Music from the radio.

[SteveGuzzi]

So, music comes out of a radio, right? I think we can agree on that. Do we need to prove that music comes out from the radio when we can all hear it clear enough? No? Good.

Hold on a second. Music -- does it originate from the radio? Did the radio itself create the music? No, the radio recieved the music, and through the workings of it's internal circuitry expressed it outwardly in sound. The circuitry did not create the music... the signal was in the air all along.

Hmm. A busted radio can produce distorted music, but is it the signal in the air that's distorted? No. The signal itself is clear as always, it's the damaged reciever that produces the distorted music.

When the radio is broken, smashed, scattered and recycled, does the signal in the air dissappear along with it? The radio's parts can be reconstituted into a new radio or simply sent to the trash... either way, the signal is unaffected by this.

-----

This thread is about neither music nor the radio.

[Peter-II]

Actually that's rather clever.

[SteveGuzzi]

Now back to the signal, so tune in.

When you consider it superficially, the signal can be neither seen, heard, nor felt... yet it permeates the air and it reaches in all directions. With no receiver it exists, but with a proper receiver tuned correctly we discover that there are indeed signals carried in the air all around us, all the time.

Prior to radio's advent one may have argued that the presence of those signals was not only unproven, but a sheer impossibility... but certainly, the principles upon which radio communication works were NEVER an impossibility. If the proper equipment existed in the Stone Age, then radio would have worked back then just as well as it works today.

So, the introduction of radio technology proved just how possible it really was, but the concepts we harnessed that allow the radio to function have ALWAYS EXISTED. We never created the laws through which it works, we merely designed a usable model for transport and interpretation.

-----

Interpretation is important.

[Togukawa]

At 12/19/06 01:55 PM, StealthSteve wrote: Now back to the signal, so tune in.

When you consider it superficially, the signal can be neither seen, heard, nor felt... yet it permeates the air and it reaches in all directions. With no receiver it exists, but with a proper receiver tuned correctly we discover that there are indeed signals carried in the air all around us, all the time.

Radio waves exist in such an abundance since we started sending them :) It's one of the reasons why SETI scans for radio waves in the hopes of finding extraterrestrial intelligence. I think oxygen is a better metaphor. That's all around us and can't be seen, heard or felt. And it's been like that for as long as humanity has existed.

Prior to radio's advent one may have argued that the presence of those signals was not only unproven, but a sheer impossibility... but certainly, the principles upon which radio communication works were NEVER an impossibility. If the proper equipment existed in the Stone Age, then radio would have worked back then just as well as it works today.

So, the introduction of radio technology proved just how possible it really was, but the concepts we harnessed that allow the radio to function have ALWAYS EXISTED. We never created the laws through which it works, we merely designed a usable model for transport and interpretation.

-----

Interpretation is important.

It's the same with anything really. The possibility is always there. E has always equalled mc^2, and it has always been possible to prove it. But it's not until we gather enough knowledge that we can use those possibilities. The earth has always revolved around the sun, the evidence has always been there, but it's not until we gather enough knowledge as a basis, that we can make the leap to discovering this. It's a bit like those tech trees in games like civilization.

Your first post made a valid point, but this is all pretty obvious. I wonder where you're going with this.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/19/06 02:12 PM, Togukawa wrote: I think oxygen is a better metaphor. That's all around us and can't be seen, heard or felt. And it's been like that for as long as humanity has existed.

Hmm. So... you can't see the storm on the horizon, hear the wind blow past your face and through the trees, or feel the breeze on your skin? I suppose if you had neither eyes nor ears nor nerves, then sure, you couldn't see hear or feel the air either.

Your first post made a valid point, but this is all pretty obvious. I wonder where you're going with this.

Where do you think I'm going with this?

What's the music, what's the radio, what's the signal? :)

[YHWH]

I hope this doesn't turn into anything about extraterrestrials or God.

[lapis]

At 12/19/06 02:39 PM, StealthSteve wrote: Where do you think I'm going with this?

I'm guessing you're either talking about science or spirituality. The signals are the laws of nature, all around us, and the radio is human science trying to explain these laws and turning them into "music", simplifications of reality, using workable models to interpret the signals. If the radio gives a distorted signal the humans fail to fully understand nature and give faulty theories which can explain only that much about the universe and how it works.

