" or
perceive some very powerful universal idea about the world- she creates a
system of symbology and cosmology to express the framework of that
inexpressible revelation- to expand the frontier of Human understanding-
plowing a path for Science/Philosophy to someday build stable
structures/frameworks-
and somewhere along the line it all goes wrong- the masses- and sometimes
even the "enlightened" architects themselves fall victim to an affliction
which ALL humans eventually succumb- they lose sight of what the symbols
were pointing to- and instead see the symbol ITSELF as the "Holy Other"- all
Humans are Idolaters- like a dumb animal who stares at his masters finger
while he furiously tries to POINT at the object in question- we do this
precisely because the original idea IS outside or just at the edge of our
ability to contemplate- so at some point- individually or as a group- we
give up trying to see the greater and settle for the lesser- often without
even knowing it- and the symbol BECOMES the thing itself [observe the
original Judeo-Christian concept of God- which was not a creator deity but a
metaphor for the nexus of universal absolute forces] - The Idol- the little
created god- is ALWAYS a pale imitation of what was a great Idea- a powerful
insight into the nature of Nature-
but this does not make epistemology useless- just not a very good tool for
what it is trying to be: a description of Truth- but - of course even if an
epistemological framework degrades into a primitive religious structure- it
still serves it's ORIGINAL purpose beautifully [perhaps better!]- and that
of course is as an evolved system which provides a clever animal with a fix
to it's problem of always being stupefied by all of the infinite unknown and
unknowable things in the world- the creature does not stand there scratching
it's head and stuck on problems like "where do I go when I'm dead?" and "why
is there something rather than nothing?"- the animal has the well honed
brain repair of epistemology- so that it doesn't have to worry about all of
the maddening uncertainties and unknowns in the Universe- It can stop
standing there looking stupid and get on with the business of survival so it
can pass on it's genes-
even today with our seemingly "advanced" intellect- most still need this
sort of structure or they would go crazy- Marx's opiate is in fact- an
anti-psychotic! even Science hasn't been able to provide a better
alternative to the Big Questions-so it serves this function quite well- but
it is so much more powerful when a good symbol system is instead able to
open up new doors for Thought!
James Whitehead
/:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:tBjMmiAA...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <Q45V6.73775$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>> /:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
>>Very similar to idols and idolatry the icon *is*
>> not an image of the holy other but *is* the holy other.
>
>a side note- THIS is the primary problem that I have with epistemology- this
>mistaking the Messenger for the Message- nearly every form of epistemology
>starts off on the right track- an enlightened mind comes to "understand" or
>perceive some very powerful universal idea about the world- she creates a
>system of symbology and cosmology to express the framework of that
>inexpressible revelation- to expand the frontier of Human understanding-
>plowing a path for Science/Philosophy to someday build stable
>structures/frameworks-
I don't think this is a universal description of what happens - normally
the cosmology seems more a description of the person. How we order the
randomness we see is a description of our psychology.
>
> and somewhere along the line it all goes wrong- the masses- and sometimes
>even the "enlightened" architects themselves fall victim to an affliction
>which ALL humans eventually succumb- they lose sight of what the symbols
>were pointing to- and instead see the symbol ITSELF as the "Holy Other"- all
>Humans are Idolaters- like a dumb animal who stares at his masters finger
>while he furiously tries to POINT
owning a dog I'm well aware of this - and see how "correct" the dog is
in the matter.
>at the object in question- we do this
>precisely because the original idea IS outside or just at the edge of our
>ability to contemplate- so at some point- individually or as a group- we
>give up trying to see the greater and settle for the lesser- often without
>even knowing it- and the symbol BECOMES the thing itself
i don't agree - its quite the reverse most people remove reality to
another place. If we get rid of a king we make a president with the same
or greater authority. People accept the facts - cosmological or
otherwise as being true. They do not in the main question given facts.
>[observe the
>original Judeo-Christian concept of God- which was not a creator deity but a
>metaphor for the nexus of universal absolute forces] - The Idol- the little
>created god- is ALWAYS a pale imitation of what was a great Idea- a powerful
>insight into the nature of Nature-
This is certainly questionable.. the Christian concept is of God
becoming Man. The very thing you find disquieting in epistemology, Jesus
presents himself not as a messenger but as the message (the Word)
Philip said to him 'Lord, show us the Father; we ask no more.' Jesus
answered..... 'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father'
>
>but this does not make epistemology useless- just not a very good tool for
>what it is trying to be: a description of Truth- but - of course even if an
>epistemological framework degrades into a primitive religious structure- it
>still serves it's ORIGINAL purpose beautifully [perhaps better!]- and that
>of course is as an evolved system which provides a clever animal with a fix
>to it's problem of always being stupefied by all of the infinite unknown and
>unknowable things in the world- the creature does not stand there scratching
>it's head and stuck on problems like "where do I go when I'm dead?" and "why
>is there something rather than nothing?"-
Some of them do -
>the animal has the well honed
>brain repair of epistemology- so that it doesn't have to worry about all of
>the maddening uncertainties and unknowns in the Universe- It can stop
>standing there looking stupid and get on with the business of survival so it
>can pass on it's genes-
are you being ironic here?
>
>even today with our seemingly "advanced" intellect- most still need this
>sort of structure or they would go crazy- Marx's opiate is in fact- an
>anti-psychotic! even Science hasn't been able to provide a better
>alternative to the Big Questions-so it serves this function quite well- but
>it is so much more powerful when a good symbol system is instead able to
>open up new doors for Thought!
>
>
>
>
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
Well such a meaning of the term information is difficult for me - as
nothing cannot be information it makes the term pretty worthless. How
for instance is data differentiated from information - and how is it
information has value. Maybe "information is obtainable from anything
that is not nothing" - can see a point to this - but information is also
obtainable from nothing - i.e. looking into an empty box. (A closed box
reveals no information.)
>
>"language" is a ridiculously tiny sub-sub-subset of information
>representation and transmission [symbol manipulation]- so tiny as to become
>irrelevant-
But to say "language is irrelevant" is a paradox - yes? Language
manipulates information - i think the two are the same sort of thing.
Information involves being able to say something... or process
something...
>in fact Art is often used as a method of encoding information
>which is normally outside the tenable limits of "language" at least
>verbal-type language- experiential/non-verbal information-
Art is used for all kinds of things - but that is not to do with art. As
i said it can be used as a landmark. Further isn't a rule of logic that
it should in principle be able to translate from one form of encoded
information (which kind of looks like language) into another. However
that is not possible in art, you cant translate an artwork - only
describe it. (but like a description of a mountain its not the same
thing, but 2 (base 10) is the same thing as 10 (base 2)).
>> >
>> >> however examination of art in this way will not get you very far - in
>> >> art's terms. As art is not some kind of language - again in art's
>terms.
>> >> It is not the sum of the anthropological, psychological or cultural
>> >> theory... (i would maintain)
>> >
>> >I agree absolutely- it is not about examination but about using
>expression
>> >as a tool- in the way one would use ritual as a tool- Art is a verb in my
>> >mind- it's limited recordings [image/sound/objects] are of much less
>> >importance- and can often times be destroyed in a mandala-like fashion
>>
>> Sorry - art is a noun. Very similar to idols and idolatry the icon *is*
>> not an image of the holy other but *is* the holy other.
