Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Thought for the day....

Expand Messages
  • pjfjacks
    Hi all, Very well said, Ray! (I was about to rename the group to CNPhilosphy ;-) But did indeed enjoy reading the conversation. Firstly, this diversity of
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 8, 2002
      Hi all,

      Very well said, Ray! (I was about to rename the group to CNPhilosphy
      ;-) But did indeed enjoy reading the conversation.

      Firstly, this diversity of what we each individually create is very
      rich indeed - what Ray does is different from what Tim C. does is
      different from what Diego does is different from what Jacky does
      is....and on and on, and thankfully so, as each one bends the machine
      and software to their will depending on their diverse tastes and
      creates something unique!

      Getting around to the original point of a Truly AI machine, sentient
      and that can actually express itself creatively. While that might be
      a remarkable accomplishment, doesn't that fact take me, the human,
      totally out of the loop? If the HAL 9000 can, on it's own initiative,
      have an idea and generate and manipulate some music, then that is a
      process completely independant of me or anyone else, and we can lay no
      claim to what is created in that case. Personally, I much prefer the
      idea of my access to some very good tools that I can manipulate and
      mold to my liking, thusly putting my creative instincts to use and
      expressing them...

      Thoughts...

      Phil J.




      --- In cnfractal_music@y..., "Ray Watson" <raywat@i...> wrote:
      > Very good points.
      >
      > All the more reason why we produce such diverse music as we do.
      We have a
      > rich set diverse opinions that is healthy and very productive. It
      stimulates
      > one's imagination with possibilities.
      >
      > -Ray
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: jacky schreiber <jackysch@c...>
      > To: cnfractal_music@y... <cnfractal_music@y...>
      > Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:59 AM
      > Subject: RE: [cnfractal_music] RE: Thought for the day....
      >
      >
      > >Hi:
      > >
      > >Here is a good example of what I posted earlier, the list is inside
      the
      > >LIST, so if someone chooses "to inhibit itself to fit in" he is
      using
      > >his/her freewill to choose to be in rather than out, but freewill
      also lets
      > >you choose not to be in.
      > >
      > >I like your "ability to make a choice which I consider to be
      separate from
      > >consciousness and awareness", altough, you have to be conscious to
      choose,
      > I
      > >think.
      > >
      > >best
      > >
      > >jacky
      > >
      > >
      > >> Jacky,
      > >>
      > >> The reason I believe free-will is filtered by cutlure is
      because I come
      > >> from a multi-cultural enviorment and have experienced this effect
      in
      > >myself
      > >> and close friends from other cultures. Not all humans are totally
      free to
      > >> choose all of the possibilities from their internal lists because
      they
      > are
      > >> filtered by the people around them. Anthropologists expose this
      in their
      > >> studies and research. Even though a person chooses to go along
      with the
      > >> people around them, that does not mean they are executing
      complete
      > >> free-will. We purposefully inhibit ourselves in order to get
      along with
      > >> others and to avoid feeling like an outcast. Maybe it's just a
      matter of
      > >> syntax. Would you consider that some people (of their own
      free-will)
      > >choose
      > >> to inhibit themselves to fit in (but this results in a less
      robust
      > >execution
      > >> of free-will). I think of free-will as the ability to make a
      choice which
      > >I
      > >> consider to be separate from consciousness and awareness. Great
      > >discussion.
      > >>
      > >> -Ray
      > >>
      > >> -----Original Message-----
      > >> From: jacky schreiber <jackysch@c...>
      > >> To: cnfractal_music@y... <cnfractal_music@y...>
      > >> Date: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:24 PM
      > >> Subject: RE: [cnfractal_music] RE: Thought for the day....
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> >Hi:
      > >> >
      > >> >Well, I don't agree here, free will is a human attribute, is the
      ability
      > >to
      > >> >choose a thought/action from THE "collection of lists" wich is
      infinite,
      > >I
      > >> >think it has nothing to do with culture/enviroment.
      > >> >
      > >> >best
      > >> >
      > >> >jacky
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >> Hi Ray,
      > >> >> Thanks for this. I really like the statement "Culture can
      diminish or
      > >> >> enhance free will".
      > >> >>
      > >> >> I am no programmer & maybe I've watched too many
      future-science
      > >> >> documentaries, but the sort of thing I had in mind as a
      > >computer/machine
      > >> >> with free-will was something that maybe used a neural network.
      A
      > >> >> documentary on this subject over 10 years on British TV made a
      lasting
      > >> >> impression on me & I have been surprised that the subject
      seems to
      > have
      > >> >> gone a bit quiet since then.
      > >> >>
      > >> >> Gavin.
      > >> >>
      > >> >> Ray Watson wrote:
      > >> >>
      > >> >> >As a programmer I view free will to be a collection of lists.
      At any
      > >> >given
      > >> >> >moment any item on any list could be selected. Some items
      could be
      > >> >selected
      > >> >> >in sympathy to the local environment. Some items could be
      selected
      > >> >> >independent of the local environment.
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >The environment dependent selections would use "filtered"
      pseudo
      > >random
      > >> >> >generators and the non-environment dependent selections would
      use
      > >> >> >non-filtered pseudo random generators.
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >It is also a matter of resolution ( the quantity of lists and
      the
      > >> >quantity
      > >> >> >of items on each list). I would consider some video game
      characters
      > to
      > >> >> >exhibit coarse free will. Humans I would consider to have the
      > >capability
      > >> >of
      > >> >> >fine resolution free-will (dependent also on culture).
      Culture can
      > >> >diminish
      > >> >> >or enhance free will.
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> >Yes, speed is part of the answer. It is the only way to
      increase the
      > >> >> >resolution in order to emulate free-will in real-time.
      Free-will is
      > >> >separate
      > >> >> >from creativity.
      > >> >> >
      > >> >> > -Ray
      > >> >> >
      > >> >>
      > >> >>
      > >> >>
      > >> >>
      > >> >>
      > >> >>
      > >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >> >>
      > >> >>
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >> >
      > >> >
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
    • jacky schreiber
      Hi: I can see the ad in the morning cup of cofee (it will be connected to the net), the new YIMM Yamaha Intelligent Music Machine, you buy it, plug it, it does
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 8, 2002
        Hi:

