Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Pseudoscience

Neil>"And "science" has absolutely nothing to do with art of any sort...zip."

On the whole I agree. I can see how numbers definitely have a place in
music (they always have...no wonder we have 5ths, 6ths, 7ths, 16th tones,
etc.)...but I do not see how the kind of formal hypothesis testing demanded here
has to be forced into the picture ALL the time.
The tough thing I've found is that...soon as I mention numbers...people seem
to automatically assume I'm aiming for some sort of "accurate-in-all-cases"
scientific proof. They don't ask, they just assume.

>"I am weary of folks who think it explains everything...it doesn't"

Right...there is no such thing as an "all positive" proof in any type of
Art...because interpretation is subjective. My goal here is to create scales
that are appreciated by a fair number of both listeners and composers and draw
interest to microtonality...not to prove "x scale always works". I think it's
fair to say all musicians in some form hope they will be able to positively
affect the world of music...and you'd better believe many if most of such people
both are honest with themselves and are not scientists nor trying to be
scientists!

I'm not a scientist...I'm simply a musician who (like most musicians) often
uses numbers to explain what moods he's trying for and deserve to use numbers
artistically...in peace! People on this list may think I've succeeded or not at
my goals, and it's perfectly acceptable and by no means harassment to
decide/think I haven't succeeded. However, it's NOT acceptable for them to try
and tell me I'm trying to be a scientist and then run around trying to convince
others who very well may find value in my work I'm "a fake"....firstly it's not
true, secondly...it's flat out defamation with no real progress (unless someone
is so high on themselves to consider "possibly keeping a 'lesser person' quiet"
as progress).. It's also not acceptable for them to say things like "you can't
mention SCALA found 112 chords in your scale...because that assumes a scientific
experiment".
-----------------
I just really wish people would stop wasting time trying to paint myself and
other musicians as "wannabe scientists"...and instead concentrate on such things
as trying my scales (of which I've released over 5 new ones just this month, all
with nothing but best intentions)...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Uh, if this is meant for me Neil, you must remember that I am not only a
Ph.D. in Musicology, but also a relentless scimitar-belted Muslim on the
side. ;)

Surely, I am in the know just as staunchly as any believer in God, if
not better, how limited the scope of science in regards the ultimate
mysterious Source, whose Presence can be conjectured as much through
some of my very own cosmological paradoxes.

But then, music is not just art, but also a subject of scholarly study
with established scientific bases. By this, I most definitely mean the
real deal, not the mails flying about in these lists!

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Neil Haverstick wrote:
> I've been seeing this term a bit here, seems to be the usual snipping and sniping, jeez it gets old. My take: the thing with "science" is to determine what it CAN do, and what it can't. Science is good for some things...building rockets, making aspirin, stuff like that...when it comes to the serious issues, such as how galactic dust forms into stars/planets/humans/animals, and where it all comes from in the first place, it's fairly useless. And "science" has absolutely nothing to do with art of any sort...zip. Art comes from the heart of Creation itself, and is a fairly mysterious process, to say the least...any great artist will tell you that. I had an acquaintence tell me a while back that "science is my religion." Great...but it it not mine...and I am weary of folks who think it explains everything...it doesn't...Hstick www.microstick.net
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Michael, for the record, I haven't called you or referred to you with any of the below. Don't please put words in my mouth:

"...wannabe scientists"

"lazy pseudoscientist!"

"...you seem to suspect I have some evil agenda against your preferred art of Maqam music"

"haha...you can't get published and I can!"

"John's system, despite also falling into Ozan's psuedoscience bin..."

"Even if for some bizarre reason it didn't meet some anal-retentive scientific standard some Doctorate managed to nit-pick out...does that mean we help the music community by running around saying the guys who worked on the scales are unscientific fools whose efforts are (as Carl put it) useless? I seriously doubt it..."

"It's like turning in a paper for a class and then neither getting a grade nor comments, and then being bugged about why you don't want to take another class and how bad your work ethic is"

"...turned around and started tirades about how the very scale I used in a majority of those did not require any hard work on my part and is an egotistical conspiracy of sort to say I'm right and therefore everyone else is wrong"

"...launching pies at me until one of my scale systems achieves widespread use and/or publication..."

...

From another perspective, I appreciate your liking of my music, and also have no issue admitting you as a scholar in tuning, however trying, if reckless allusions to engaging in science is dropped (by others more than you apparently... thank you!) and a rigid, rigorous, organized discovery/investigation/testing policy is adopted. You might admit that your presentation has been anything but systematic over the year. Moreover, engaging in a field of study that is categorizable as "pseudoscience" does not necessarily diminish its importance, especially when so much subjectivity is its salt and pepper. And also, please grant me leave as I remain skeptical of what you are trying to accomplish here with your "theories" (with its heavy emphasis on science thanks to the help of your peers), which are in fact more in the realm of "conjectures" whose soundness remain to be seen.