>
>definitions again- to me Art can ONLY be a verb- it is an act- a process
>ONLY- the created results of that act are only pale reflections of the
>process- they can be powerful- yes- but their power only comes from limited
>references to the process-
>
> the *is-ness* of "the holy other" which the object "contains" vectors from
>the Process- of course "the holy other" [and/or the symbology of the holy
>other] has it's own power- but that power is LESS than the power of the
>process of it's creation in my opinion- and any other quality is merely
>aesthetic [which does not mean that the aesthetic quality in not important-
>just not an attribute of ART- but a quality of material form/motion-]
Well the religious icon has no such vector to something else and no
consideration is given to the artist, in fact icons are not products of
artists. There is no symbolism here its the real manifestation of the
holy. Same is true in art - icons are not in my view art objects. I'm
familiar with the ideas of process art, but i think its not satisfactory
as an explanation for art objects, process art is art as performed - of
course the residues are not art at all - like a photograph of an event
isn't the event. Yet a painting (certain modern works in particular) is
not a residue - its intended as a thing in itself - no vectors. A
graphic is judged by how well it communicates its object, a work of art
has no object to communicate other than itself. A monet water Lilly
painting as art is not a graphical illustration of a real pond or
evidence of someone applying paint to canvas.
If art is a process then its the process of perceiving an object as art.
The art event if you like is repeated by each observer - and the
original observation is only significant in that its normal to apply the
term artist to that person and not subsequent others. Maybe recognition
and the thing are one and the same, but this then is true of all nouns.
However its impact is the recognition of otherness.
>
>the created object is ALWAYS an incomplete recording of the process
>
would you say that our existence is always an incomplete recording of
our parents sexual activity?
>can an object of art be greater that the process which created it- as you
>say? I don't think so- If such a thing were to occur- i think it wouldn't be
>Art- but something else- more akin to reproducion- or birth-like- since the
>"object" would by definition have to posess sentience of it's own-
why else would someone do art other than to create something new - its
certainly not at times a pleasant activity. The object of art may be
considered greater but perhaps merely different. The object doesn't need
sentience but an ontology of its own. Pygmalion is about this - the
artist falls in love with her/his work -
>
>I'm not entirely sure however- [maybe I should replace the term "Art" that I
>use with "the kind of Art/Expression that I am talking about"]
>
expression - communication as well as much else is found in art - but is
not it in itself.
[...]
>
>as far as the model thing goes- I think we are talking about entirely
>different things- I would never contend that ALL art is the creation of
>"models"- the models I was referring to are the ones which make up the
>structure of all Human thought- perceptual models which define the totality
>of our Realities/selves-[yes many model types are self-referent- that is
>what a "self" is!]- every
>idea/concept/thought/principle/memory/experience/action/emotion of the human
>mind is as a result of the manipulation of models within the brain
>[including the process of Art- of course] I was simply stating that by
>realizing this it is easier to understand how EVERYTHING we experience/
>think/ observe can have relevant relationships with everything else to some
>degree- this structure may or may not also extend into the "actual" world-
>which of course by definition- can never be directly observed-
>
You say quite a bit here - which is interesting - these higher
constructs maybe are there, however art functions at a much lower level,
within the actual world. Certainly we can create relationships - and do
this about art objects as well as mountains etc. One of the
problems/techniques of the modern artist is to strip away such
relationships and structures in order to reveal a reality.
--
James Whitehead
/:set\AI
wrote in message
<news:1ig6eKAP...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <YBeV6.74489$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<mailto:YBeV6.74489$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>,
>- but information is also
> obtainable from nothing - i.e. looking into an empty box. (A closed box
> reveals no information.)
an empty box is not nothing- not even hard vacuum is NOTHING- nothing is
Nothing! ^_^
>
> >
> >"language" is a ridiculously tiny sub-sub-subset of information
> >representation and transmission [symbol manipulation]- so tiny as to
become
> >irrelevant-
>
> But to say "language is irrelevant" is a paradox - yes?
my fault- I said AS to become irrelevant- meaning very tiny- not actually
irrelevant-
> Language
> manipulates information - i think the two are the same sort of thing.
> Information involves being able to say something... or process
> something...
information does not have to be manipulated or accessed in any way- it
exists- it's existence is not dependant [at least not always] on being
processed- unless in your definition of information you require that it be
accessed/processed by something that can "bring it into existence"- but it
seems to me that this doesn't always work- there are no doubt chunks of
exotic matter which drift between galaxies- a million or more light years
from the nearest photon or neutrino- those chunks have mass/ size/ geometry/
material properties- these are all types information- this information
exists- and yet they will probably never interact with any other part of
the Universe except as a negligible gravitation influence- but that is a
form of interaction- so the question becomes what is the "real" Information
that one of these chunks posseses? Is it just a miniscule source of gravity-
or does it truly have a complex pattern and structure? I would say the
latter [I would say the latter MOST of the time anyway! ^_^]
> Well the religious icon has no such vector to something else and no
> consideration is given to the artist, in fact icons are not products of
> artists. There is no symbolism here its the real manifestation of the
> holy.
I disagree completely- the vectors of a holy object are not necessarily of
the artist/craftsman- the vectors are tertiary- even more removed from the
object- they are the result of some human's ideas/insights- which are
transmuted by a third party into the object- the power of the object is the
power to contain/reveal SOME of the power of that original idea/insight-
can someone create an object- without any previous insight/context from
themselves or anyone else- and yet that object have this "power"-yes- but
not really- it might appear that way- but the truth is even without some
prior conscious idea- if a sentient being creates an object- that form is
generated from the processes of the being's neurobiological and physical
structure- so the object is ultimately formed out of the "expression" of the
multi billion year old metacomplex evolving system of Life- which contains
FAR more power than any created object- because the created object is PART
of that system!
> Same is true in art - icons are not in my view art objects. I'm
> familiar with the ideas of process art, but i think its not satisfactory
> as an explanation for art objects, process art is art as performed - of
> course the residues are not art at all - like a photograph of an event
> isn't the event. Yet a painting (certain modern works in particular) is
> not a residue - its intended as a thing in itself - no vectors.
as I stated previously the created object CAN be very powerful in and of
itself- and that art as a noun CAN be the central focus of the thing- but to
me the neuro/physical processes which apply the paint and shape the clay-
and the vast complex systems which allowed that painting to be painted are
always more interesting and more essential- this may simply be because of my
bias toward cognitive science and A.I.-
> A
> graphic is judged by how well it communicates its object, a work of art
> has no object to communicate other than itself.
I do not like the importance that many place upon Art as a form of
communication- sure- the fact that an Art object can communicate a vast
array of experiential/emotional/existential data is neat- but not the
primary goal- at least in my expression-
to me- the importance of the Artistic act would not be theoretically
diminished if the Artist were the only living being on Earth- [allot of the
time when I am creating soundscapes- I don't even bother to record- and I
have no real interest in distributing most of my work] -
> If art is a process then its the process of perceiving an object as art.
that is another process-
> The art event if you like is repeated by each observer - and the
> original observation is only significant in that its normal to apply the
> term artist to that person and not subsequent others.
an interesting idea which I have discussed with other in the past-
but I don't like think about observers- the Idea of a stranger looking
at/hearing something that contains some of the information of my deeply
personal processes is creepy- worse than a peeping tom- the fact that they
are a stranger means they cannot glean anything really substantial from it-
but it would be worse if they did! the only things I create that I let
others hear/see/read are things which portray universal/impersonal concepts
and context-free aestheticism- even then- I prefer it if I know the person
well-
sys/disconnect/:set\AI
/:set\AI
> In article <LbgV6.77501$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> /:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:tBjMmiAA...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article
<Q45V6.73775$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> >> /:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >
> >>Very similar to idols and idolatry the icon *is*
> >> not an image of the holy other but *is* the holy other.