        I can see the ad in the morning cup of cofee (it will be connected to the
        net), the new YIMM
        Yamaha Intelligent Music Machine, you buy it, plug it, it does the rest.

        best

        jacky


        > Getting around to the original point of a Truly AI machine, sentient
        > and that can actually express itself creatively. While that might be
        > a remarkable accomplishment, doesn't that fact take me, the human,
        > totally out of the loop? If the HAL 9000 can, on it's own initiative,
        > have an idea and generate and manipulate some music, then that is a
        > process completely independant of me or anyone else, and we can lay no
        > claim to what is created in that case. Personally, I much prefer the
        > idea of my access to some very good tools that I can manipulate and
        > mold to my liking, thusly putting my creative instincts to use and
        > expressing them...
        >
        > Thoughts...
        >
        > Phil J.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In cnfractal_music@y..., "Ray Watson" <raywat@i...> wrote:
        > > Very good points.
        > >
        > > All the more reason why we produce such diverse music as we do.
        > We have a
        > > rich set diverse opinions that is healthy and very productive. It
        > stimulates
        > > one's imagination with possibilities.
        > >
        > > -Ray
        > >
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: jacky schreiber <jackysch@c...>
        > > To: cnfractal_music@y... <cnfractal_music@y...>
        > > Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:59 AM
        > > Subject: RE: [cnfractal_music] RE: Thought for the day....
        > >
        > >
        > > >Hi:
        > > >
        > > >Here is a good example of what I posted earlier, the list is inside
        > the
        > > >LIST, so if someone chooses "to inhibit itself to fit in" he is
        > using
        > > >his/her freewill to choose to be in rather than out, but freewill
        > also lets
        > > >you choose not to be in.
        > > >
        > > >I like your "ability to make a choice which I consider to be
        > separate from
        > > >consciousness and awareness", altough, you have to be conscious to
        > choose,
        > > I
        > > >think.
        > > >
        > > >best
        > > >
        > > >jacky
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >> Jacky,
        > > >>
        > > >> The reason I believe free-will is filtered by cutlure is
        > because I come
        > > >> from a multi-cultural enviorment and have experienced this effect
        > in
        > > >myself
        > > >> and close friends from other cultures. Not all humans are totally
        > free to
        > > >> choose all of the possibilities from their internal lists because
        > they
        > > are
        > > >> filtered by the people around them. Anthropologists expose this
        > in their
        > > >> studies and research. Even though a person chooses to go along
        > with the
        > > >> people around them, that does not mean they are executing
        > complete
        > > >> free-will. We purposefully inhibit ourselves in order to get
        > along with
        > > >> others and to avoid feeling like an outcast. Maybe it's just a
        > matter of
        > > >> syntax. Would you consider that some people (of their own
        > free-will)
        > > >choose
        > > >> to inhibit themselves to fit in (but this results in a less
        > robust
        > > >execution
        > > >> of free-will). I think of free-will as the ability to make a
        > choice which
        > > >I
        > > >> consider to be separate from consciousness and awareness. Great
        > > >discussion.
        > > >>
        > > >> -Ray
        > > >>
        > > >> -----Original Message-----
        > > >> From: jacky schreiber <jackysch@c...>
        > > >> To: cnfractal_music@y... <cnfractal_music@y...>
        > > >> Date: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:24 PM
        > > >> Subject: RE: [cnfractal_music] RE: Thought for the day....
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >> >Hi:
        > > >> >
