Sorry to jump in on this complete tangent - and please now just hit the delete button on your e-mail program - but just so we can all know, it was mostly the romantic age (Wordsworth, Coleridge, Goethe, et al) that gave us the paradigme of "natural" being superior to "artificial" or "created". The nice thing about this stupid distinction is that, on closer examination 20th century philosophy realized that everything is created, so the distiction breaks down - it might be unfair to fault anyone personally now for carrying around this 300 year old idea. Now don't really just wish you had hit delete? Sorry, I know this stuff the way you guys know frequency modulation.

> Scott Seay wrote: Sorry to jump in on this complete tangent -

Shame this didn't get to me a few minutes ago. Would have saved me a mail!

>and please now just hit the delete button on your e-mail program

... and miss your exciting words!! ...

>- but just so we can all know, it was mostly the romantic age (Wordsworth, Coleridge, Goethe, et al)that gave us the paradigme of "natural" being superior to "artificial" or "created".

Had forgotten that.

> The nice thing about this stupid distinction is that, on closer examination 20th century philosophy realized that everything is created, so the distiction breaks down -

Indeed it does.

> it might be unfair to fault anyone personally now for carrying around this 300 year old idea.

Thanks!!!

> Now don't really just wish you had hit delete.

Nope!!

> Sorry, I know this stuff the way you guys know frequency modulation.

Well ... I think you know it a lot better than I know FM, actually. I was just winging it!!

Its a fascinating subject. I often find this with making music. Sometimes it sounds contrived, to much like a human plonking on keys, to natural. I use a some algorithmic stuff and it sounds natural, maybe chaos comes into it. I do feel there is a major divide between the 'natural' world and humanity who's 'civilisation' appears to look very much like a virus in cellular form from out in space. Everything is created, God only knows why the stars, the stellar systems and solar systems were created, why the trees are green and the sky appears blue. In relation to this humanities 'creations' can appear more than a little contrived or artificial .

Maybe this won't be the case when we have reached a point in evolution where we can co-exist more and co-operate with nature and the creation around us. Natural some may feel is superior in that it is in harmony with the majority of what is, superior I think is the weaklink here... superior I'm not sure of... Everything is created I agree, but not with the same intent... artificial - superficial - false - unreal - real - I think this thread could end up trying to explain the very nature of infinity itself, I think, because the word artificial exists then the concept does as people give it form in thought. I listen to much music and some sounds natural despite being very, very electronic, some sounds artificial contrived despite being 'acoustic' and false, but God knows why and what parameters my head or heart have going to make this conclusion... superior indicates a weakness always... I totally agree and disagree with everything said.

Everything is equal I would like to think... superiority is why this worlds the way it is right now... but the sun still shining.

> Matt ishq wrote: I do feel there is a major divide between the 'natural ' world and humanity

Yeah, most people feel this way, and me too. But as earlier mentioned, on closer inspection this divide isn't anywhere to be found. So, we spread all over the world. Well, so do bacteria. We use sand and different types of "glue" to make it stick together and create building. Well, so does termites. You could claim that our buildings with is straight lines and repetetive patterns are artificial. Well, what about the hexagonal patterns inside a beehive? Nobody would ever claim that bacteria, termites or bees are unnatural, right?

> 'civilisation' appears to look very much like a virus in cellular form from out in space.

> Everything is created, God only knows why the stars, the stellar systems and solar systems were created, why the trees are green and the sky appears blue .In relation to this humanities 'creations 'can appear more than a little contrived or artificial .

I believe I started this thread with my question about experimental VS musical patches... And now it's a wonderful thing to see this discussion evolve into good VS bad music, joysticks and even natural VS unnatural sounds... What's next ? Laugh ? Oh yes I do. I love you all. NOW I UNDERSTAND THE EXCITEMENT WITH NOODLES. This community is a gigantic living noodle. 100,1% DSP load continuously.

> Matt ishq wrote: I would like to live in a round house one day... and follow this pattern more... patterns/geometry does seem fundemental to all life.....

Hadn't thought of that! I would settle for a few curved walls I guess.