> >
> >a side note- THIS is the primary problem that I have with epistemology-
this
> >mistaking the Messenger for the Message- nearly every form of
epistemology
> >starts off on the right track- an enlightened mind comes to "understand"
or
> >perceive some very powerful universal idea about the world- she creates a
> >system of symbology and cosmology to express the framework of that
> >inexpressible revelation- to expand the frontier of Human understanding-
> >plowing a path for Science/Philosophy to someday build stable
> >structures/frameworks-
>
> I don't think this is a universal description of what happens - normally
> the cosmology seems more a description of the person.
of course- as I said before- we cannot directly deal with the world- we can
only access and manipulate the models of the world in our brains-and
transmit that information between other brains- it's just easier to say "the
world" than it is to say "the brain's model of the world" all the time-
especially when there is no qualitative difference if you ARE a Human- when
you talk about the world you can ONLY talk about yourself-
> >- like a dumb animal who stares at his masters finger
> >while he furiously tries to POINT
>
> owning a dog I'm well aware of this - and see how "correct" the dog is
> in the matter.
yes the dog is correct- but not for the purposes of my analogy!
>
> >at the object in question- we do this
> >precisely because the original idea IS outside or just at the edge of our
> >ability to contemplate- so at some point- individually or as a group- we
> >give up trying to see the greater and settle for the lesser- often
without
> >even knowing it- and the symbol BECOMES the thing itself
>
> i don't agree - its quite the reverse most people remove reality to
> another place. If we get rid of a king we make a president with the same
> or greater authority. People accept the facts - cosmological or
> otherwise as being true. They do not in the main question given facts.
people as a whole- accept "facts" which give them the most comfort- and
which provide the things they want to believe so that they can get on with
their lives- that comforting and reassuring aspect is one of the
contributing factors in the "giving-up"- open-ended "outward pointing"
symbologies aren't particularly comforting- they are too complex in their
simplicity- they usually are morally ambiguous- and require a great deal of
relative intellectual sophistication and education [or complete lack of
education]- as a result they are hard to sell to large populations- the
epistemologies which last and endure are the ones which provide definite
[false] answers to those uncomfortable unknowns and provide a stable and
black/white morality-
anomalies like Buddhism endure because they enjoy a multiple structure- the
"open-ended" aspects of buddhism- [such as Zen] have few followers- while
the standard limited fare [Mahayana] is practiced by millions and keeps the
whole thing going-
>
> >[observe the
> >original Judeo-Christian concept of God- which was not a creator deity
but a
> >metaphor for the nexus of universal absolute forces] - The Idol- the
little
> >created god- is ALWAYS a pale imitation of what was a great Idea- a
powerful
> >insight into the nature of Nature-
>
> This is certainly questionable.. the Christian concept is of God
> becoming Man. The very thing you find disquieting in epistemology, Jesus
> presents himself not as a messenger but as the message (the Word)
>
> Philip said to him 'Lord, show us the Father; we ask no more.' Jesus
> answered..... 'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father'
you must not be aware of the origins of the Messiah concept or you wouldn't
posit this- in brief: the original concept of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic
deity is the unity of four universal "forces": greater and lesser
"masculine" [Father/Son] and greater and lesser "feminine"
[Mother/Daughter]- they did not see these as conscious being[s]- but more
akin to the other four-fold "foundation" type forces of antiquity such as
the four elements [and in modernity with gravity/electromagnetism/the strong
and weak nuclear forces] - they represented these in Hebrew as the letters
Yod-Heh-Vau-Heh- [the Tetragrammaton] which was later falsely expressed as
the name "Yahweh" [later Jehovah]- a god [and originally- his goddess wife]-
instead of the acronym-like structure that it was- all taken mostly- along
with creation and flood myths from Sumerian religion- the only concept of
godlike beings was originally loosely represented in early Judaism by the
Seraphim and the Qlippoth- "angels/demons"- who were really also considered
to be non-sentient lesser forces in nature- but also sometimes considered
somewhat like minor deities [arguably]
then the idea of a bridge between this Unity of all forces/being/action and
Man- between the absolute and the ephemeral- was conceived- this idea was
represented by taking the symbol of Man- the Hebrew letter Shin- and placing
it in the middle of the Tetragrammaton- so now we have
Yod-Heh<>Shin<>Vau-Heh- which-again was falsely made a name/title:
"Yeheshuah"- the Hebrew/Aramaic name which is "Jesus"- this bridge idea was
supposed to represent something more akin to Zazen or a path to
enlightenment- not a literal PERSON- or "the Son of God"- so you see- what
the man "Jesus" actually represents is the false representation of a
metaphor- Messiah- which itself was a false interpretation of a more subtle
concept! what a mess!
>
> >
> >but this does not make epistemology useless- just not a very good tool
for
> >what it is trying to be: a description of Truth- but - of course even if
an
> >epistemological framework degrades into a primitive religious structure-
it
> >still serves it's ORIGINAL purpose beautifully [perhaps better!]- and
that
> >of course is as an evolved system which provides a clever animal with a
fix
> >to it's problem of always being stupefied by all of the infinite unknown
and
> >unknowable things in the world- the creature does not stand there
scratching
> >it's head and stuck on problems like "where do I go when I'm dead?" and
"why
> >is there something rather than nothing?"-
>
> Some of them do -
oh yes indeed!
>
> >the animal has the well honed
> >brain repair of epistemology- so that it doesn't have to worry about all
of
> >the maddening uncertainties and unknowns in the Universe- It can stop
> >standing there looking stupid and get on with the business of survival so
it
> >can pass on it's genes-
>
> are you being ironic here?
nope- just practical
sys/disconnect/:set\AI
James Whitehead
/:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>- but information is also
>> obtainable from nothing - i.e. looking into an empty box. (A closed box
>> reveals no information.)
>
>an empty box is not nothing- not even hard vacuum is NOTHING- nothing is
>Nothing! ^_^
Its not an empty box until you open it - (according to QM) To say "the
box either has a cat in it or not" contains no useful data and i would
say provides no information. (I didn't say it contains nothing)
>
>>
>> >
>> >"language" is a ridiculously tiny sub-sub-subset of information
>> >representation and transmission [symbol manipulation]- so tiny as to
>become
>> >irrelevant-
>>
>> But to say "language is irrelevant" is a paradox - yes?
>
>my fault- I said AS to become irrelevant- meaning very tiny- not actually
>irrelevant-
How on earth are you going to describe the size of language without
using language? You still need to give me a useful description of what
information is - other than *everything* yet alone some criteria for why
this might be so...
>
>> Language
>> manipulates information - i think the two are the same sort of thing.
>> Information involves being able to say something... or process
>> something...