        > > >> >Well, I don't agree here, free will is a human attribute, is the
        > ability
        > > >to
        > > >> >choose a thought/action from THE "collection of lists" wich is
        > infinite,
        > > >I
        > > >> >think it has nothing to do with culture/enviroment.
        > > >> >
        > > >> >best
        > > >> >
        > > >> >jacky
        > > >> >
        > > >> >
        > > >> >> Hi Ray,
        > > >> >> Thanks for this. I really like the statement "Culture can
        > diminish or
        > > >> >> enhance free will".
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >> I am no programmer & maybe I've watched too many
        > future-science
        > > >> >> documentaries, but the sort of thing I had in mind as a
        > > >computer/machine
        > > >> >> with free-will was something that maybe used a neural network.
        > A
        > > >> >> documentary on this subject over 10 years on British TV made a
        > lasting
        > > >> >> impression on me & I have been surprised that the subject
        > seems to
        > > have
        > > >> >> gone a bit quiet since then.
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >> Gavin.
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >> Ray Watson wrote:
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >> >As a programmer I view free will to be a collection of lists.
        > At any
        > > >> >given
        > > >> >> >moment any item on any list could be selected. Some items
        > could be
        > > >> >selected
        > > >> >> >in sympathy to the local environment. Some items could be
        > selected
        > > >> >> >independent of the local environment.
        > > >> >> >
        > > >> >> >The environment dependent selections would use "filtered"
        > pseudo
        > > >random
        > > >> >> >generators and the non-environment dependent selections would
        > use
        > > >> >> >non-filtered pseudo random generators.
        > > >> >> >
        > > >> >> >It is also a matter of resolution ( the quantity of lists and
        > the
        > > >> >quantity
        > > >> >> >of items on each list). I would consider some video game
        > characters
        > > to
        > > >> >> >exhibit coarse free will. Humans I would consider to have the
        > > >capability
        > > >> >of
        > > >> >> >fine resolution free-will (dependent also on culture).
        > Culture can
        > > >> >diminish
        > > >> >> >or enhance free will.
        > > >> >> >
        > > >> >> >Yes, speed is part of the answer. It is the only way to
        > increase the
        > > >> >> >resolution in order to emulate free-will in real-time.
        > Free-will is
        > > >> >separate
        > > >> >> >from creativity.
        > > >> >> >
        > > >> >> > -Ray
        > > >> >> >
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > > >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >>
        > > >> >
        > > >> >
        > > >> >
        > > >> >
        > > >> >
        > > >> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >> >
        > > >> >
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >>
        > > >>
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >
        > > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • Gavin Stevens
        Hi Phil & all, Well, I really started something here! It is great to read all these different viewpoints - & all in the fine CNFMF tradition of free expression
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 9, 2002
          Hi Phil & all,
          Well, I really started something here! It is great to read all these
          different viewpoints - & all in the fine CNFMF tradition of free
          expression of differing views & not a flame in sight. Long may it continue.

          Your "HAL 9000" would be the sort of "sentient machine" I was thinking
          of at the end of my original post.

          Putting my original post that started this thread into the context of my
          planned lecture-recital, the purpose of this statement would be to give
          a human slant to a subject that can alienate people all to easily.
          However, I shall certainly give air to alternative views expressed in
          this thread.