Alternatively, the signal is God or a number of other metaphysical entities, the radio is once again the human or the prophets trying to explain it and the resulting music is the religion or spirituality we know now. Distorted signals represent the results of the incapability of mankind to correctly distill the divine presence into a comprehensive system of doctrines or personal guidelines.

I think you're going for the former but then again I could be totally off.

[Peter-II]

He's talking about God.

[YHWH]

Lapis, you mentioned prophets. Now that would be a great explanation for many 'revelations'.

[Togukawa]

At 12/19/06 02:39 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

At 12/19/06 02:12 PM, Togukawa wrote: I think oxygen is a better metaphor. That's all around us and can't be seen, heard or felt. And it's been like that for as long as humanity has existed.

Hmm. So... you can't see the storm on the horizon, hear the wind blow past your face and through the trees, or feel the breeze on your skin? I suppose if you had neither eyes nor ears nor nerves, then sure, you couldn't see hear or feel the air either.

Oxygen does not equal air. Oxygen is normally only around 20% of the air. But you can't hear, see, or feel that air contains oxygen. It's only when you realize that air in fact consists out of different gasses that you will understand why a mouse dies if you put it into a sealed plastic bag. There will be plenty of air, but no oxygen.

As for your comparison with signals relating to God, let me say this: God is about as useful as radiowaves without a radio. Converting the Bible into the words of God is about as meaningful as "trying to listen very hard" to radio waves and sing according to what you think you heard.

[lapis]

At 12/19/06 03:21 PM, The-Towelie wrote: Lapis, you mentioned prophets. Now that would be a great explanation for many 'revelations'.

Sure. I wasn't trying to claim that every man who believed or has simply claimed to have spoken to one or several Gods genuinely did so.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/19/06 03:28 PM, Togukawa wrote: Oxygen does not equal air.

Semantics. If you want to lose track of the meaning and quote percentages and air composition, then I'd mention that oxygen's structure can change from gas to liquid to solid like many other things... so if you WANT to get all technical then it still doesn't fit the bill as far as not being able to see hear or feel it. Oxygen is a highly flammable and volatile element, ignite it and it will be heard.

As for your comparison with signals relating to God, let me say this: God is about as useful as radiowaves without a radio.

If you interpret that the signal is God, then it follows that we are all radios. At that point it becomes a matter of which radios are tuned-in and which ones are busted. Ah... tuned-in, but towards what? There are infinite frequencies and amplitudes. Busted, but how? The more complex a device is, the more ways there are for it to possibly malfunction.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/19/06 02:12 PM, Togukawa wrote: Radio waves exist in such an abundance since we started sending them :) It's one of the reasons why SETI scans for radio waves in the hopes of finding extraterrestrial intelligence.

Oh, forgot to reply to this too.

Radio waves are just a form of electromagnetic radiation. There's been plenty of that going around since way prior to the invention of radio. SETI scans for radio waves, sure, but they're looking for patterns that might imply intelligence behind their transmission.

[SteveGuzzi]

To continue... let's say this IS about God, which it may or may not even be about.

What IS God? Surely, the term "God" only has as much meaning as one gives it. However many opinions and views there are of God, that's how many definitions there are of God.

Is it a personality? Is it an impersonal force? Is it somehow both?

Is it a mass hallucination? Is it a mass imagination?

Does rationality preclude imagination?

How do you know what is logical, if not by that which is illogical?

Without imagination, how would we know either?

-----

Are abstract and concrete concepts on equal or unequal footing? Which is to be valued more?

[Togukawa]

At 12/19/06 04:36 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

At 12/19/06 03:28 PM, Togukawa wrote: Oxygen does not equal air.

Semantics. If you want to lose track of the meaning and quote percentages and air composition, then I'd mention that oxygen's structure can change from gas to liquid to solid like many other things... so if you WANT to get all technical then it still doesn't fit the bill as far as not being able to see hear or feel it. Oxygen is a highly flammable and volatile element, ignite it and it will be heard.

Hardly semantics. Air can be easily detected even if you don't really know what it is.The fact that you conclude from flammability that there is oxygen in the air, presumes knowledge that oxygen is what enables things to burn. You can only relate flammability with presence of oxygen if you know what oxygen is, and what its properties are. As for changing structure, muh, then you're getting technical. Suffice to say that you can make plain air liquid just as easily as pure oxygen. In any case, making conclusions based on freezing temperature also presumes knowledge about the molecule and it's properties.