>
>information does not have to be manipulated or accessed in any way- it
>exists- it's existence is not dependant [at least not always] on being
>processed- unless in your definition of information you require that it be
>accessed/processed by something that can "bring it into existence"- but it
>seems to me that this doesn't always work- there are no doubt chunks of
>exotic matter which drift between galaxies- a million or more light years
>from the nearest photon or neutrino- those chunks have mass/ size/ geometry/
>material properties- these are all types information- this information
>exists- and yet they will probably never interact with any other part of
>the Universe except as a negligible gravitation influence- but that is a
>form of interaction- so the question becomes what is the "real" Information
>that one of these chunks posseses? Is it just a miniscule source of gravity-
>or does it truly have a complex pattern and structure? I would say the
>latter [I would say the latter MOST of the time anyway! ^_^]
i think your confusing matter and energy with information. Theoretically
there is no reason why there shouldn't be more information in the
universe than matter. Mathematicians can process infinities where as
matter seems to be finite. Information is abstract - take for instance
the arrangement of stars - the Great Bear, or the big dipper, King
Charles's Wain... no where in the actual matter - the stars is this
information to be found. Further you seem to accept the idea of not
being able to know anything about the real world anyway - so these
particles in effect do not exist?
>
>> Well the religious icon has no such vector to something else and no
>> consideration is given to the artist, in fact icons are not products of
>> artists. There is no symbolism here its the real manifestation of the
>> holy.
>
>I disagree completely- the vectors of a holy object are not necessarily of
>the artist/craftsman- the vectors are tertiary- even more removed from the
>object- they are the result of some human's ideas/insights- which are
>transmuted by a third party into the object- the power of the object is the
>power to contain/reveal SOME of the power of that original idea/insight-
>
I'm only saying how icons and idols are treated - by those who see this
- sure you can think they are wrong - but its impertinent to place on
them your ideas of vectors et al. The followers treat these objects as
if they were holy. They wake them up - offer food and put them to bed...
>can someone create an object- without any previous insight/context from
>themselves or anyone else- and yet that object have this "power"-yes- but
>not really- it might appear that way- but the truth is even without some
>prior conscious idea- if a sentient being creates an object- that form is
>generated from the processes of the being's neurobiological and physical
>structure- so the object is ultimately formed out of the "expression" of the
>multi billion year old metacomplex evolving system of Life- which contains
>FAR more power than any created object- because the created object is PART
>of that system!
Yet the object might be an accident - Hindus worship stalagmites - so
its the observer which brings to the object any structures. yes? So the
act of creating art could be accidental - like an action painting - only
after its completed does the artist or anyone else see its worth. Here
is an idea for differentiating art from graphic communication. Further
its possible to encounter objects with a sense of awe - in which any
understanding fails one. In fact your explanation is only one of many.
The reality of creation is as mysterious as the universe - open to any
number of explanations - but it is not equal to this - any other - or
the sum total.
>
>> Same is true in art - icons are not in my view art objects. I'm
>> familiar with the ideas of process art, but i think its not satisfactory
>> as an explanation for art objects, process art is art as performed - of
>> course the residues are not art at all - like a photograph of an event
>> isn't the event. Yet a painting (certain modern works in particular) is
>> not a residue - its intended as a thing in itself - no vectors.
>
>as I stated previously the created object CAN be very powerful in and of
>itself- and that art as a noun CAN be the central focus of the thing- but to
>me the neuro/physical processes which apply the paint and shape the clay-
>and the vast complex systems which allowed that painting to be painted are
>always more interesting and more essential- this may simply be because of my
>bias toward cognitive science and A.I.-
The complex systems which allow a painting include, gravity, chemistry,
paint and cloth technology, socio economic forces and conventions and
accident... however a degree in geology will not help understand
sculpture as art..
And so i would caution a botanist in approaching monet's water lilies!
>
>
>> A
>> graphic is judged by how well it communicates its object, a work of art
>> has no object to communicate other than itself.
>
>I do not like the importance that many place upon Art as a form of
>communication- sure- the fact that an Art object can communicate a vast
>array of experiential/emotional/existential data is neat- but not the
>primary goal- at least in my expression-
>
>to me- the importance of the Artistic act would not be theoretically
>diminished if the Artist were the only living being on Earth- [allot of the
>time when I am creating soundscapes- I don't even bother to record- and I
>have no real interest in distributing most of my work] -
>
>> If art is a process then its the process of perceiving an object as art.
>
>that is another process-
no i think that is the best process description of art i can give. We
credit monet - not the paint manufacturer or weaver... when you create
your soundscapes it the act of recognition... otherwise you would again
be *just* part of a set of parameters which begin with the electric
company...
>
>> The art event if you like is repeated by each observer - and the
>> original observation is only significant in that its normal to apply the
>> term artist to that person and not subsequent others.
>
>an interesting idea which I have discussed with other in the past-
>
>but I don't like think about observers- the Idea of a stranger looking
>at/hearing something that contains some of the information of my deeply
>personal processes is creepy- worse than a peeping tom- the fact that they
>are a stranger means they cannot glean anything really substantial from it-
>but it would be worse if they did! the only things I create that I let
>others hear/see/read are things which portray universal/impersonal concepts
>and context-free aestheticism- even then- I prefer it if I know the person
>well-
i think your still using your work as illustration - doesn't what you
make ever surprise you - ?
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>> >perceive some very powerful universal idea about the world- she creates a
>> >system of symbology and cosmology to express the framework of that
>> >inexpressible revelation- to expand the frontier of Human understanding-
>> >plowing a path for Science/Philosophy to someday build stable
>> >structures/frameworks-
>>
>> I don't think this is a universal description of what happens - normally
>> the cosmology seems more a description of the person.
>
>of course- as I said before- we cannot directly deal with the world- we can
>only access and manipulate the models of the world in our brains-and
>transmit that information between other brains- it's just easier to say "the
>world" than it is to say "the brain's model of the world" all the time-
>especially when there is no qualitative difference if you ARE a Human- when
>you talk about the world you can ONLY talk about yourself-
The idea of a world out there we cannot access is an old philosophical
chestnut - which hasn't been cracked. In simple terms though how can you
say it exists if you have no access to it - other than an act of faith?
I would say the reality out there is the reality i engage with - ok its
not absolute - but absolute is an idea (like truth) - not a reality.
>> >- like a dumb animal who stares at his masters finger
>> >while he furiously tries to POINT
>>
>> owning a dog I'm well aware of this - and see how "correct" the dog is
>> in the matter.
>
>yes the dog is correct- but not for the purposes of my analogy!
But with relation to art - the dog is quite right - its not a sign.
>> >at the object in question- we do this
>> >precisely because the original idea IS outside or just at the edge of our
>> >ability to contemplate- so at some point- individually or as a group- we
>> >give up trying to see the greater and settle for the lesser- often
>without
>> >even knowing it- and the symbol BECOMES the thing itself
>>
>> i don't agree - its quite the reverse most people remove reality to
>> another place. If we get rid of a king we make a president with the same
>> or greater authority. People accept the facts - cosmological or
>> otherwise as being true. They do not in the main question given facts.
>
>people as a whole- accept "facts" which give them the most comfort- and
>which provide the things they want to believe so that they can get on with
>their lives- that comforting and reassuring aspect is one of the
>contributing factors in the "giving-up"- open-ended "outward pointing"
>symbologies aren't particularly comforting- they are too complex in their
>simplicity- they usually are morally ambiguous- and require a great deal of
>relative intellectual sophistication and education [or complete lack of
>education]- as a result they are hard to sell to large populations- the
>epistemologies which last and endure are the ones which provide definite
>[false] answers to those uncomfortable unknowns and provide a stable and
>black/white morality-
Artist are essentially selfish!