          Gavin.


          pjfjacks wrote:

          >Hi all,
          >
          >Very well said, Ray! (I was about to rename the group to CNPhilosphy
          >;-) But did indeed enjoy reading the conversation.
          >
          >Firstly, this diversity of what we each individually create is very
          >rich indeed - what Ray does is different from what Tim C. does is
          >different from what Diego does is different from what Jacky does
          >is....and on and on, and thankfully so, as each one bends the machine
          >and software to their will depending on their diverse tastes and
          >creates something unique!
          >
          >Getting around to the original point of a Truly AI machine, sentient
          >and that can actually express itself creatively. While that might be
          >a remarkable accomplishment, doesn't that fact take me, the human,
          >totally out of the loop? If the HAL 9000 can, on it's own initiative,
          >have an idea and generate and manipulate some music, then that is a
          >process completely independent of me or anyone else, and we can lay no
          >claim to what is created in that case. Personally, I much prefer the
          >idea of my access to some very good tools that I can manipulate and
          >mold to my liking, thusly putting my creative instincts to use and
          >expressing them...
          >
          >Thoughts...
          >
          >Phil J.
          >
        • Phil Jackson
          Hi Gavin and all, Yes, a wide range of viewpoints and that is a healthy thing and does allow us to consider different ideas and perhaps alter our own.... The
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 9, 2002
            Hi Gavin and all,

            Yes, a wide range of viewpoints and that is a healthy thing and does
            allow us to consider different ideas and
            perhaps alter our own....

            The spectrum of human/machine creation of music is quite wide with many
            shades of grey in between. Perhaps the
            "Hal 9000" on one end and the human voice on the other?

            Phil J.


            Gavin Stevens wrote:

            > Hi Phil & all,
            > Well, I really started something here! It is great to read all these
            > different viewpoints - & all in the fine CNFMF tradition of free
            > expression of differing views & not a flame in sight. Long may it
            > continue.
            >
            > Your "HAL 9000" would be the sort of "sentient machine" I was thinking
            >
            > of at the end of my original post.
            >
            > Putting my original post that started this thread into the context of
            > my
            > planned lecture-recital, the purpose of this statement would be to
            > give
            > a human slant to a subject that can alienate people all to easily.
            > However, I shall certainly give air to alternative views expressed in
            > this thread.
            >
            > Gavin.
            >
            >
            > pjfjacks wrote:
            >
            > >Hi all,
            > >
            > >Very well said, Ray! (I was about to rename the group to CNPhilosphy
            >
            > >;-) But did indeed enjoy reading the conversation.
            > >
            > >Firstly, this diversity of what we each individually create is very
            > >rich indeed - what Ray does is different from what Tim C. does is
            > >different from what Diego does is different from what Jacky does
            > >is....and on and on, and thankfully so, as each one bends the machine
            >
            > >and software to their will depending on their diverse tastes and
            > >creates something unique!
            > >
            > >Getting around to the original point of a Truly AI machine, sentient
            > >and that can actually express itself creatively. While that might
            > be
            > >a remarkable accomplishment, doesn't that fact take me, the human,
            > >totally out of the loop? If the HAL 9000 can, on it's own
            > initiative,
            > >have an idea and generate and manipulate some music, then that is a
            > >process completely independent of me or anyone else, and we can lay
            > no
            > >claim to what is created in that case. Personally, I much prefer the
            >
            > >idea of my access to some very good tools that I can manipulate and
            > >mold to my liking, thusly putting my creative instincts to use and
            > >expressing them...
            > >
            > >Thoughts...
            > >
            > >Phil J.
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT


            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • jasminkoa
            Hi Gavin and all, I am not sure what this lecture-recital is but I liked your post and the avalanche of ideas it caused (Philosophy, ho!) Somehow I think that
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 11, 2002
              Hi Gavin and all,

              I am not sure what this lecture-recital is but I liked your post and
              the avalanche of ideas it caused (Philosophy, ho!)

              Somehow I think that there is a distant relation to all this problem
              of "who is making what and if computer will everbe able to..." to the
              Santiago theory (Maturana and Varela) where autopoetic systems are
              discussed, and also what is life and cognition (being the same
              things), among other things. Basicaly, this theory clearly says what
              is life, and present computers are certainly not in that realm. Only
              life/cognitive system can have and dinamicaly apply values as someone
              here already mentioned and computer can only mimic human ones.

              Closely related to computers and their ability/inability to make
              programes and music etc. are, I think, the tries they make with so
              caled "evolutionary music" or "computational music". Lookes like a
              link towards future computing, but here, we are only simulating
              life/evolutionary process again...

              So, it comes out that computers, if they ever became alive (why not?)
              might be able to make their music, but shall we like it? Someone
              might say that they can be forced to make music to our liking, but,
              then, will it be politicaly correct having in mind the fact that they
              are alive...?