> I dunno, but it seems to me that it's at least as "natural" to make music with electrons as it is to make music with a pipe organ or a tuba. Those things don't exactly grow on trees.

That would be some mightly strange looking tree if they did...

"HELLOOO!!! Over HERE!!!"

> Lennart Regebro wrote: The only thing that really sticks out with humans compared to animals are art.

That I'm not so sure of, actually!!

http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/behavior/rain_dance.html

http://www.needcoffee.com/html/lit/wordbombs/whycatspaint.htm

http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/chimps.html

Again, that I'm not so sure of. I think some of these people would give you a very good run for your money in debating that one.

http://cetus.pmel.noaa.gov/Bioacoustics.html

http://www.bl.uk/collections/sound-archive/wild.html

http://www.naturesounds.org/

http://whyfiles.org/114music/index.html

http://mushinone.cool.ne.jp/English/ENGindex.htm

http://www2.arnes.si/~ljprirodm3/bioakustika.html

Just sticking to music ... if your premise is that animals, even insects "just" make noise by instinct, then there's still a lot of variation in noise sounds, plus times made, that require explanation. Yes ... insects USUALLY click their wings or whatever in order to attract a mate, but why do they continue to do this after mating's end when there's no possibility any more of attracting a mate? Or ... are we to assume they just don't know any better? In which case ... when human beings make music and dance, on what basis do we decide that, at bottom, they don't just keep making music to improve the possibilities of attracting a mate? "The world's oldest flute" was recently discovered, rebuilt, and played. As to the question of WHY it was built, archaeologists seriously believe that it was done to improve the owner's chances of attracting a mate ... or else to play along to a dance in which there was an increased chance of acquiring a mate!

> And since music is art, ALL MUSIC IS ARTIFICIAL.

... and... that I'm not so sure of either!!! To my ears anyway, a lot of the stuff like this:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast19jan_1.htm?list73301

plus some of the stuff from the Arizona deserts on the radio station I sent in the other day ... they sound right musical to me. That's to say, they don't seem to ME, anyway, to be "ordinary" noises ... much in the same way that -- possibly -- the sound of a waterfall seems to be "not ordinary", and worth paying particular attention to, to some of the chimpanzees mentioned above. But of course, it's ME that is giving a word to that appreciation of the natural sound ... but then again the feeling that I have is a perfectly natural one ... so what's truly artificial about music or about the "appreciation" of it (in and of itself alone) whether by human, insect or whale? The one thing we don't have is a definitive statement by an insect that it isn't just, or only, making a noise. John Wesley used to go and visit the London Zoo to play the flute to the animals there on the grounds that the flute was the most "natural" of all God's instruments, and that if lions and bears were truly musical then they would show some appreciation when he played to them.

Yes!!

> > 'civilisation ' appears to look very much like a virus in cellular form from out in space.

Seems to me that you have as contrary a mind as I do!!!!

On that one I'll just smile and chuckle!! However, I think I agree with you, to be honest. If you're saying what I think you're saying. I certainly think I know what I'm saying, but whether or not it's natural or artificial I don't know.

> Dave Peck wrote: And regarding the acoustic/natural vs. electronic/unnatural question - I dunno, but it seems to me that it's at least as "natural" to make music with electrons as it is to make music with a pipe organ or a tuba.

Hmmm. Now you mention it ... ALL music is made by moving electrons.

> Those things don't exactly grow on trees.

I never did invite you round my place, did I?

> http://www.needcoffee.com/html/lit/wordbombs/whycatspaint.htm

Although this is a great book, it's a fictional work of art in itself. Cats, as much as I love them, do not paint. It would be very cool if they did, and I'd even support the construction of additional highway lanes for cats to drive little cat-sized cars to get to their gallery showings.

> Stupid Octave Cat wrote: Although this is a great book...

That's what I thought ...

>... it's a fictional work of art in itself.

No, no, no! You don't mean it! That is so sad. Don't believe him, people! The man's lying! He's a secret dog-lover! It's just that he can't think of any way to advance dogs other than by rubbishing the truly immense cultural and technological achievement made by cats. Yes! That's what it is! Psychologically disturbed people like that were even featured on Oprah once!!! (I'm sure they were!)