>
> anomalies like Buddhism endure because they enjoy a multiple structure- the
>"open-ended" aspects of buddhism- [such as Zen] have few followers- while
>the standard limited fare [Mahayana] is practiced by millions and keeps the
>whole thing going-
>
>>
>> >[observe the
>> >original Judeo-Christian concept of God- which was not a creator deity
>but a
>> >metaphor for the nexus of universal absolute forces] - The Idol- the
>little
>> >created god- is ALWAYS a pale imitation of what was a great Idea- a
>powerful
>> >insight into the nature of Nature-
>>
>> This is certainly questionable.. the Christian concept is of God
>> becoming Man. The very thing you find disquieting in epistemology, Jesus
>> presents himself not as a messenger but as the message (the Word)
>>
>> Philip said to him 'Lord, show us the Father; we ask no more.' Jesus
>> answered..... 'Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father'
>
>
>you must not be aware of the origins of the Messiah concept or you wouldn't
>posit this-
hold on - i have not discussed the idea of the Messiah concept - i'm
saying that many Christians equate God with Jesus of Nazareth. The
origins of Christian theology is in dealing with the shocking problems
of accepting this.
>in brief: the original concept of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic
>deity is the unity of four universal "forces": greater and lesser
>"masculine" [Father/Son] and greater and lesser "feminine"
I'm not certain where you get this from, Islamic theology is different
and certainly i'm not aware of it accepting what you say below. Are your
discussing the origins of Jewish monotheism?
>[Mother/Daughter]- they did not see these as conscious being[s]- but more
>akin to the other four-fold "foundation" type forces of antiquity such as
>the four elements [and in modernity with gravity/electromagnetism/the strong
>and weak nuclear forces] - they represented these in Hebrew as the letters
>Yod-Heh-Vau-Heh- [the Tetragrammaton] which was later falsely expressed as
>the name "Yahweh" [later Jehovah]- a god [and originally- his goddess wife]-
>instead of the acronym-like structure that it was- all taken mostly- along
>with creation and flood myths from Sumerian religion- the only concept of
>godlike beings was originally loosely represented in early Judaism by the
>Seraphim and the Qlippoth- "angels/demons"- who were really also considered
>to be non-sentient lesser forces in nature- but also sometimes considered
>somewhat like minor deities [arguably]
Well that requires some remark - you need in studying religion to see
broader themes than these particular - and rather esoteric ideas, and be
sensitive in differentiating perspectives. So the early sky God of the
nomadic Israelites offers many explanations - but will not explain the
Jewish faith. You will not know what a grasshopper is by cutting it up.
>
> then the idea of a bridge between this Unity of all forces/being/action and
>Man- between the absolute and the ephemeral- was conceived- this idea was
>represented by taking the symbol of Man- the Hebrew letter Shin- and placing
>it in the middle of the Tetragrammaton- so now we have
>Yod-Heh<>Shin<>Vau-Heh- which-again was falsely made a name/title:
>"Yeheshuah"- the Hebrew/Aramaic name which is "Jesus"- this bridge idea was
>supposed to represent something more akin to Zazen or a path to
>enlightenment- not a literal PERSON- or "the Son of God"- so you see- what
>the man "Jesus" actually represents is the false representation of a
>metaphor- Messiah- which itself was a false interpretation of a more subtle
>concept! what a mess!
Given the ingredients of history yes you seem to have created quite a
mess. I'm not sure why your trying to do this? BTW Jesus was a common
name at the time - so its not the name which differentiated JC.
>>
>> >the animal has the well honed
>> >brain repair of epistemology- so that it doesn't have to worry about all
>of
>> >the maddening uncertainties and unknowns in the Universe- It can stop
>> >standing there looking stupid and get on with the business of survival so
>it
>> >can pass on it's genes-
>>
>> are you being ironic here?
>
>nope- just practical
>
do you admire bacteria?
--
James Whitehead
/:set\AI
wrote in message <news:PtIEdEAtAyJ7Ew$b...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <R_zV6.78875$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<mailto:R_zV6.78875$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>,
> /:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net <mailto:se...@worldnet.att.net>> writes
> The idea of a world out there we cannot access is an old philosophical
> chestnut - which hasn't been cracked.
It is easy to crack- and has been- the details are a different story- we
know the basic ways in which the brain handles sensory information- it
creates internal metaphors and abstract conceptual relationships- for
instance it uses a completely abstract value system called "color" to
represent visible light of varying wavelengths- and "brightness" for photon
quantity- these are arbitrary and could be represented in an infinite
variety of ways- no one would seriously suggest that these qualities exist
in "reality"- because we know what they are- and we know that the brain only
has access to a small section of EM wavelengths [4000-7000 angstroms]- to
see anything beyond we had to use our cleverness to devise surrogate systems
which enabled us to represent longer/shorter wavelengths as ones visible to
us- this holds true for sound as well- our representation for vibrations in
particle fields-
the same can be said for pretty much EVERY other value system the brain uses
to represent aspects of the world with- including the flow of Time -time
does not "flow" in the way we think it does- nor does it even exist in the
way we think- we think we perceive a constant forward arrow of time- when we
know that time passes differently for any given object- it is affected by
it's motion- it's mass- but that is just the tip of the iceberg- there is NO
evidence that time flows at all- it appears that WE "move" in "time"- in an
overall "direction"- but that direction may not be the only direction we can
move- like a two dimensional creature moving in the third dimension- he
cannot even begin to understand how he moves- he instead perceives himself
as stationary- while the world changes- the idea of Time is very complex and
unintuitive even in our conception of it- when you try to find "time" you
always end up with nothing but phantoms- we believe in "the past"- but where
is it? it does not exist "now"- but we believe it "did" exist "then"- what
does that mean?- we know that "the future" does not "yet" exist- so the past
and future are both non-existent- so that just leaves us with "now"- but
what is "now"? it is an elusive bogey- we think it is an infinitely short
"simultaneous" moment- but that makes it non-existent as well!- plus we know
that our sense of the present is actually a second or more behind whatever
is going on outside our brains- and we know that "now" is also different for
any given object due to its motion/mass: the idea of "simultaneous spaces"
in physics- whatever Time "actually" is- it is so strange that our mind's
cannot even generate a consistent model of it-
I think the same is true about our perception of space and dimensionality as
well- our brains have created the quality of "space" such that we envisage
length/width/height/size and the like- but I suspect that in "reality"-
space-time/matter is actually weird "virtual planes" of probability
fluctuations- a field of Information fluctuations- the world may have no
"size" or "shape"- a "dimension" is actually a range of values that an
aspect of an "object" can posses- mathematical spaces are probably closer to
the real thing than what we see!
the "object" is also a fiction- in "reality" there are just varying
relationships between "particles"- our brain's have evolved to conceptualize
particle fields which have certain "parameters"-ie similar/complementary
values/coordinates- as "objects"-
so the world is "out there"- but it's form [or lack thereof] is probably
totally different than we can imagine-enjoy your fictitious simulation!
> But with relation to art - the dog is quite right - its not a sign.
I wasn't talking about Art- I was talking about Symbology
> Artist are essentially selfish!
again- I was not talking about artists- I digressed!