Do please carry on, I am not hampering you. All the best.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Michael wrote:
> Neil>"And "science" has absolutely nothing to do with art of any sort...zip."
>
> On the whole I agree. I can see how numbers definitely have a place in
> music (they always have...no wonder we have 5ths, 6ths, 7ths, 16th tones,
> etc.)...but I do not see how the kind of formal hypothesis testing demanded here
> has to be forced into the picture ALL the time.
> The tough thing I've found is that...soon as I mention numbers...people seem
> to automatically assume I'm aiming for some sort of "accurate-in-all-cases"
> scientific proof. They don't ask, they just assume.
>
>> "I am weary of folks who think it explains everything...it doesn't"
>
> Right...there is no such thing as an "all positive" proof in any type of
> Art...because interpretation is subjective. My goal here is to create scales
> that are appreciated by a fair number of both listeners and composers and draw
> interest to microtonality...not to prove "x scale always works". I think it's
> fair to say all musicians in some form hope they will be able to positively
> affect the world of music...and you'd better believe many if most of such people
> both are honest with themselves and are not scientists nor trying to be
> scientists!
>
> I'm not a scientist...I'm simply a musician who (like most musicians) often
> uses numbers to explain what moods he's trying for and deserve to use numbers
> artistically...in peace! People on this list may think I've succeeded or not at
> my goals, and it's perfectly acceptable and by no means harassment to
> decide/think I haven't succeeded. However, it's NOT acceptable for them to try
> and tell me I'm trying to be a scientist and then run around trying to convince
> others who very well may find value in my work I'm "a fake"....firstly it's not
> true, secondly...it's flat out defamation with no real progress (unless someone
> is so high on themselves to consider "possibly keeping a 'lesser person' quiet"
> as progress).. It's also not acceptable for them to say things like "you can't
> mention SCALA found 112 chords in your scale...because that assumes a scientific
> experiment".
> -----------------
> I just really wish people would stop wasting time trying to paint myself and
> other musicians as "wannabe scientists"...and instead concentrate on such things
> as trying my scales (of which I've released over 5 new ones just this month, all
> with nothing but best intentions)...
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Ozan>"But then, music is not just art, but also a subject of scholarly study
with established scientific bases. "

Yet this is a list on Making Microtonal Music, not Musicology. Making
Microtonal Music ALSO includes the "art" side of the story and thus any sort of
implication the artists may deserve less to be here would be quite un-useful.

>"By this, I most definitely mean the real deal, not the mails flying about in
>these lists!"

Last message I made a reply of (concerning championing of scientists over
artists on this list):
"secondly...it's flat out defamation with no real progress (unless someone is so
high on themselves to consider "possibly keeping a 'lesser person' quiet" as
progress)"

Ozan when you say "the real deal, not the mails flying about in these
lists!"...it seems fairly obvious to me you carry a pompous view that since you
concentrate on the science side of music, you reserve the right to defame and
insult those who concentrate on the art side by saying all the hard work they do
is contributing to something that's "not real" and ultimately little in value.
There's no problem with you being into the science side of music, but quite a
problem with that, on a list also largely for "artists", you seem to think
you're doing everyone a favor by keeping the artists quiet (as if they have
little to nothing to offer even so far as explaining their own works).

If you want to carry that attitude...I really wish you would at least keep it
to a list designated to Ethnomusicology and only Ethnomusicology...rather than
dump it as an insult to so many of us on here. And I'm pretty sure many other
people here feel the same way.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

>We are nowhere close to having a computer pass the Turing test in the
>sense of possessing a computer which actually models the world and
>uses natural language based on that model. Turing was dead wrong in
>his predictions, and numerous AI optimists have routinely been proven
>wrong since. When 2029 rolls around, Kurzwiel we be proven wrong.
>Bet on it.

Actually I have a couple bets on it. Kurzweil is nuts but plenty
of people who aren't agree. The fact that the early AI founders
were wrong doesn't mean anything -- in the end they'll only have
been off by a few decades. Intelligence seems to naturally arise
in systems of sufficient complexity, and it's easy to show that
we're going to be making such systems by 2030. 2021 on the
supercomputer track

http://lumma.org/microwave/#2009.11.19

leaving 9 years for it to grow up.