As for your comparison with signals relating to God, let me say this: God is about as useful as radiowaves without a radio.

If you interpret that the signal is God, then it follows that we are all radios. At that point it becomes a matter of which radios are tuned-in and which ones are busted. Ah... tuned-in, but towards what? There are infinite frequencies and amplitudes. Busted, but how? The more complex a device is, the more ways there are for it to possibly malfunction.

Why does it follow that we are all radios? It's pretty obvious that you need specialized receivers. There's no reason to believe that humans receive some kind of divine signal any more than that they receive electromagnetic signals.

At 12/19/06 04:36 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

:Oh, forgot to reply to this too.

:Radio waves are just a form of electromagnetic radiation. There's been plenty of that going :around since way prior to the invention of radio. SETI scans for radio waves, sure, but they're :looking for patterns that might imply intelligence behind their transmission.

True, but the radiowaves we send have far greater power per unit area (as in transported energy). In fact so much that there are regulations limiting it because of danger of cell damage. But technically you are right of course.

At 12/19/06 04:36 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

:To continue... let's say this IS about God, which it may or may not even be about.

:What IS God? Surely, the term "God" only has as much meaning as one gives it. However :many opinions and views there are of God, that's how many definitions there are of God.

Agreed.
:is it a personality? Is it an impersonal force? Is it somehow both?
That depends on the religion. For me, God is an impersonal force, if he/it exists.

:Is it a mass hallucination? Is it a mass imagination?
I'd like to use the Marx quote here :)

:Does rationality preclude imagination?
I don't see why it would. Imagination is often used in thought experiments, and to come up with new revolutionary scientific ideas and theories requires a lot of imagination.

:How do you know what is logical, if not by that which is illogical?

Depends on the logic system you wish to use. There are ways of determining whether a formula is well formed or not.

:Without imagination, how would we know either?
I must admit I don't really understand what you mean with this. Are you implying that imagination is required for logic?
:-----

:Are abstract and concrete concepts on equal or unequal footing? Which is to be valued :more?

That depends on the situation. Linear Algebra is very abstract, and it's because of that that it can be used for a lot of different things. Abstract concepts allow for a very broad field where they can be applied. However it's not hard to think of situations where specific knowledge is required.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/19/06 05:23 PM, Togukawa wrote: Hardly semantics.

It's semantics in that neither 'oxygen' nor 'air' would necessarily make for a "better" comparison if one can already derive the intended meaning from the original analogy. Arguing what either are comprised of is pointless. I demonstrated how oxygen-- a component of air --could be seen heard and felt. With that in mind, it is therefore no more suitable to conveying the message than the original analogy.

If you are saying that it's more suitable simply because it has always existed whereas radio has not, I already addressed that with the fact that electromagnetic radiation has "always existed" (insofar as oxygen has "always existed") as well.

Why does it follow that we are all radios? It's pretty obvious that you need specialized receivers. There's no reason to believe that humans receive some kind of divine signal any more than that they receive electromagnetic signals.

There isn't? Firstly, who is to say that we don't have or aren't special receivers? Thousands upon thousands of people throughout history have veridically demonstrated the reception of information and knowledge by means outside of the five physical senses.

Again, there are infinite possibilities for amplitude and frequency -- if anything, this is the epitome of diversity. What other creature on Earth comparably exhibits such diversity... not JUST in appearance, but also in expression?

Civilization and culture (and all the things that come along with them) are what differentiate mankind from every other living organism known. No matter how much diversity we find throughout civilizations and cultures we find some form of spirituality at their foundations, regardless of how that spirituality is expressed. Even after the foundations are laid, that sense continues to change and evolve right along with the people that are receptive to it. It is always evolving and never dissappearing... even well into modern technological times.

So, just for the sake of argument let's assume that some kind of divine "signal" DID exist... which would you say is more likely to be the "radio" playing its "music": a squirrel, or a human being? The whole entire species of squirrels, or the whole entire species of human beings?

Are you implying that imagination is required for logic?

That which is considered logical is defined by that which is considered illogical and vice versa. If you have no understanding of one, how do you understand the other? They go hand-in-hand.