> Are you discussing the origins of Jewish monotheism?
yes I was discussing the ORIGINS- everything that came afterward-
Christianity/ Islam/ Judaism- is utter garbage- complete excrement- [except-
of course for the purposes of "brain repair" and maybe creative
inspiration]- Christian theology- Muslim theology: ideas based on incorrect
interpretations of incorrect interpretations- the only concepts they have
yielded that are in any way worthwhile are obvious ones- to quote Richard
Dawkins:
"What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When
has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not
obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I
have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything
that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the
achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no
doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no
printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the
achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the
smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and
sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do
anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone
think that 'theology' is a subject at all? "
this is a bit harsh- for I would contend that at least theology inspires
beautiful art [I adore eastern/western sacred music- sacred architecture-
the paintings- and all the poetry]- but for the most part Dawkins is right
on the money-
> Well that requires some remark - you need in studying religion to see
> broader themes than these particular - and rather esoteric ideas, and be
> sensitive in differentiating perspectives. So the early sky God of the
> nomadic Israelites offers many explanations - but will not explain the
> Jewish faith. You will not know what a grasshopper is by cutting it up.
you are right- and I understand all of the aspects of the
history/theory/context of the Earth's religions quite well- I am just saying
that there are interesting concepts in the origins of the
Judeo-Christi-Islamic faiths [nothing particularly profound- but at least
not useless]- but pretty much everything afterward was/is philosophically
bankrupt- complete infantile nonsense-
> Given the ingredients of history yes you seem to have created quite a
> mess. I'm not sure why your trying to do this? BTW Jesus was a common
> name at the time - so its not the name which differentiated JC.
yes- but the name was CHOSEN for him/by him to express the misinterpreted
metaphor- there is evidence that "jeheshuah" was a popular name/title
adopted by many of the street preachers in Jerusalem during the Roman
occupation- [preachers:read- homeless mentally ill drug-addict zealots- I
live near the Tenderloin district in San Francisco- I see Jesuses every
day!] sometimes the name/title was given to the individual known as "John
the Baptist"- and event to Paul- "yeheshuah" as a symbol of the bridge to
the absolute- would be appropriate in this case- almost certainly "Jesus"
was NOT "his" real name- just like "Doe" was not Marshall Applewhite's real
name-
> do you admire bacteria?
bacteria are the most successful form of life that we know of- of course I
admire them!
sys/disconnect/:set\AI
ps- are you beginning to see that I am quite- quite mad? ^_^
/:set\AI
> In article <2XyV6.76091$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<mailto:2XyV6.76091$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>,
> Its not an empty box until you open it - (according to QM)
that is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics- who accepts that
in this day and age?
>To say "the box either has a cat in it or not" contains no useful data and
i would
> say provides no information. (I didn't say it contains nothing)
there is plenty of information: I know that there is a cat who is has not
yet undergone the State Vector Reduction-<R>- that is quite a bit of
Information!
>You still need to give me a useful description of what
> information is - other than *everything* yet alone some criteria for why
> this might be so...
it's not Everything- Information is the QUALITY of everything- every
possible "parameter"- either expressible or inexpressible/ineffable or
completely incomprehensible/unknowable- what most people call Information
[data/ language/ etc] is not Information itself but the CURRENCY of
Information
> i think your confusing matter and energy with information.
no I'm not- information is the quality of matter/energy- all matter/energy
posesses wave-particle duality- whenver you talk about "waves" at the atomic
and sub-atomic scale- the thing that is waving is Information- you know
that! particles are not little billiard balls of stuff- they are patterns of
probability - whose information become fixed during <R>- same thing for
forces like gravity- and the fabric of space-time itself- fields and
patterns of Probabilty
>Theoretically there is no reason why there shouldn't be more information in
the
> universe than matter.
of course- MUCH more
>Mathematicians can process infinities where as
> matter seems to be finite. Information is abstract -
matter is an abstract metaphor/ Information is literal
> take for instance the arrangement of stars - the Great Bear, or the big
dipper, King
> Charles's Wain... no where in the actual matter - the stars is this
> information to be found.
so much information here- so many different systems of information-
astronomical/ astrophysical/ cultural-historical- and not just human
culture- what about how those stars are aligned in the skies of other
"intelligent/sentient" life in this region of the galaxy and the
significance in their "cultures"? Information without limit-
It is impossible to conceive of something that is not Information- If you
are aware of something in ANY WAY- a word/ a feeling/ anything- the thing
which made you aware IS Information
> Yet the object might be an accident - Hindus worship stalagmites - so
> its the observer which brings to the object any structures. yes?
yes
>So the act of creating art could be accidental - like an action painting -
only
> after its completed does the artist or anyone else see its worth.
yes
> Further its possible to encounter objects with a sense of awe - in which
any
> understanding fails one.
yes- but you always no where the Awe comes from- what all Awe comes from-
The Infinite horror/majesty and complexity of Organiztion- which spawned the
object- and spawned the being observering it- and spawned the processes
which cause the being to feel Awe-
> The complex systems which allow a painting include, gravity, chemistry,
> paint and cloth technology, socio economic forces and conventions and
> accident...
these are all the interdependant and intertwined systems of Life/Cosmos to
which I was referring- not simply biological systems- the complex systems I
am talking about encompass EVERY system/process/thing you can think of-
[just like the idea of Natural Selection- selection is normally thought of
as a process at work in biology/Life only- I would posit that the process of
selection works at ALL levels of existence- in ALL complex systems] which is
ultimately why I don't have a problem with random factors and procedural
limitations altering my work- [as in the limitations of converting media]-
these limitations/glitches/accidents are wonderfully complex events which
emerge from the same vast web of relationships that my conscious expression
came from- my own organization/mutation/selection process- It's a wonder
that we aren't in a perpetual state of Awe/Terror at all times! if it
weren't for the brain's self stabilization systems- we would all be on
permanent DMT trips!
> We credit monet - not the paint manufacturer or weaver... when you create
> your soundscapes it the act of recognition... otherwise you would again
> be *just* part of a set of parameters which begin with the electric
> company...
it starts- like all things start- as complex interweaving emergent patterns
vectored out of "Genesis"- to call something art- like calling something
anything- IS an act of recognition- true- the person who first defines it as
art is the artist- whether or not that person manipulated the object
physically or not- the Process here is in the defining- this is easy to see
in something like a Duchamp "ready-made"- this recognition is an act- a
verb- the object- which is called art [whether constructed or found] would
not be art if that Process had not taken place at least once-
>doesn't what you make ever surprise you - ?
constantly- on many levels- I don't follow?
sys/disconnect/:set\AI
James Whitehead
>wrote in message <news:ueX8hDAS...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <2XyV6.76091$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
><mailto:2XyV6.76091$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>,
>
>> Its not an empty box until you open it - (according to QM)
>
>that is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics- who accepts that
>in this day and age?
>
>>To say "the box either has a cat in it or not" contains no useful data and
>i would
>> say provides no information. (I didn't say it contains nothing)
>
>there is plenty of information: I know that there is a cat who is has not
>yet undergone the State Vector Reduction-<R>- that is quite a bit of
>Information!
Not knowing what on earth <R> etc means - i still think unopened boxes
are mysteries...
>
>>You still need to give me a useful description of what
>> information is - other than *everything* yet alone some criteria for why
>> this might be so...
>
>it's not Everything- Information is the QUALITY of everything- every
>possible "parameter"- either expressible or inexpressible/ineffable or
>completely incomprehensible/unknowable- what most people call Information
>[data/ language/ etc] is not Information itself but the CURRENCY of
>Information
that's even worse - its noise - and can be anything and everything, i
suppose all roads lead to Rome?