Machine learning is proving lots of things aren't even AI-complete.
By 2020 you'll be able to buy a car for less than $50,000 PPP-
adjusted dollars that'll drive itself anywhere you can drive today.
Just think how disruptive that really is. Why buy and store and
maintain a vacuum cleaner just to use it once a week? The vacuum
can be driven to your house from a local depot with 10min notice.

-Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I look forward when everyone talks about art like auto mechanics

/^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

On 11/01/11 8:41 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> >Science
> >is good for some things...building rockets, making aspirin, > stuff like
> >that...when it comes to the serious issues, such as how > galactic dust
> >forms into stars/planets/humans/animals, and where it all > comes from
> >in the first place, it's fairly useless. And "science" has > absolutely
> >nothing to do with art of any sort...zip. Art comes from the > heart of
> Creation itself, and is a fairly mysterious process, to say > the least
>
> For better or worse, there's only 20 years left on this attitude.
> Barring a global collapse of a kind not seen in 1500 years (if > ever),
> by 2030 machines will be doing everything humans do, and > better, and
> explaining to us how it works.
>
> -Carl
>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Actually I have a couple bets on it. Kurzweil is nuts but plenty
> of people who aren't agree.

This history of AI predictions is a history of intelligent people acting like imbeciles. The Turing Test competitions are a meaningless travesty, as they consist of machines and humans both spouting complete rubbish and people trying to tell the difference. What's wanted is strong AI: an actual intelligent conversation. The reason why chess programs and automated theorem provers are actual AI and this nonsense isn't is because in those cases, a model of the question being considered is involved. Even so, my late brother Robin the correspondence chess Grand Master was able to clobber people using computers because of his understanding of their defects.

The fact that the early AI founders
> were wrong doesn't mean anything -- in the end they'll only have
> been off by a few decades. Intelligence seems to naturally arise
> in systems of sufficient complexity...

A statement of faith, not a scientifically ascertained fact.

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Carl,

In the and 1940's, 1950's, etc. many predictions were made that didn't
become reality to any significant degree.
How many video phones do you have in your house? - I'm not talking about a
general purpose computer bent to the task - I'm talking about the real
thing.

The reason for this is that many predictors of the future assumed a linear
progression of what already existed. No one counted on the miniaturization
of electronic circuitry in their predictions of the future in 1940 and 1950.

I frankly doubt a utopian future is in the offing. We will be too busy
fighting the change in climate no matter for what reason you declare changes
the climate - the fact is it IS occurring. And anyone who was expecting
earth's climate to stay the same forever was just silly - the one constant
in the Universe IS change.

So, I am very skeptical of liner extrapolation of the past plus now to
predict the future. A robotic society can't exist if no one can afford
purchase them.

Population growth, distribution of resources, acquisition of energy, and
possible drastic change in economics are the likeliest things to confront us
in the near and moderately distant future, and at least when I look at that
I see robotics and A.I. as a much less pressing need - with the exception of
modeling terraform the Earth.

My good future is the discovery of a free energy source. My bad future is we
don't do that for a long time and things could get bad. Ether case we, and
our children, will have to deal with it. And to get back on topic - dealing
with this monumental task will probably spawn many great works of art. The
way I see it we are in a fight to prevent our own extinction.

Chris

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Machine learning is proving lots of things aren't even AI-complete.
> By 2020 you'll be able to buy a car for less than $50,000 PPP-
> adjusted dollars that'll drive itself anywhere you can drive today.
> Just think how disruptive that really is. Why buy and store and
> maintain a vacuum cleaner just to use it once a week? The vacuum
> can be driven to your house from a local depot with 10min notice.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Gene wrote:
>This history of AI predictions is a history of intelligent people
>acting like imbeciles. The Turing Test competitions are a meaningless
>travesty, as they consist of machines and humans both spouting
>complete rubbish and people trying to tell the difference. What's
>wanted is strong AI: an actual intelligent conversation.

The Loebner prize is a joke, certainly. The unrestricted Turing
test is a decent test of intelligence, but Shane Legg's new test
is better. Here if you like video:
http://vimeo.com/17553536

It's not just smart people being dumb any more. There are
industries, different fields (neuroscience, machine learning)
making measurable progress.

>The reason
>why chess programs and automated theorem provers are actual AI and
>this nonsense isn't is because in those cases, a model of the question
>being considered is involved. Even so, my late brother Robin

Late!? Geez, I'm sorry to hear that. As you know, I very much
enjoyed his book.

>the correspondence chess Grand Master was able to clobber people
>using computers because of his understanding of their defects.

Not any more, alas. The reign of centaurs lasted only 2 years.