That being said, if imagination is defined as "the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality" then wouldn't that be considered a requirement for conceptualizing the illogical, so by extension, the logical as well?

When speaking of the brain and its function, it is often noted that the left hemisphere is primarily responsible for concrete/rational thought, while the right hemisphere is primarily responsible for abstract/imaginative thought. Generally speaking, they are of equal mass and volume.

[Cheesemold]

Did anyone else notice that this started out as an analogy for the nature of truth and it turned into a debate about logic, imagination, and God?

Or did we all just assume naturally that something as ambiguous MUST be alluding to some sort of commentary on faith?

Or did we all just idily read until someone made the suggestion, and then it just spread like wildfire from then on?

Anyways, I like the initial open-ended approach. Props.

At 12/19/06 06:52 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

Are you implying that imagination is required for logic?

That which is considered logical is defined by that which is considered illogical and vice versa. If you have no understanding of one, how do you understand the other? They go hand-in-hand.

That being said, if imagination is defined as "the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality" then wouldn't that be considered a requirement for conceptualizing the illogical, so by extension, the logical as well?

Bingo. If you didn't have an imagination, all you could do would be simple mathmatical operations. You would be a computer. A parrot. Though "imagination" can go into an argument of what imagination is. I'm sure your opponent probably was thinking imagination to be something more specified to the arts, instead of the broad, general definition you've presented.

When speaking of the brain and its function, it is often noted that the left hemisphere is primarily responsible for concrete/rational thought, while the right hemisphere is primarily responsible for abstract/imaginative thought. Generally speaking, they are of equal mass and volume.

While your point in this one ("equal mass and volume") isn't quite solid in a literal sense, I still enjoy the implied meaning.

[dySWN]

I like this thread so far. A lot more civil than the other one, and it actually makes sense if you think about it long enough. I am curious, though, as to why its on the political forum...?

[Cheesemold]

At 12/19/06 08:02 PM, dySWN wrote: I like this thread so far. A lot more civil than the other one, and it actually makes sense if you think about it long enough. I am curious, though, as to why its on the political forum...?

It really belongs on a philosophy forum, but the 'political forum' is all we got. While this has nothing directly to do with politics, like arguing about political science or government issues, it does still tie into politics of you stretch it a bit.
Politics just have to do with how groups make decisions. Groups, or individuals, make decisions based on information, and then internalized methods of processing that information. A thread about truth (as I thought this would turn out to be) is extremely appropriate here, then. But, it turned into somewhat of a debate about God through suggestion. And theology has definate political connections.

[Ravariel]

At 12/19/06 04:36 PM, StealthSteve wrote: If you interpret that the signal is God, then it follows that we are all radios. At that point it becomes a matter of which radios are tuned-in and which ones are busted. Ah... tuned-in, but towards what? There are infinite frequencies and amplitudes. Busted, but how? The more complex a device is, the more ways there are for it to possibly malfunction.

I'd like to highlight this post. The first one was intriguing, but here is where ya knock it out of the park.

Nothing more amusing than watching people try to think :)

[stafffighter]

This opens up the question of what could be considered music. Does it have to be pre structured or even played in the instruments or voices we understand. Some would consider the songs of birds or whales or even the jungle itself to be most beautiful of music. To this theory humanitys role in the music is really inconsequential

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/19/06 08:57 PM, stafffighter wrote: This opens up the question of what could be considered music. Does it have to be pre structured or even played in the instruments or voices we understand. Some would consider the songs of birds or whales or even the jungle itself to be most beautiful of music. To this theory humanitys role in the music is really inconsequential

But are the songs of birds, whales or jungles commonly played on radios and broadcasted to many different radio stations. I mean, we could have a debate on what's considered a modern radio, but we don't because we except and think of someone restrcitions on this process.

[stafffighter]

At 12/19/06 09:26 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

But are the songs of birds, whales or jungles commonly played on radios and broadcasted to many different radio stations. I mean, we could have a debate on what's considered a modern radio, but we don't because we except and think of someone restrcitions on this process.