>
>> i think your confusing matter and energy with information.
>
>no I'm not- information is the quality of matter/energy- all matter/energy
but you say it can have any and every quality? Your still stuck with
what appears to be a nice contraction - in wanting to define
*everything*
>posesses wave-particle duality- whenver you talk about "waves" at the atomic
>and sub-atomic scale- the thing that is waving is Information- you know
>that! particles are not little billiard balls of stuff- they are patterns of
>probability - whose information become fixed during <R>- same thing for
>forces like gravity- and the fabric of space-time itself- fields and
>patterns of Probabilty
not so - they can be billiard balls - and can be demons deluding you
into thinking they are little packets - your theory of information seems
to demand they must be this and many other things...
>
>>Theoretically there is no reason why there shouldn't be more information in
>the
>> universe than matter.
>
>of course- MUCH more
>
>>Mathematicians can process infinities where as
>> matter seems to be finite. Information is abstract -
>
>matter is an abstract metaphor/ Information is literal
Samuel Johnson refutes you!
>
>> take for instance the arrangement of stars - the Great Bear, or the big
>dipper, King
>> Charles's Wain... no where in the actual matter - the stars is this
>> information to be found.
>
>so much information here- so many different systems of information-
>astronomical/ astrophysical/ cultural-historical- and not just human
>culture- what about how those stars are aligned in the skies of other
>"intelligent/sentient" life in this region of the galaxy and the
>significance in their "cultures"? Information without limit-
>It is impossible to conceive of something that is not Information- If you
>are aware of something in ANY WAY- a word/ a feeling/ anything- the thing
>which made you aware IS Information
(the State Vector Reduction-<R>)
(example of something which is not information)
>
>> Yet the object might be an accident - Hindus worship stalagmites - so
>> its the observer which brings to the object any structures. yes?
>
>yes
>
>>So the act of creating art could be accidental - like an action painting -
>only
>> after its completed does the artist or anyone else see its worth.
>
>yes
>
>> Further its possible to encounter objects with a sense of awe - in which
>any
>> understanding fails one.
>
>yes- but you always no where the Awe comes from- what all Awe comes from-
>The Infinite horror/majesty and complexity of Organiztion- which spawned the
>object- and spawned the being observering it- and spawned the processes
>which cause the being to feel Awe-
that is a theory of where it comes from - it could come from the tooth
fairy.
>
>> The complex systems which allow a painting include, gravity, chemistry,
>> paint and cloth technology, socio economic forces and conventions and
>> accident...
>
>these are all the interdependant and intertwined systems of Life/Cosmos to
>which I was referring- not simply biological systems- the complex systems I
>am talking about encompass EVERY system/process/thing you can think of-
>[just like the idea of Natural Selection- selection is normally thought of
>as a process at work in biology/Life only- I would posit that the process of
>selection works at ALL levels of existence- in ALL complex systems] which is
>ultimately why I don't have a problem with random factors and procedural
>limitations altering my work- [as in the limitations of converting media]-
>these limitations/glitches/accidents are wonderfully complex events which
>emerge from the same vast web of relationships that my conscious expression
>came from- my own organization/mutation/selection process- It's a wonder
>that we aren't in a perpetual state of Awe/Terror at all times! if it
>weren't for the brain's self stabilization systems- we would all be on
>permanent DMT trips!
if such is your world view - science is king then?
>
>> We credit monet - not the paint manufacturer or weaver... when you create
>> your soundscapes it the act of recognition... otherwise you would again
>> be *just* part of a set of parameters which begin with the electric
>> company...
>
>it starts- like all things start- as complex interweaving emergent patterns
>vectored out of "Genesis"- to call something art- like calling something
>anything- IS an act of recognition- true- the person who first defines it as
>art is the artist- whether or not that person manipulated the object
>physically or not- the Process here is in the defining- this is easy to see
>in something like a Duchamp "ready-made"- this recognition is an act- a
>verb- the object- which is called art [whether constructed or found] would
>not be art if that Process had not taken place at least once-
>
its no different to pointing at a mountain and saying "mountain"
but we normally see mountains as nouns not verbs
>>doesn't what you make ever surprise you - ?
>
>constantly- on many levels- I don't follow?
>
>sys/disconnect/:set\AI
>
>
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
/:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk <mailto:jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>>
>wrote in message <news:PtIEdEAtAyJ7Ew$b...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <R_zV6.78875$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
><mailto:R_zV6.78875$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>,
>> /:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net <mailto:se...@worldnet.att.net>> writes
>
>> The idea of a world out there we cannot access is an old philosophical
>
>> chestnut - which hasn't been cracked.
>
>It is easy to crack- and has been- the details are a different story- we
>know the basic ways in which the brain handles sensory information-
woops! Brain BRAIN what brain? brains are part of the world out there-
the philosophical nut remains intact - if you can not rely on sense data
- or know its true in any way - then brains could be just a part of the
vast computer simulation which we are.... etc.
Simply put the facts you use below to discuss the inner outer world
arise in the outer world - which is what is in question. Empirical
knowledge is only ever provisional.
and so our explanations of brains atoms etc. are fictitious also -
well both you and Dawkins are just flinging invectives around - and
making the mistake of conflating science with technology. Put simply one
argument that Dawkins ignores is that his science, value systems,
morality etc. is the product of (in the main) the rise of Christian
value systems in the west. The very college he resides in was founded by
the church, the very technology (no science) of printing established by
the theological imperative to challenge catholic orthodoxy.
Just to fling some invective back, Dawkins is in his terms completely
unable to address problems of emancipation of women, blacks,
homosexuals, Jews, or condemn the various holocausts of the 20th
century... without resort to a morality which in not found in his
biology.
>
>> Well that requires some remark - you need in studying religion to see
>> broader themes than these particular - and rather esoteric ideas, and be
>> sensitive in differentiating perspectives. So the early sky God of the
>> nomadic Israelites offers many explanations - but will not explain the
>> Jewish faith. You will not know what a grasshopper is by cutting it up.
>
>you are right- and I understand all of the aspects of the
>history/theory/context of the Earth's religions quite well-
gosh!
>I am just saying
>that there are interesting concepts in the origins of the
>Judeo-Christi-Islamic faiths [nothing particularly profound- but at least
>not useless]- but pretty much everything afterward was/is philosophically
>bankrupt- complete infantile nonsense-
we must differ here - think your maybe seeing religion as a phenomenon
of science - which appears your general world view.
>
>> Given the ingredients of history yes you seem to have created quite a
>> mess. I'm not sure why your trying to do this? BTW Jesus was a common
>> name at the time - so its not the name which differentiated JC.
>
>yes- but the name was CHOSEN for him/by him to express the misinterpreted
>metaphor- there is evidence that "jeheshuah" was a popular name/title
>adopted by many of the street preachers in Jerusalem during the Roman
>occupation- [preachers:read- homeless mentally ill drug-addict zealots- I
>live near the Tenderloin district in San Francisco- I see Jesuses every
>day!] sometimes the name/title was given to the individual known as "John
>the Baptist"- and event to Paul- "yeheshuah" as a symbol of the bridge to
>the absolute- would be appropriate in this case- almost certainly "Jesus"
>was NOT "his" real name- just like "Doe" was not Marshall Applewhite's real
>name-
San Francisco in the 21st century seems a slightly poor tool with which
to predicate first century Palestine..