>> Intelligence seems to naturally arise
>> in systems of sufficient complexity...
>
>A statement of faith, not a scientifically ascertained fact.

I've approached the question philosophically and concluded that
there is no definition of "intelligence" (or of "life" for that
matter) that is distinct from complexity. And if you want me to
define complexity, I believe a definition can be extracted from
Legg's formula.

Adult humans are considered intelligent. This is either because
they are systems of sufficient complexity interacting with their
environment, and/or they get a boost from their special design.
That boost amounts to something like 700MB (or I think 1.4GB
for diploid cells but don't quote me on that) of information.
Anyway, it's small. So even if my statement is wrong, we'll be
able to copy the specific design. I just gave you the brute-force
neuroscience schedule (2021). But probably a slightly more
abstract approach will work
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000532

Failing that, as Legg reports, Monte Carlo AIXI might work too.
Ozan may appreciate that some of his countrymen has recently made
a contribution in this area
http://agi-conf.org/2010/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/paper_24.pdf
The lead author
http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo/wml/personal-data.html
has an "industrial band"
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=212396

-Carl

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

"lazy pseudoscientist!"
"haha...you can't get published and I can!"
"John's system, despite also falling into Ozan's psuedoscience bin..."...

All these quotes I made simply say the same thing...that you call and have
called a whole lot of people pseudoscientists and I don't how doing that could
result in anything good happening and the word clearly is used as an insult.

Why is it obvious using the word is done in the context of an insult?
Look at the definition for the adjective "psuedo" from thesaurus.com:

Main Entry: pseudo
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: artificial, fake
Synonyms: bogus, counterfeit, ersatz, false, imitation, mock, notgenuine,not
kosher,notlegit, not real, phony, pirate, pretend, pretended,quasi, sham*,
simulated, spurious, wrong

The adjective "pseudo" itself implies fakeness, lack of work ethic,
evilness/intent-to-deceive and worse...
So pseudoscience means literally meaning something equivalent to "SCAM
SCIENCE"...and it also seems to imply we are all trying to be scientists. It's
like using the word

My real question is this....if you did NOT mean to demean us and call us
scammers more and more as we work harder and harder...why didn't you just say
something like "what they/you are doing is really artistic, not scientific"?

Ozan>"From another perspective, I appreciate your liking of my music, and also
have no issue admitting you as a scholar in tuning, however trying, if reckless
allusions to engaging in science is dropped (by others more

than you apparently... thank you!) and a rigid, rigorous, organized
discovery/investigation/testing policy is adopted."

I don't understand your point here. I do not want to be a scholar, so to
speak, I want to be an artist. If I'm using numbers it's not to prove something
right or wrong (IE Null hypothesis testing)...but simply done in the hopes to
make it, on the average, more artistically attractive. And "testing" art as
attractive or not still is art...not science.

>"Moreover, engaging in a field of study that is categorizable as "pseudoscience"
>does not necessarily diminish its importance"
Again, then why call it pseudoscience...call it art!. Art, of course, can
also involve numbers and errors...and is ultimately subject to criticism by
individuals, not an always-holding law of, say, physics. If you don't like
what's being done...you reserve the right to say "I think it's BAD ART" IE "the
actual sounds it produces sound bad to me". At least that's honest and not
misleading.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Chris wrote:

>In the and 1940's, 1950's, etc. many predictions were made that didn't
>become reality to any significant degree.
>How many video phones do you have in your house? - I'm not talking about a
>general purpose computer bent to the task - I'm talking about the real
>thing.

Two.

>I frankly doubt a utopian future is in the offing. We will be too busy
>fighting the change in climate

Even the most aggressive climate change predictions will pose no
threat to human progress (and may even help it in the long run).
Economists have estimated the costs in some detail.

>And anyone who was expecting earth's climate to stay the same forever
>was just silly - the one constant in the Universe IS change.

We have already survived an ice age and the Dutch operated a global
empire from below sea level 350 years ago.

>So, I am very skeptical of liner extrapolation of the past plus now to
>predict the future.

Supercomputer performance has been extremely predictable for two
decades. See top500.org or the link I posted to my blog.

>A robotic society can't exist if no one can afford
>purchase them.

We're all constantly getting richer.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/esid8/from_sex_to_phones_to_star_wars_what_would_older/c1aobcl

Even Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/africa-recovery-global-recession
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/daily_chart

>Population growth,

...Is slowing as we break out of the Malthusian regime.

>My good future is the discovery of a free energy source.

As you know from facebook, that was accomplished in Tennessee
in 1965.

-Carl

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Carl,

Link me to your video phones, seriously!