> Cats, as much as I love them, do not paint.

They do when nobody's watching!!!

> It would be very cool if they did, and I'd even support the construction of additional highway lanes for cats to drive little cat-sized cars to get to their gallery showings.

You should see the traffic jams around here. Nobody's ever worked out how they start. Some of us know, though. We just KNOW. Shame about that book, though. Ah well. You'd think I'd know better, by now, than to believe stuff I read over the Internet!!

Sometimes when my wife and I are in the living room, we hear our cat playing Synthesizer in the studio...

> Cats, as much as I love them, do not paint.

> Friday's Child wrote: The only thing that really sticks out with humans compared to animals are art.

I'll read the articles, but in my knowledge, no other animal but humans have either made abstract representations of their surroundings in paint or sculpture, or decorated their surroundings or tools with abstract patterns. These are the earliest forms of art known, and no other animal except for homo sapiens, not even our close relatives the Neandertals, have ever produced something like that. There is a difference that can not be removed by overly humanizing interpretations of animal behaviour. Another difference is religion, but there Neandertals displayed behaviour that could be indicitative of religion.

> I think some of these people would give you a very good run for your money in debating that one.

That animals create sound does not mean that the create art. To create art you first and foremost have to be aware of what you are doing, and self- consciousness has not been proven in any animals (although I don't rule out that some animals have a rudimentary form of it).

> Just sticking to music ... if your premise is that animals, even insects "just" make noise by instinct, then there's still a lot of variation in noise sounds, plus times made, that require explanation.

Why does it require explanation?

> in the other day... they sound right musical to me.

> Seems to me that you have as contrary a mind as I do!!!!

All art/music is a form of extended apesong, which human apes emit to define their place in the social hierarchy (IE musician or artist stands up, says "here's what I do!", some people hate it, others make appreciative or submissive noises and give them stuff). A personal theory I admit, but no less 100% true for that.

What lovely weather were having at the moment... I seem to have mistaken the NordModularList for the UK British Lawnmower Society Users Club Mailing List by accident! Sorry... decided to leave the grass long...

Okay, the ape-thing clicked my button. Here's my theory: Whiten and Byrne, two primatologists, came up with a theory some years back that primate intelligence was not selected for its technological usefuleness, as primatologists had always thought (i.e., intelligence was selected because we used it to make tools, find food, organize hunts, etc). Rather, Whiten, Byrne and others, after observing primates in the wild, discovered their amazingly complex use of deceit to preserve the social unit. Apes and chimps would feign, pretend, lie, and plan complex false scenarios to get what they wanted form one another. Intelligence, then, was selected because it allowed for more complex forms of deceit, beyond simpler animal subterfuges like mimickry, etc. This is why we love theatre, film, and all the forms of art that "lie" to us. Here the difference between the natural and mechanical is moot.

Along with this "Machiavellian Intelligence" (Whiten and Byrnes term) evolved suspicion: how do I know you're not lying to me? How can I believe what I see, hear? Curiosity, then, human curiosity, is selected (along with intelligence) as well, but a curiosity that far exceeds what we see in animals. We are not passingly curious as a dog might be in a particularly ripe smell, we seek out that which is unique, that which we don't understand, that which severely challenges our minds, because it is this quality that nature has selected that has allowed us to survive. We are weak, slow, naked creatures, but we have intellect, an intellect naturally drawn to the "false," the curious, the weird. Art, then, is not idle play, or territorial bombast,. The making of art is what insures our survival, our ability to confront the unthinkable, the unimaginable threats to our existence.

Modular weirdness is helping the species survive, for good or ill.

Reading John Lilly's work on communicating with dolphins was a big eye opener for me, yes we are primarily visual, other species are not. I agree with his analysis and wonder how many of us would truly be able to recognize alien art, intelligence. I guess lately I'm more impressed by those who continue to study as opposed to those who are still relying on others beliefs.

That said I think many of the artist here continue to study what makes up sounds and why they have an impact on us. I have been learning much from you all, thanks.

