Good, I like this. some thinking is going on this list. Still, I think
you go in a different direction. not that I think my point is so
important, but i just hate it when people argue about different things.
Generally, I agree with all that you say, but it's not about what I was
talking about at the beginning, it's about other problems. so let me
start again,
quoted 5 lines i'm not concerned at all with how realistic a sci-fi, cyberpunk,
> i'm not concerned at all with how realistic a sci-fi, cyberpunk,
> space-opera, lsd-novel, etc is. in the same way, sounds coming from a
> synthesizer are artificially-produced but are not less real than those
> coming from a piano. you should not confuse "real", "realistic",
> "artificial", and "synthetic".
:) sorry, i just donВґt have your perception and concept of synthetic
and artificial. a piano is a highly technical and therefore "artificial"
thing for me. pure technology anyway. it does not grow on trees. it
makes an extremely complex amplified sound that cannot be imitated by
human voice, thatz why we feel so "small" and touched when a piano is
playing. it is mighty and it is a technically amplified sound. look at
it phenomenologically. the synthesizer does allow all kind of natural
feedbacks too. i can touch it, play it, smell it, throw it out of the
window. analog synths are highly sensitive to temperature. the
amplification is not relevant to me. an electric guitar is as direct and
natural as an acoustic guitar. the problem with the synthesizer is only
that the speaker-system is not build in. we could do that.
then itВґll be more natural in your sense?
you cannot be less or more natural in any sense. sorry for using the
word "natural". I know it creates huge problems because ppl have so many
different meanings of it.
I'm not concerned with how close to each other different instruments
sound, even if you make them create identical waves. I'm concerned with
where the vibration comes from and where are its roots. in the case with
the piano, the vibration comes from the piano and the materials it was
made of. in the case of the synth, it comes from the speaker and the
guyz who engineered the sound of the synth. but you're not going to hear
them before you attach a speaker and let the electricity run through the
circuits. let a synth play without speaker, it will be very funny. or
stick your fingers in the jacks instead. but let the piano play with the
wooden part dismantled. it will still make sounds, even though not the
same. as highly developed instrument as it is, the piano possess the
vibration as "an inborn" quality of the materials it is made of - metal
and wood. when you hear a piano play, it's the strings vibrating that
you're listening to. if you hear a synth, you're listening to the
electricity running through the circuits, even though these might be two
identical sounds.
quoted 5 lines see, when you play the guitar, the vibration is part of the qualities
>
> see, when you play the guitar, the vibration is part of the qualities
> of the strings and the wooden-box. you can actually hear the strings
> vibrating, and the wooden box reinforcing the sound-wave. it's part of
> nature that you're listening to.
\\or not listening to. in psycho-acoustics we have the "masking effect"
which says that in case that a low sound that was perceived by our
neuronal system (brain) is \followed by a loud sound its information
will be substracted from the perceptive system. a loud sound coming in
several milliseconds AFTER an already perceived low sound will be
recognised consciously and prefered, while the low sound is deleted
before it is pushed to consciousness (olthough it was in a buffered
neuronal storage system before). this is possible cause there is a
latency between hearing and storing the sound as an information and
finally bringing it into the focus of the person. this is a mathematical
process of addition / subtraction on a very high and precise level.
this is so right, but again, it doesn't really matter to me, right now.
besides that, if you really want to get psychological, you have to admit
that informed listeners usually know in advance what kind of sounds they
are listening to, and expectation creates a huge difference for your
perception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature#The_natural_and_the_artificial
quoted 3 lines in contrast, the synthesizer doesn't possess any good accoustic
> in contrast, the synthesizer doesn't possess any good accoustic
> characteristics. it, however, can create certain electromagnetic
> fields which provoke a speaker membrane to vibrate.
\\\pure nature. I can make my guitar sound like a synthesizer if I want
it. I just need acoustical tools.. no electricity or chips. the physical
rules of sound-engineering \say that you can produce mostle ANY acoustic
manipulation with mechanical amplification and without electricity.
filters are easy, you have to damp certain frequencies and if you move
the sound-source while filtering you can achieve modulated filtering.
exactly like a synthesizer (just waaay more fumbling). donВґt try this
at home, kids.
everything is natural. the idea of "something which is not real" is
purely absurd.
quoted 2 lines the worlds of william gibson don't exist in reality, do they?
>
> the worlds of william gibson don't exist in reality, do they?
\yes and no. literally: no. we donВґt have the chess-board-style matrix
surfing lifestyle. but on the other hand we have all kind of viruses,
trojans, bots and so on and we do use computers in a similar way. they
are exactly the same in the networks then in gibsons vision. the
difference is the dramatic effect. the computer-stuff in gibsanВґs books
are magnified, distorted.
\\and then: just wait 2-3 years until SONY or another company starts
selling some 180В° panoramic TFT glasses that keep a hole generation of
kids from making any homework ever again and will cause dramatical
addictive problems on computer- and gamefreaks. design a 180В°
compatible webbrowser and you are half the way towards neuromancer
(without the implants).
these things didn't exist when these authors were writing the novels.
\but i guess gibson is not toffler..
quoted 4 lines he didn't go out, saw a guy with chips in his head and steel bones and
> he didn't go out, saw a guy with chips in his head and steel bones and
> said, "dude, let's write a novel about that guy over there!" or maybe
> you can make the argument that certain people can see directly in the
> future as it is going to be? i doubt it.
\u shouldnВґt. some people do and that IS sometimes the essence of the
fantastic novels by these authors. see the future? william toffler did
(read "future shock" and \compare) and my mother did when she predicted
a letter from the postman one day. I remember it very clearly: she got
up in a terrible mood and told me that she \felt really bad and anxious,
she didnВґt know why, was totally disbalanced and she had a weird dream
of my grandfather telling her that everythingВґs fine. after she opened
her letters we knew it. my grandfather had died 3 months ago and that
was a delayed note of this incident. so she predicted the bad news, the
arrival of the letter (not his death). i call this looking into the
future, yes. you donВґt need to believe what I tell you, but I think
prediciton exists (evokes) in certain situations.
we do it by interpolation/extrapolation of subliminal information. you
can do it best the nearer you are to the moment that you want to
predict. there is a lot of hidden information that we can use to predict
situations to come. (meta-communication) nothing magical in the process,
one day it will be explored. I donВґt believe in supernatural effects btw.
seeing the future directly is different from predicting what's going to
happen. quite different. ask the guyz who do physics what they think
about looking at the future.
wow, this even helped me straighten out some concepts for myself, i
should read this list more often.
dobri
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org