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris wrote:
>
> >In the and 1940's, 1950's, etc. many predictions were made that didn't
> >become reality to any significant degree.
> >How many video phones do you have in your house? - I'm not talking about a
> >general purpose computer bent to the task - I'm talking about the real
> >thing.
>
> Two.
>
> >I frankly doubt a utopian future is in the offing. We will be too busy
> >fighting the change in climate
>
> Even the most aggressive climate change predictions will pose no
> threat to human progress (and may even help it in the long run).
> Economists have estimated the costs in some detail.

I agree - it may help - but I don't see the present political system
being able to realistically deal with large to catastrophic climate
change. Especially here in America. American politicians are only 2nd
to CEOs in thinking only in the short term.

>
> >And anyone who was expecting earth's climate to stay the same forever
> >was just silly - the one constant in the Universe IS change.
>
> We have already survived an ice age and the Dutch operated a global
> empire from below sea level 350 years ago.

When we survived an ice age there were orders of magnitude less people
and... most were not farming for the majority of their food. Hunter -
gatherers are by definition better able to deal with change because
they can just move to better conditions. Too many people for that to
be practical - without large scale war.

>
> >So, I am very skeptical of liner extrapolation of the past plus now to
> >predict the future.
>
> Supercomputer performance has been extremely predictable for two
> decades. See top500.org or the link I posted to my blog.

Yes - but super computer performance does not equal acquisition of
intelligence. It is predicted - but not proven as far as I know.

>
> >A robotic society can't exist if no one can afford
> >purchase them.
>
> We're all constantly getting richer.
> http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/esid8/from_sex_to_phones_to_star_wars_what_would_older/c1aobcl
>
> Even Africa
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/11/africa-recovery-global-recession
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/daily_chart

And the supposition is that this will continue despite climate change.
I don't know if you can count on that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110107/bs_afp/unfaofoodfarmcommoditiesprice_20110107114854

>
> >Population growth,
>
> ...Is slowing as we break out of the Malthusian regime.

Which will be good - if slowed enough - my thoughts are climate change
will probably even this out - at a very human cost.

Therein lies the art.

>
> >My good future is the discovery of a free energy source.
>
> As you know from facebook, that was accomplished in Tennessee
> in 1965.

I presume you are speaking of Thorium - that is a good source in
theory but you also realize the politics against implementation.
Net Positive fusion without a monster size device would be much better.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

Chris wrote:

> Link me to your video phones, seriously!

http://www.apple.com/iphone/

We don't have any corded phones (or computers).

>When we survived an ice age there were orders of magnitude less people
>and... most were not farming for the majority of their food. Hunter -
>gatherers are by definition better able to deal with change because
>they can just move to better conditions. Too many people for that to
>be practical - without large scale war.

That's true (and some evidence suggests we may have faced a serious
population bottleneck) but the climate change we're facing over the
next century is nowhere near as severe. As Bill Gates says, it
really only threatens the poorest 1B (mainly by drought), which
would be tragic. We have the technology to stop carbon pollution
now and improve our lives while doing so. We are in an energy dark
age not because better options aren't available, but because we've
rejected them. However there should be enough EROI left in fossil
resources to get us to the singularity before causing truly
catastrophic damage. Shale gas is going really well and produces
about half the CO2 of coal per GWh. There's enough to get us to
2030 no prob, at which point the AIs will tell us to build Thorium
reactors. :)

>> Supercomputer performance has been extremely predictable for two
>> decades. See top500.org or the link I posted to my blog.
>
>Yes - but super computer performance does not equal acquisition of
>intelligence.

The link I provided gives the timeline for the ability to simulate
all the neurons in the brain on a supercomputer.

>And the supposition is that this will continue despite climate change.
>I don't know if you can count on that.

Climate change is bad, but not one tenth as bad as fear-mongers imply.

>> ...Is slowing as we break out of the Malthusian regime.
>
>Which will be good - if slowed enough - my thoughts are climate
>change will probably even this out - at a very human cost.

Paradoxically, prosperity slows population growth. Climate change,
disease, etc. *increase* the birth rate and bring about the
Malthusian regime, where premature death keeps the population in
check. Western nations have already broken out of it, and as
they did, their populations stopped growing one by one. This is
now also seen in prosperous parts of developing nations.

>> As you know from facebook, that was accomplished in Tennessee
>> in 1965.
>
>I presume you are speaking of Thorium - that is a good source
>in theory but you also realize the politics against implementation.
>Net Positive fusion without a monster size device would be
>much better.