> leave the grass long...

I wonder if a computer will get there first.

Lennart Regebro originally wrote:

>The only thing that really sticks out with humans compared to animals are art.

To which Friday's Child replied:

> That I'm not so sure of, actually!!

Lennart then wrote:

LOL. I like that. You must be a well-known philosopher!!

OK. I was not aware though (e.g. studies in anthropology of art) that the issues had become quite so simple and clear cut ... or so easy to resolve.

> These are the earliest forms of art known,

Depends how you define "art", I think. And ... if that is how "the earliest forms of art" are defined, then there the matter ends, I think.

> and no other animal except for homo sapiens, not even our close relatives the neandertals, have ever produced something like that.

Given the above definition of "early art" ... then ... this is so by definition, I think.

> There is a difference that can not be removed by overly humanizing interpretations of animal behaviour.

The nub here is in the "overly". As also in the "humanizing". And also, of course, in the definition of, and choices of works allowed to be, examples of, "early art".

> Another difference is religion, but there Neandertals displayed behaviour that could be indicitative of religion.

Pass!!!!! I think I'm in enough trouble already!!!!

>That animals create sound does not mean that the create art.

OK. Same procedure, though, occurs in that it is clearly perfectly possible to define "music" in such a way as to guarantee that none except humans can possibly make it or appreciate it. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't say a great deal (IMO, anyway) about what either "music" or "humans" really are in themselves. If "only humans can make music"; also if and "everything potentially musical but made by a non-human is demonstrably not music" then there the matter ends, also.

> To create art you first and foremost have to be aware of what you are doing, and self-consciousness has not been proven in any animals (although I don't rule outthat some animals have a rudimentary form of it).

Well ... there's "first"; and then there's "foremost". Then there's that rather knotty little problem of "aware". Creatures have been observed to do things time and time again until they get it "right". They are clearly being made "aware" that they have got it "wrong". That is all that education is. You did something, your teacher made you "aware" that you had got it wrong, and made you do it again until you had got it "right". Even dogs are that "aware". If they were not they would be un-trainable. (Of course, I've never read a dog obedience manual on how to be a more obedient dog written by a dog, so you would have a point there!! However, dogs have been observed encouraging each other to behave in ways that accelerate their learning process and so make them easier to train ... and pass on lessons to each other. Then ... human beings encourage the process by preferentially breeding on from those easily-trainable dogs).

> > Just sticking to music ... if your premise is that animals, even insect "just" make noise by instinct, then there's still a lot of variation in noise sounds, plus times made, that require explanation.

> Why does it require explanation?

True.

> > in the other day ... they sound right musical to me.

>Well, if you define music as "any type of sounds which I find enjoyable", >then no, most music is not art. I find it a very weird definition, though.

Maybe so.

And ... you may find it a "weird" definition ... but best thing I can do is quite something I learned but a few moments ago from a well-known philosopher "No, but I am, and thats enough for me."

> > Seems to me that you have as contrary a mind as I do!!!!

OK. But I am looking forward to it. The start of it, I mean! As for this discussion ... I think I will bow out of it now unless something truly notable comes along. Interesting in its way, but ... I am not attaching any patches to any of these contributions!!

> Friday's Child wrote: Then there's that rather knotty little problem of "aware". Creatures have been observed to do things time and time again until they get it "right". They are clearly being made "aware" that they have got it "wrong".

Simple robots with simple neural networks do the same thing. Are those aware of their actions? Do they have self-awareness? Of course not.

> That is all that education is. You did something, your teacher made you "aware" that you had got it wrong, and made you do it again until you had got it "right". Even dogs are that "aware". If they were not they would be un-trainable.

Thats why I mentioned consciousness. With your definition of aware, then amoebas are aware. I would like too see you claim that amoebas create art.