              I guess that I got myself into a logical knot here. Can someone untie
              me, please?

              Thanks for starting a true philosophical question in the group once
              again,

              best regards,

              jasminko
            • Gavin Stevens
              Hi Jasminko & all, Good to hear from you. Your post made sense to me & I certainly can t see a logical knot in what you say. I am planning a lecture-recital
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 11, 2002
                Hi Jasminko & all,
                Good to hear from you. Your post made sense to me & I certainly can't
                see a "logical knot" in what you say.

                I am planning a lecture-recital on the subject of computer-generated
                music, which will consist of a talk on the subject, illustrated with
                live performances on piano of computer-generated music. These pieces
                will be taken mainly from the "Keyscapes" project, although I hope to
                perform some other pieces as well. The "Thought for the Day" was an
                attempt to put into words how I see computer-generated music at present
                & to get feedback on that view. It is my hope to post more of these
                thoughts as I research the subject & get ideas for the text of the
                lecture-recital.

                I performed one of the pieces from Keyscapes recently. I uploaded a midi
                file of me playing Casey van Tieghem's "Be Still" to the files section.
                This link should take you there:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cnfractal_music/files/Critique/caseyvantieghem-bestill-live.mid

                Gavin.


                jasminkoa wrote:

                >Hi Gavin and all,
                >
                >I am not sure what this lecture-recital is but I liked your post and
                >the avalanche of ideas it caused (Philosophy, ho!)
                >
                >Somehow I think that there is a distant relation to all this problem
                >of "who is making what and if computer will everbe able to..." to the
                >Santiago theory (Maturana and Varela) where autopoetic systems are
                >discussed, and also what is life and cognition (being the same
                >things), among other things. Basically, this theory clearly says what
                >is life, and present computers are certainly not in that realm. Only
                >life/cognitive system can have and dynamically apply values as someone
                >here already mentioned and computer can only mimic human ones.
                >
                >Closely related to computers and their ability/inability to make
                >programmes and music etc. are, I think, the tries they make with so
                >called "evolutionary music" or "computational music". Looks like a
                >link towards future computing, but here, we are only simulating
                >life/evolutionary process again...
                >
                >So, it comes out that computers, if they ever became alive (why not?)
                >might be able to make their music, but shall we like it? Someone
                >might say that they can be forced to make music to our liking, but,
                >then, will it be politically correct having in mind the fact that they
                >are alive...?
                >
                >I guess that I got myself into a logical knot here. Can someone untie
                >me, please?
                >
                >Thanks for starting a true philosophical question in the group once
                >again,
                >
                >best regards,
                >
                >jasminko
                >
              • jasminkoa
                ... can t ... generated ... with ... pieces ... to ... present ... midi ... section. ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cnfractal_music/files/Critique/caseyvant
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 12, 2002
                  --- In cnfractal_music@y..., Gavin Stevens <gavmusic@b...> wrote:
                  > Hi Jasminko & all,
                  > Good to hear from you. Your post made sense to me & I certainly
                  can't
                  > see a "logical knot" in what you say.
                  >
                  > I am planning a lecture-recital on the subject of computer-
                  generated
                  > music, which will consist of a talk on the subject, illustrated
                  with
                  > live performances on piano of computer-generated music. These
                  pieces
                  > will be taken mainly from the "Keyscapes" project, although I hope
                  to
                  > perform some other pieces as well. The "Thought for the Day" was an
                  > attempt to put into words how I see computer-generated music at
                  present
                  > & to get feedback on that view. It is my hope to post more of these
                  > thoughts as I research the subject & get ideas for the text of the
                  > lecture-recital.
                  >
                  > I performed one of the pieces from Keyscapes recently. I uploaded a
                  midi
                  > file of me playing Casey van Tieghem's "Be Still" to the files
                  section.
                  > This link should take you there:
                  >
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cnfractal_music/files/Critique/caseyvant
                  ieghem-bestill-live.mid
                  >
                  > Gavin.

                  Hi Gavin and all,

                  Now I see what you are up to...

                  Obviously, you will not have an unlimited time at your disposal for
                  discussions since there will be other, more important things, like
                  music itself, however, as far as I remember, we had many of
                  discussions like this - very interesting ones - here in the Forum.
                  Just type "generative", "composed" etc. in the research box and you
                  should get threads of some of the discussions.

                  But, your post and the discussion that followed trigered another set
                  of thoughts with me which might add up some fuel to the fire of
                  discussion...