There is no real reason for anyone to prefer fusion, and you'll
find that when it finally becomes possible, those who held out
hope for it will turn against it. That is because their true
objection is against any high-density energy source which empowers
humans. They like fusion because it scuttles fission, and for
no other reason.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Michael, it matters not how appreciative you have been of my work or
stance in the past, I'm on the brink of trashing your mail as spam if
you do not desist from casting about disinformation on what I did not
say and pursue futile merry-go-round arguing. I have wasted enough time
with the tos-and-fros of seldom logical consistency that involves you or
what you are trying to do. Science or research or whatever, it is NOT
done the way you exemplify. Why don't you curb down your tendency to
barrage the list with fruitless mails and instead concentrate on making
music with your scales?

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Michael wrote:
> "lazy pseudoscientist!"
> "haha...you can't get published and I can!"
> "John's system, despite also falling into Ozan's psuedoscience bin..."...
>
> All these quotes I made simply say the same thing...that you call and have
> called a whole lot of people pseudoscientists and I don't how doing that could
> result in anything good happening and the word clearly is used as an insult.
>
> Why is it obvious using the word is done in the context of an insult?
> Look at the definition for the adjective "psuedo" from thesaurus.com:
>
> Main Entry: pseudo
> Part of Speech: adjective
> Definition: artificial, fake
> Synonyms: bogus, counterfeit, ersatz, false, imitation, mock, notgenuine,not
> kosher,notlegit, not real, phony, pirate, pretend, pretended,quasi, sham*,
> simulated, spurious, wrong
>
>
> The adjective "pseudo" itself implies fakeness, lack of work ethic,
> evilness/intent-to-deceive and worse...
> So pseudoscience means literally meaning something equivalent to "SCAM
> SCIENCE"...and it also seems to imply we are all trying to be scientists. It's
> like using the word
>
>
> My real question is this....if you did NOT mean to demean us and call us
> scammers more and more as we work harder and harder...why didn't you just say
> something like "what they/you are doing is really artistic, not scientific"?
>
>
>
> Ozan>"From another perspective, I appreciate your liking of my music, and also
> have no issue admitting you as a scholar in tuning, however trying, if reckless
> allusions to engaging in science is dropped (by others more
>
> than you apparently... thank you!) and a rigid, rigorous, organized
> discovery/investigation/testing policy is adopted."
>
> I don't understand your point here. I do not want to be a scholar, so to
> speak, I want to be an artist. If I'm using numbers it's not to prove something
> right or wrong (IE Null hypothesis testing)...but simply done in the hopes to
> make it, on the average, more artistically attractive. And "testing" art as
> attractive or not still is art...not science.
>
>
>> "Moreover, engaging in a field of study that is categorizable as "pseudoscience"
>> does not necessarily diminish its importance"
> Again, then why call it pseudoscience...call it art!. Art, of course, can
> also involve numbers and errors...and is ultimately subject to criticism by
> individuals, not an always-holding law of, say, physics. If you don't like
> what's being done...you reserve the right to say "I think it's BAD ART" IE "the
> actual sounds it produces sound bad to me". At least that's honest and not
> misleading.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Ozan>"But then, music is not just art, but also a subject of scholarly study
with established scientific bases. "

> >"By this, I most definitely mean the real deal, not the mails flying about in
> >these lists!"
Last message I made a reply of (concerning championing of scientists over
artists on this list):
"secondly...it's flat out defamation with no real progress (unless someone is so
high on themselves to consider "possibly keeping a 'lesser person' quiet" as
progress)"

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>"I'm on the brink of trashing your mail as spam if you do not desist from
>casting about disinformation on what I did not say and pursue futile
>merry-go-round arguing."

Ok, you think it's a "merry-go-round"...I have an end all proposition for
you.
A) Please stop calling me a psuedo-scientist when my ultimate goal is the art
side of music
B) If you feel the overwhelming urge to belittle my efforts, at least say it in
the right term IE "bad art" rather than "pseudoscience"
C) Do A and B and I, in turn, promise never to do anymore runarounds about "how
Ozan unjustly insulted me" or anything like that. I really don't care who's
more/less guilty...what I care about is being able to state myself artistically
on this list IN PEACE.

Look...ultimately If doesn't matter who said what...but whether we resolve
this maturely and stop this pattern where you waste messages accusing me and I
waste messages defending myself.
---------------------------
>"Why don't you curb down your tendency to barrage the list with fruitless mails
>and instead concentrate on making music with your scales?"