>
>> do you admire bacteria?
>
>bacteria are the most successful form of life that we know of- of course I
>admire them!
you measure success in material terms imagined in an outside world which
you say is fictitious - but even here you pre-suppose criteria,
Bacteria in terms of literature have been remarkably unsuccessful, also
their results in footfall pale compared to even moderate teams like
Aston Villa...
>
>sys/disconnect/:set\AI
>
>ps- are you beginning to see that I am quite- quite mad? ^_^
no
--
James Whitehead
/:set\AI
"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jEGf3DAZ...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
> In article <7mUV6.78131$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
<mailto:jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>>
> >wrote in message <news:ueX8hDAS...@jliat.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <2XyV6.76091$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> ><mailto:2XyV6.76091$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>,
> >
matter/energy
>
> what appears to be a nice contraction - in wanting to define
> *everything*
Information doesn't HAVE every quality- it IS every quality- there are too
many [transfinite] types of information to say one thing can DEFINE
everything- THEY define everything- but the types are so many and diverse-
that this does not help you reduce Cosmos into a simpler expression
[actually much much much more complex]- The term Information as a singular
expression would become as useless as the word Thing- but for the fact that
this understanding that EVERY quality is information opens up possibilities-
because the many ideas/theories of Information have useful/usable features-
you get some likely "therefores"- such as X is information- therefore X can
be translated effectively [possibly perfectly] into another medium Y- and if
X is limited by the constraints of it's medium- then you may be able to
choose a medium Y that does not have those particular limitations-
> >possesses wave-particle duality- whenever you talk about "waves" at the
atomic
> >and sub-atomic scale- the thing that is waving is Information- you know
> >that! particles are not little billiard balls of stuff- they are patterns
of
> >probability - whose information become fixed during <R>- same thing for
> >forces like gravity- and the fabric of space-time itself- fields and
> >patterns of Probability
>
> not so - they can be billiard balls - and can be demons deluding you
> into thinking they are little packets - your theory of information seems
> to demand they must be this and many other things...
billiard balls and demons are metaphors- but they DON'T WORK [anymore]-
metaphor's that don't work only have entertainment value- probability
patterns are also metaphors- but the DO WORK [for now] and they work
infinitely better- because they are vague- yet specifically expressive
> (the State Vector Reduction-<R>)
>
> (example of something which is not information)
(in your definition- but IS information in mine [cannot not be])
>yes- but you always no where the Awe comes from- what all Awe comes from-
> >The Infinite horror/majesty and complexity of Organization- which spawned
the
> >object- and spawned the being observing it- and spawned the processes
> >which cause the being to feel Awe-
>
> that is a theory of where it comes from -
uh- not a theory- not even close- the details of how/why are theories- but
the framework IS
> it could come from the tooth fairy.
that bitch owes me 2 bucks!
sys/disconnect/:set\AI
/:set\AI
> In article <JiUV6.78124$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<mailto:JiUV6.78124$t12.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>,> >"James Whitehead" <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk
<mailto:jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> <<mailto:jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>>>
> >wrote in message <<news:PtIEdEAtAyJ7Ew$b...@jliat.demon.co.uk>>...
> >> In article <R_zV6.78875$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
<mailto:R_zV6.78875$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> ><<mailto:R_zV6.78875$4f7.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>>>,
> >> /:set\AI <se...@worldnet.att.net <mailto:se...@worldnet.att.net>
-
>
> woops! Brain BRAIN what brain? brains are part of the world out there-
> the philosophical nut remains intact - if you can not rely on sense data
> - or know its true in any way - then brains could be just a part of the
> vast computer simulation which we are.... etc.
the nut is broken- the brain- whether it is a squishy mass of proteins- or
if it is a non-dimensional swarm of probability fluctuations- it FUNCTIONS
are the same- millions of years of natural selection makes you quite secure
in the fact that you CAN rely on sensory data- It does not matter how
abstracted your perceptual models are if they WORK- if they allow you to
make accurate predictions- to react correctly- to even develop physics which
are true- whatever the brains "true form" we know most of it's overall "true
function"-
> Put simply one argument that Dawkins ignores is that his science, value
systems,
> morality etc. is the product of (in the main) the rise of Christian
> value systems in the west.
I wouldn't answer for RD- but I would say that These value/moral systems
are not from epistemology- any anthropologist could tell you that!
"morality" is just fancied up dogmatic versions of more primitive control
scripts used by human societies since before history- these scripts are just
obvious good advice- "don't kill someone because he might have family and
friends who could cause you grief"- and so on- and in the west deeper
formulations of "good advice" and "social/herd rules" were developed much
more completely by the Ionians and Greeks than by theologians-
All that religion adds to "morality" are the ridiculous things- things which
were politically convenient or advantageous to the clergy- or royalty-
saying "God says do/do not..." gives you a little more authority to write
policy! the problem of course is that these little dogmatic additions can
stick around for longer than they should- like saying it is wrong to eat
shellfish- which was probably good advice at that time/place- the local
shellfish were probably poisonous or something- but due to the silliness of
dogma- it is still around here and there today-
> Just to fling some invective back, Dawkins is in his terms completely
> unable to address problems of emancipation of women, blacks,
> homosexuals, Jews, or condemn the various holocausts of the 20th
> century... without resort to a morality which in not found in his
> biology.
the social stabilization control scripts which religion bases it's morality
on [and in the cases you mentioned- Christianity actually takes the totally
"immoral" position- actually reinforcing "immorality"- as usual] come
straight from biology! the problems that you mentioned could be easily dealt
with by extremely primitive concepts that even many animals abide by: "It's
usually a bad idea to persecute or subjugate a group- because at some point
in the future that group- or others who sympathize with their plight- may
acquire the power to turn the tables on you!"-
> you measure success in material terms imagined in an outside world which
> you say is fictitious -
where did you get the Idea that I said the outside world was fictitious?- I
said that it just doesn't LOOK LIKE what we think- and that we DON'T SEE
VERY MUCH of it- obviously our minds accurately model how the [small part of
the]world that we interface with FUNCTIONS- or those models would not have
kept our remote ancestors alive to pass on their genes!
> Bacteria in terms of literature have been remarkably unsuccessful, also
> their results in footfall pale compared to even moderate teams like
> Aston Villa...
I measured success in this case- in biological terms- because we weren't
talking about humans- obviously we cannot measure success using human
criteria! since humans and bacteria are both biological forms- we use
biological criteria!
"literature" is a form communication which has allowed humans to relate
their little human notions amongst small percentages of themselves for a few
thousand years- bacteria have been able to communicate their whole selves in
perpetuity for perhaps 3.5 billion years [perhaps much longer if indeed
bacteria did not originate on this planet]- human's have to wait generations
to evolve and explore new forms- bacteria can exploit new forms within the
same generation- humans are fragile things which require a very specific
environment- bacteria can exist almost anywhere except for in/on a star-
in biology's term's- humans [and the Kingdom of animals] aren't even in the
running! but considering that humans- and ALL other lifeforms are
essentially colonies of bacteria which worked out how to function as a
larger organisms[our cells are mutant bacteria-our bodies- colonies with
trillions of members/ hundreds of types] - then in all honestly when you
measure the success of bacteria- you should add in the success of humans as
well!
sys/disconnect/:set\AI