> Emile Tobenfeld (a.k.a Dr. T) wrote: Elephants have been trained to make both art and music, check out the Thai Elephant Orchestra

To me it sounds a lot like what Kroumata does. In other words, it sounds like small kids banging on expensive instruments. I also get *very* similar sounds from my mothers garden, where a variety of wind chimes is dangling. I'm sorry to be the sceptic here, but although I don't doubt that these elephands enjoy making noises, I fail to hear other things but noises. There is no rhytm, except the automatoc steady beat you get from the natural rate of banging something, and I can hear no melody whatsoever.

> Lennart Regebro wrote: Simple robots with simple neural networks do the same thing.

Input > output ... compare: modify.

> Are those aware of their actions?

Yes. Otherwise ... no input >output ... compare: modify.

> Do they have self-awareness?

Well ... they are not modifying themselves according to anyone else's inputs and outputs.

If you say so.

> Thats why I mentioned consciousness.

Aaaah. Would that I knew what that was!

> With your definition of aware, then amoebas are aware. I would like too see you claim that amoebas create art.

Yeh, but they've only been doing it a few years, and there's not many of them. Give them another 300 years of musical development Lennart, trust me, those elephants are gonna rock the hut!

> Lennart Regebro wrote: To me it sounds a lot like what Kroumata does. In other words, it sounds like small kids banging on expensive instruments.

My children have expensive instruments. They bang them all the time. Sounds like music to me. Although others often doubt it. You have to have a child up there on the stage yourself in order to enjoy the "music" made by a bunch of small kids the age of 8 or so who have weapons of destruction like violins and little drums in their hands!! If one of those little monsters up there isn't yours, then most likely none of it is either "music" or "enjoyable" by any but the most generous usages of those terms!

> I also get *very* similar sounds from my mothers garden, where a variety of wind chimes is dangling.

Same here. Sound like music to me, though.

> I'm sorry to be the sceptic here,

That's OK.

> but although I don't doubt that these elephands enjoy making noises, I fail to hear other things but noises.

I hear music.

> There is no rhytm,

I hear rhythm.

> except the automatoc steady beat you get from the natural rate of banging something,

That too is music.

> and I can hear no melody whatsoever.

I hear melody.

Energy is defined as the property of an interaction. E.g. those two masses over there move within the gravitational fields established by each other. Energy is then either absorbed or surrendered. Without an INTERACTION, there is no energy.

Music, and art, also -- IN MY VIEW -- can only be defined as the properties of an interaction.

Without my willing participation to perceive "art" or "consciousness" in that thing over there, it has none. Without the willingness of someone to be an audience, there is no music ... there is no art.

Call me weird if you will ... but ...

I am willing to be such an audience for elephants and ants. If that means I am "humanizing" them, so be it. If that means I am "lowering myself", so be it. If that means I am not "elevating myself" sufficiently in the way that "humans" both "can", and "should", then so be it. I will then agree that I am not "a proper human" and I will be well content with that. In those things, I am a willing participant. Those things do not exist without me ... and with me they exist ... for me even if not for others. However ... none of those entities can programme my Nord the way I can.

Self-examination is always a good thing and some musings to my own self are in order, I guess. So ... why do I say these apparently ridiculous things such as that apes can make music and maybe amoebae can make art? Probably because ... it was only 100 years ago that learned scholars and academics of the highest distinction were writing learned books on whether or not "Africans" "had souls", "had consciousness" or could "really make music". Come to that, people are STILL writing treatises on such things... as also on whether or not the rhythms that I grew up playing do or do not contain "melody", and whether they are or are not "simple" explications of "savage rhythms" "unworthy" of more "civilized beings" and whose sole function is to "corrupt the youth" of certain other nations and peoples, which youth should then be protected from the nefarious effects of such things. Those kinds of statements are a reality of my life. I don't think the people who wrote/write them ever thought that the people they were writing about would have children who could then read those books and have opinions of their own about their authors. And if they did think about it, they probably didn't care.

Personally, I can hear the melodies in such things kpanlogo, sovu and the bangings of many other things perfectly satisfactorily. If others can't hear them (and I am NOT accusing anyone personally of such a thing, merely trying to explain my own emotional reactions satisfactorily) then in my opinion that's their problem and not mine.