Because, when I force myself to compose music
uninspired/on-writer's-block...as with many musicians...it sounds like the
scraping of nails! :-D

But seriously, I've learned time and time again I can't force myself to make
music and refuse to compose uninspired music. When I'm feeling inspired, I'll
compose, when I don't, I'll be on this list or working on scales.

Besides....given your consistently very negative responses on my attempts at
writing music when I wasn't inspired and good responses to music I made when I
was inspired. I believe it's more than fair to say you really wouldn't want me
to force myself write more music when I am uninspired either...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Michael, was it not you who was attempting to check ONE BY ONE what you
were doing against the wikipedia article on pseudoscience in the spirit
of refuting the label of pseudoscience regarding your efforts with a
plain eye to support Igs' standing up for you to the effect that what
you were doing is actually "scientific research", and was it not you who
stated that your work is NOT pseudoscience but, whether we like it or
hate it, "fact"?

If any allusions to making science was made here, you were instrumental
in cementing that notion as you chanted along with the chorus blustering
of "theories", "research", "science"... My remaining skeptical of what
you lot do is hardly belittling your efforts. I couldn't care less of
artists masquerading as "tuning researchers". You, Mike, Marcel, and
whoelse with your overzealous emotional tendency to spam us with over
20-30 posts a day have visibly diminished whatever objective grounding
remained in the tuning realm.

This is the MakeMicroMusic list. It means, share your microtonal work
with others: NOT treat people like guinea pigs to test your "theories".
Is it not enough that you and your chums have overrun the tuning list
where I am no longer? Leave your "theorizing" there and stop polluting
this platform!

For the last time, this is your final warning before I activate my
filters on you.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Michael wrote:
>> "I'm on the brink of trashing your mail as spam if you do not desist from
>> casting about disinformation on what I did not say and pursue futile
>> merry-go-round arguing."
>
> Ok, you think it's a "merry-go-round"...I have an end all proposition for
> you.
> A) Please stop calling me a psuedo-scientist when my ultimate goal is the art
> side of music
> B) If you feel the overwhelming urge to belittle my efforts, at least say it in
> the right term IE "bad art" rather than "pseudoscience"
> C) Do A and B and I, in turn, promise never to do anymore runarounds about "how
> Ozan unjustly insulted me" or anything like that. I really don't care who's
> more/less guilty...what I care about is being able to state myself artistically
> on this list IN PEACE.
>
>
> Look...ultimately If doesn't matter who said what...but whether we resolve
> this maturely and stop this pattern where you waste messages accusing me and I
> waste messages defending myself.
> ---------------------------
>> "Why don't you curb down your tendency to barrage the list with fruitless mails
>> and instead concentrate on making music with your scales?"
>
> Because, when I force myself to compose music
> uninspired/on-writer's-block...as with many musicians...it sounds like the
> scraping of nails! :-D
>
> But seriously, I've learned time and time again I can't force myself to make
> music and refuse to compose uninspired music. When I'm feeling inspired, I'll
> compose, when I don't, I'll be on this list or working on scales.
>
> Besides....given your consistently very negative responses on my attempts at
> writing music when I wasn't inspired and good responses to music I made when I
> was inspired. I believe it's more than fair to say you really wouldn't want me
> to force myself write more music when I am uninspired either...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

>" Michael, was it not you who was attempting to check ONE BY ONE what you
were doing against the wikipedia article"

Looking back, I'm sorry I did. When I did so, I figured the ONLY way I would
ever get to use numbers on this list without being name-called was by doing
science. Now I figure if I have to change my mission to get you to be
quiet...it simply isn't worth it.

That's like not producing drum and bass music because one reviewer says "I
don't like your drum and bass song...so my one vote disproves your 'theory' that
drum and bass is desirable music...now 'real' IE jazz music or I will make sure
you will be known as a psuedo-musician!"

At some point artists just say "you know what...this critic is crazy...and
the nature of art is it can be right to some people and wrong to
others....without deserving to be called fake!"
---------------
Now I realize that, since my ultimate goal is to have music made with my
scales do well on music reviews (which are, by nature, artistic reviews)...what
I'm doing is ultimately not science. If I were trying to acheive an ultimate
mathematical or physics-based goal...that would be science...but instead I'm
trying to achieve a listener-response goal IE "I like the STYLE of this
scale"...and style is a strictly artistic term.
--------------
>"you chanted along with the chorus blustering of "theories", "research"...
I did do theories and research...but the ultimate goal was artistic. I can
have a theory about how to compose without it having to be a scientific
proof...IE the Chemical Brothers had a theory of alternative MATHEMATICAL timing
for kicks and snares they used to create the "big beat" genre...and there was
NOTHING "scientific" about it.