                  In the ex-communist times, here, the word "recital" was reserved for
                  a stage performance/show where reciting, singing, movement etc. was
                  used - exclusievely - for pro-comunist expressions of love for the
                  regime, the Party, Tito (our ex-president) etc, performed mostly by
                  pupils from elementary schools, with red scarves around their necks.
                  That's the reason I was curious what this word means in English. Now
                  I know that this is a normal word which can be used for normal things.

                  But the triggered thought is this: although we could hardly wait for
                  communism to fall down - which happened at last - I myself can not
                  deny the intelectual and analythical power of the underlying
                  philosophy of communizm, that is, the dialectical materialism.

                  What does this have to do with music? Well, as far as I remember from
                  the school days, this phylosophy states that we, humans, much like
                  everything else, are from Nature and shaped by Nature. There is
                  nothing in and about ourselves which is not from the Nature itself
                  including our Mind, for example.

                  Reading carefully the Santiago theory one gets an impression that
                  cognition in general, and other highly sophisticated and related
                  concepts such as creativity, mind, inteligence, brain etc. are at the
                  very core of the possibilities of the complex systems -
                  matter/energy - which is simply alowed by the Nature and thus comes
                  in effect just as other basic life qualities do.

                  In one word, all these can be seen as emergent properties of a
                  complex system, coming into being spontaneously, in a flux of
                  constant change, that is, during the autopoetic and other processes.

                  Now, following (researcing) this thread of thoughts, the dialectical
                  materialism also gives some laws of Change which, if my English is
                  correct, are: the law of transition of quantity into quality, the law
                  of strife and unity of oposites, and the law of negation of negation.

                  Without further elaboration, I will just bravely state that studying
                  systems theory, and nowdays, complex systems theory etc., I was just
                  never able to figure out what is basicaly the difference between
                  dialectical materialzm and modern systems theories... But, since this
                  is not a very popular subject here, I just learned to keep my mouth
                  shut...

                  Dialectical materializm also states that any existing phonomena in
                  Nature - from a mountain to a flower, by going through above
                  mentioned unavoidable laws, goes through following relations in
                  itself and to other entities: gradation, contrast and rhytm.

                  Now, as a synthesis, both humans and crocodiles, and I firmly believe
                  aliens too, with or without highly sophisticated cognitive aparatus -
                  for example, bacteria does not have one, but is, acording to Santiago
                  theory, a cognitive system, that is, it is cognitive since life
                  process is a process of cognition -, we are all from the Nature and
                  shapedby it and for that reason we share the same laws of nature, and
                  both in the structure of our sense organs and in our cognition, we
                  are all, in every moment of our lives, soaked in gradations,
                  contrasts and rhytms - be it gradual diminishing of our bank accounts
                  or the quantity of soup in our plates during the Process of Eating;
                  we also know what are the far ends - scopes - of, say, high and low
                  temperature of the air, and how abruptly it can change into its
                  opposite; and the rhytms of Nature we live with every day and year I
                  will not even mention...

                  So, our music in its very core could not be anything else and any
                  different than it is, regardles of miriards of variations - it will
                  always use gradations, contrasts and rhytms (and variatins) as a
                  language we all share. (Music, for me, is a purest and most abstract
                  of all arts since it uses the Forms of nature as a building material
                  to the degree no other artistic form can.) Or, to restate it using
                  computer language, out of zilions of total or random possibilities
                  our music will always be filtered out - evaluated and valued - by our
                  cognitive, natural, filters we developed, dialecticaly, through our
                  biological and cultural processes.

                  This, is, I believe, also a true test for computers making their own
                  music: yes, they can help us in the process or they can evolve music
                  nowdays through a GA program, but, truly, on their own, they will be
                  able to make music when, and if, - in whatever way - they become
                  Alive... and to become alive means that they will have to fight for
                  the energy around them: to organise, self-organise, re-organise,
                  adapt, network, share, participate, mutate etc. so that the
                  life/cognitive autopoetic units - wether comprised of quanta of light
                  within atoms or something else - have to fight they way through. Then
                  they shall encounter the same basic laws of Nature, albeit different,
                  that we know. And then make music out of their own - as their own
                  alegory and abstraction of their lives' experience, not ours.

                  However, something tells me that such music will not be completely
                  alien to and unacceptable by us...

                  Was this "knotty" enough?

                  I wish you successfull event.

                  best regards,

                  jasminko
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.