I repeat -- I am not accusing anyone -- including your Lennart -- of trying to engage in that kind of a debate -- and nor am I trying to accuse anyone of having said anything they didn't. I am just explaining my seemingly inbred antipathy to certain particular points of view. They evoke memories and they are thus a part of who I am. As I said -- even just half a generation ago people were widely debating whether or not terms such as "intelligence", "free will", "consciousness", "music" and "art" should seriously be applied to people such as my grandparents. My hackles therefore tend to stiffen in an admittedly unseemly way whenever words of that kind are debated.

An illogical and emotional reaction, I guess, but I hope understandable. It's simply that I have been on the receiving end of these things way too often, and directed at me by way too many people who were way too determined -- and I am NOT saying that anyone on this list was doing that -- to use those words in ways that were intended to exclude little old me from the spectrum of humanity ... and more than that from all respectability and to justify a level of treatment they are unwilling to mete out to their pets and livestock. Just by carefully "defining" a few choice words.

I enjoy the music of elephants, ants, and the wind. I do not know what THEY think of the music I try to make, but I can only offer mine to them as freely as they offer theirs to me. The rest -- to be or not to be a part of my audience -- is up to them. For all I know, one day their children will grow up and be able to read what I have written about them!! As I have said often -- IMO music is about participation and does not exist without it.

I think I'm really really done here now. I'll be home with my Red Beauty soon. Hope to submit a few patches then to make up for these many words. Again, I am not accusing anyone of anything. Just trying to explain (to myself if not anyone else) my possible reasons for my opinions on certain topics.

Have a nice day everyone. I really am going to try very very hard, now (again again!!) to say nothing further on this topic!!! Bring on the modules and oscillators.

> Yeh, but they've only been doing it a few years, and there's not many of them. Give them another 300 years of musical development Lennart, trust me, those elephants are gonna rock the hut!

Whose to say the elephants aren't already saying the same thing about us??

Steve Wartofsky wrote:

> > Are [neural networks] aware of their actions?

> Yes. Otherwise ... no input >output ... compare: modify.

Which means, that if the rest of your arguments are to be assumed to be consistent with this last argument, computers have consciousness, since you equate consciusness and awareness. I rest my case. :-)

> > except the automatic steady beat you get from the natural rate of banging something,

> That too is music.

I don't agree. There are lots of regular rhythms in the universe. I would not call them music just because they are regular.

> Music, and art, also -- IN MY VIEW -- can only be defined as the properties of an interaction.

In which case every force in the universe, with the definition you did of forces, is music. Thats a definition of the word you are free to make. But if everything is music, then there is nothing that is not music, and that makes the word meaningless.

> I am willing to be such an audience for elephants and ants.

Of course. I will be a willing audience to all things that I enjoy. I like to watch the sea and hear the wind and waves. But because I am an audience to the sea, does that make the sea an artist? How can something that is not a being, and doesn't have intent be an artist? And, as above, if experienceing something means the origin of this something is an artist, then everything in the universe is an artist, and again, the word artist becomes meaningless.

Self consciousness has not been proven in any animals neither have a great many other things... (although I don't rule out > that some animals have a form of it). About 80% of humanity seem to like the rudimentary frame of mind also... I don't rule out that some humans have a form of self consciousness also...

> To create art you first and foremost have to be aware of what you are doing

I wish I could believe most artists know what there doing... especially in relation to the effects 'their ' creation is having on society and the listener, both destruction and creation contribute to evolution but i wonder how many 'artists' are aware of what there doing and how many are simply doing . . ..maybe it doesnt matter if you know or if you dont?

...aware of what you are doing in relation to what I wonder...

I do agree most animals are not capable of self conscious creativity but I don't think many humans are either in some sense... animals whilst not capable of 'art', are capable of co-existing . OK, so they eat each other every now and then......everyone has a little weakness..... just remembered... some of us eat them... strange world... reminds me of the famous paintings that the critics loved which turned out to be by a monkey or something... in the abstract style...

> self consciousness has not been proven in any animals

Like a wellknown saying in Holland... Then comes along that big elephant and with his big trunk he'll blow the story to an end...

Please, click the picture