BOTTOM LINE: I HAVE TIRED OF YOUR OPTION AS EITHER HAVING TO PROVE MATH AS
SCIENCE OR BE HARRASSED. I DO NOT DESERVE THE HARRASSMENT AND THE END GOAL OF
WHAT I'M DOING IS ART NOT SCIENCE. AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WHINE YOU WILL
NOT MAKE ME QUIT WHAT ARE ULTIMATELY MY ARTISTIC, AND NOT SCIENTIFIC, THEORIES!

Ozan>"This is the MakeMicroMusic list. It means, share your microtonal work with
others: NOT treat people like guinea pigs to test your "theories". "

THAT'S SHARE >>AND REVIEW<<<, AND MUSIC/SOUND-TEST REVIEWING IS PERFECTLY
ON TOPIC HERE. REVIEW HAS NO NECESSARY SCIENTIFIC CONNOTATION IN THIS ARTISTIC
FORUM

Reviewing and criticism is a major part of virtually ANY forum or website
where music is displayed. And asking for a review on an aspect of music is not
asking for "guinea pigs". If it were movie reviewers like Ebert and Roeper
would be "guinea pigs" and so would music reviewers like Simon Cowell, the
editors of Rolling Stone Magazine, or any club or record company owner who
accepts demo tapes. Reviewing is not the same as scientific testing...and what
I'm asking for is artistic reviews...nothing more, nothing less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

Ok, all is fine now. I'll let you off the hook at this juncture. Do
please carry on reviewing.

The ever-insufferable skeptic,
Dr. Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Michael wrote:
>> " Michael, was it not you who was attempting to check ONE BY ONE what you
> were doing against the wikipedia article"
>
> Looking back, I'm sorry I did. When I did so, I figured the ONLY way I would
> ever get to use numbers on this list without being name-called was by doing
> science. Now I figure if I have to change my mission to get you to be
> quiet...it simply isn't worth it.
>
> That's like not producing drum and bass music because one reviewer says "I
> don't like your drum and bass song...so my one vote disproves your 'theory' that
> drum and bass is desirable music...now 'real' IE jazz music or I will make sure
> you will be known as a psuedo-musician!"
>
>
> At some point artists just say "you know what...this critic is crazy...and
> the nature of art is it can be right to some people and wrong to
> others....without deserving to be called fake!"
> ---------------
> Now I realize that, since my ultimate goal is to have music made with my
> scales do well on music reviews (which are, by nature, artistic reviews)...what
> I'm doing is ultimately not science. If I were trying to acheive an ultimate
> mathematical or physics-based goal...that would be science...but instead I'm
> trying to achieve a listener-response goal IE "I like the STYLE of this
> scale"...and style is a strictly artistic term.
> --------------
>> "you chanted along with the chorus blustering of "theories", "research"...
> I did do theories and research...but the ultimate goal was artistic. I can
> have a theory about how to compose without it having to be a scientific
> proof...IE the Chemical Brothers had a theory of alternative MATHEMATICAL timing
> for kicks and snares they used to create the "big beat" genre...and there was
> NOTHING "scientific" about it.
>
> BOTTOM LINE: I HAVE TIRED OF YOUR OPTION AS EITHER HAVING TO PROVE MATH AS
> SCIENCE OR BE HARRASSED. I DO NOT DESERVE THE HARRASSMENT AND THE END GOAL OF
> WHAT I'M DOING IS ART NOT SCIENCE. AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WHINE YOU WILL
> NOT MAKE ME QUIT WHAT ARE ULTIMATELY MY ARTISTIC, AND NOT SCIENTIFIC, THEORIES!
>
> Ozan>"This is the MakeMicroMusic list. It means, share your microtonal work with
> others: NOT treat people like guinea pigs to test your "theories". "
>
> THAT'S SHARE>>AND REVIEW<<<, AND MUSIC/SOUND-TEST REVIEWING IS PERFECTLY
> ON TOPIC HERE. REVIEW HAS NO NECESSARY SCIENTIFIC CONNOTATION IN THIS ARTISTIC
> FORUM
>
> Reviewing and criticism is a major part of virtually ANY forum or website
> where music is displayed. And asking for a review on an aspect of music is not
> asking for "guinea pigs". If it were movie reviewers like Ebert and Roeper
> would be "guinea pigs" and so would music reviewers like Simon Cowell, the
> editors of Rolling Stone Magazine, or any club or record company owner who
> accepts demo tapes. Reviewing is not the same as scientific testing...and what
> I'm asking for is artistic reviews...nothing more, nothing less.
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pseudoscience

🔗Neil Haverstick <microstick@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>