That restriction comes from our acceptance of venue, not the music itself. That makes the limitation human and thuse failable in nature

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/19/06 08:57 PM, stafffighter wrote: This opens up the question of what could be considered music. Does it have to be pre structured or even played in the instruments or voices we understand. Some would consider the songs of birds or whales or even the jungle itself to be most beautiful of music. To this theory humanitys role in the music is really inconsequential

Ahh good point to consider indeed!

The output of a radio isn't just determined by the signal it receives, but the manner in which it is processed. After all, there are many stations to choose from... and besides even that, a radio doesn't have to be malfunctioning to output its music differently than another radio.

If everything can in one way or another serve as a radio for a signal and output its own musical expression... then is it possible that some brands of radio happen to have a few more buttons and knobs than other brands? Perhaps even a more capable antenna, eh?

-----

And remember everyone, this isn't necessarily about "God" (whatever it is that word means to you)... we're just looking at some potential patterns. You know, just tossing around some ideas is all. ;)

[stafffighter]

At 12/19/06 11:17 PM, StealthSteve wrote:

If everything can in one way or another serve as a radio for a signal and output its own musical expression... then is it possible that some brands of radio happen to have a few more buttons and knobs than other brands? Perhaps even a more capable antenna, eh?

Well that depends on the highly personal preception of "quality." Would you consider crystal clarity? There are those who feel flaw mediums allow for an experience more relatable to life. Does truth come in the vision of the studio version or the energy from the growd of the live show?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 12/19/06 11:24 PM, stafffighter wrote: Well that depends on the highly personal preception of "quality." Would you consider crystal clarity? There are those who feel flaw mediums allow for an experience more relatable to life.

Of course, "quality" IS a subjective determination in this context. What we consider to be well-made is defined by that which we consider to be poorly-made and vice-versa. All of us make these "this or that" type of judgements starting from our own relative frame of reference. In the same respect it's worth noting that even time itself can seem to either speed up or slow down in relation to the quality of the moments we're experiencing. For two people in the same situation, time may seem to drag for one person and fly by for the other. Clearly though, I'm not saying anything new here with this... these facets of life have been described over and over again ever since there were people around to describe them!

Does truth come in the vision of the studio version or the energy from the growd of the live show?

What you ask is a good question. In keeping with the radio theme I would ask: Is truth found in the signal itself, or in the outward expression of the signal? Is it in both? When the same one signal is processed many different ways by many different radios, is it possible that they ALL contain the truth, even if but only to a lesser shade or degree than the source it derived from? Is it at all possible for the radio to express the signal with more precision and clarity than the unaltered source signal itself?

[Camarohusky]

At 12/20/06 12:14 AM, StealthSteve wrote: Of course, "quality" IS a subjective determination in this context.

This is very true, for when CD quality came out, many people complained that there was too muxch to hear and that took away from the music. Maybe for some people and some times simplicity, not clarity, is the best music.

Another good point was made eariler, music, although it usually comes from a radio does not have to. The birds sing music, inanimate objects like the sea give music, but the most important object of all that gives music, is ourselves. Not only can we create it, but we interperet it. While one may say that the bird do not sing, another may find music and inspiration in theri calls. It is also possible that one may not see an "orthodox" type of music as music while another does. This does not make of type of music, or sound, better than another. It just makes them different. Sometimes, differences make things better. For a chord is not one note, but many different notes combined to make a pleasant sound.

[Peter-II]

At 12/19/06 11:17 PM, StealthSteve wrote: And remember everyone, this isn't necessarily about "God" (whatever it is that word means to you)...

Heh, well that's how I interpreted it anyway.

[stafffighter]

At 12/20/06 11:30 AM, Peter-II wrote:

At 12/19/06 11:17 PM, StealthSteve wrote: And remember everyone, this isn't necessarily about "God" (whatever it is that word means to you)...

Heh, well that's how I interpreted it anyway.

God, the soul, the collective unconcious, shakeras, call it what you will. The discussion in this topic about the mutable nature of music and its convaince would seem to suggest that the answer fro any of us it as simple as choosing the term we enjoy most.

[SteveGuzzi]

How many different analogies can be made to illustrate the same type of relationship occurring between the signal, the radio, and the music it outputs? Again... what IS the signal, what IS the radio, what IS the music? I can tell you what they aren't... they aren't electromagnetic radiation, or an electronic device, or even sound itself. :)

Who can come up with some other good metaphors for what's going on here?