Actually I think not - judging from my daughter's taste a lot of this is going to be resoundingly rejected. #1 flag is - critics like it.
IMHO these people have to stop re-creating and start creating with these tools.
"Ever wonder how Jimi Hendrix would cover Lady Gaga? Whether you do or not [I'm guessing not], you may be about to find out. Writing for Wired, Eliot Van Buskirk describes North Carolina's Zenph Sound Innovations, which takes existing recordings of musicians (deceased, for now) and models their 'musical personalities' to create new recordings, apparently to critical acclaim. The company has raised $10.7 million in funding to pursue their business plan, and hopes to branch out into, among other things, software that would let musicians jam with virtual versions of famous musicians. This work unites music with the very similar trend going on in the movies — Tron 2.0, for example, will clone the young Jeff Bridges. If this goes on, will the major labels and studios actually need musicians and actors? In the future, it could be harder to make money playing guitar with all of the competition from dead or retired artists."
Here is a link to the article with all of the links
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/10/03/03/175209/How-Artificial-Intelligence-Is-Changing-Music
This is a logical result of the technical developments so far, and the refined state it is in.
Look at the realtime personages in Avatar. The same with sound.
But I don't see the link between using existing material and 'Innovation'.. That word is too big.
In the 80s there was a change in copyright. People were allowed to use the chords of max. 8 bars of an existing song,
before they had to do something different.
This resulted in a hausse of "quote music". This was successful for a year, then it vanished.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"This is a logical result of the technical developments so far, and the refined state it is in.
Isn't it more like the progress of science? You first need science to find out the "characterstics" of a (dead) artist. Then you can go over to reproducing them, and it doesn't matter if a computer does it or a real person.
I fail to see why delivering a combination yet unheard should be considered progress.
The thing that in my opinion the copyright is missing is that it tries to eliminate any usage of previously created material. No longer can you take a musical work and base a new one on it. Now you should go around and ask permissions. The whole fact that you even have to ask for a permission is damaging.
In the end the arts are now in such a dreadful state not because someone is using existing material or not using it, but because arts are now heavily controlled. Stop controlling it, stop digging into every track, trying to see who used what, stop making composers chase each other to ask for permission of something they should be free to do - and arts will flourish.
I agree about the permission issue. But at least one should have the decency to mention the maker of the source material.
For the rest : I don't care at all using sounds being at my disposal via a CD, LP, radio, tv or iNet, whether 'legal' or not.
As it is now, the music from the past is defined as 'illegal' itself, instead of some tricky way of using it.
This, I agree too, causes an obstacle for musical innovation.
I agree about the decency. In our society being an author gives you so much benefits, that attribution seems to be a must.
Things that can be done by computers should be done by computers so that humans are free to tackle problems that can't be resolved by computers.
are you then going to purchase and listen to music "created" by computers ?
Quote from: "uncloned"are you then going to purchase and listen to music "created" by computers ?
If its good enough, sure. But the day a computer can make music as good as a human can, there won't be much difference between a computer and a human, will there? I mean: from that day on, computers will sort of be "alive", right? That's not what I'm talking about, though.
My point is this: there are certain tasks that, for now, only humans can do. These tasks require some sort of creativity computers don't have. A computer can't write a novel or compose a symphony. But some tasks can be performed by a computer. It is a good thing to let a computer address those tasks, so that creative labor, human labor, is freed in order to address those complex problems a computer can't solve.
Example: when calculators didn't exist, complex arithmetic operations were performed by hand. Why would you still do them by hand nowadays.
But your position implies that there is no human communication in the arts.
My position is that the manipulation of the media requires communication in order to be considered art.
Recombining music phrases into new piece is akin to recording whale song on tape - cutting, randomizing and reassembling the tape and still expecting to communicate with whales.
I don't think it will happen.
True cyber creativity would be something other than recombination. And it would be something other than an imitation of human art. IMHO of course.
Quote from: "uncloned"But your position implies that there is no human communication in the arts.
My position is that the manipulation of the media requires communication in order to be considered art.
Recombining music phrases into new piece is akin to recording whale song on tape - cutting, randomizing and reassembling the tape and still expecting to communicate with whales.
I don't think it will happen.
True cyber creativity would be something other than recombination. And it would be something other than an imitation of human art. IMHO of course.
If a computer had the same ability of a human, there would be as much communication as if a human had made the music. But this is a different subject from the original one, I think.
My point really was this: computers are tools that help human beings. For the time being, there are two kinds of problems: those which a computer is better at solving, and those which humans are better at solving.
As technology improves, computers advance and some things which only humans could solve are now better solved by computers. What I say is this: those problems should be left to computers to solve. Insisting on humans solving them would be a waste. In general, those problems don't require creativity. Creativity is, for now, a human feature only. The "communication" you mention is still in the human realm. But things that can be automated can be left to computers, so humans have more time to address what is really important they address.
I ask...
is art just a "problem" to be solved?
or is art something more than that?
With all due respect I read your words and I find the thought - the reality your words paint, as incredibly cold as it reduces what I see as your perception of humans as something less than vital or alive. Humans as only wet-ware processors.
That an "artificial" being (really non-biological sentient being) would have something to say I do not question. But it would not be from the perspective of a human. Neither would full communication with Dolphins.
I found that a lot of people interpret art differently. However, I do find the increasing view on everything as cold and materialistic. I think a lot of it is connected to the way religion is portrayed in the mind of the majority.
If you look at modern movies which touch upon religion in the mainstream, you would see stories about people to whom faith is something of a perversion of what faith should be and of how it was understood in the past. Today faith is basically a zombified state of human mind when a person tries to persuade oneself to believe in something that is truly impossible in our world, and he does not believe in it but he tries to persuade himself that he does. And people try to live in that illusion and they call it faith - no wonder thinking people reject that kind of "religion".
Religion is looked upon as a wrong path of the human history, something to be ashamed of, something that was a result of a primitive race. As much as I love Star Trek, all the passages about religion always make me think how superficial modern materialistic philosophy has become.
And so a typical stereotype about religion is that about dogma, hypocrisy and self-delusion. Which has nothing in common with a real religious world-view, full of life and profoundness and wisdom, to say the least.
Because in minds of people "progressive views" repeat again and again that there is nothing in the world besides what we see and touch, a lot of people start to reject a notion of spirit, art as a spiritual act, love as a spiritual act and life as a path of a human soul. To them spirit is a only and not more than a set of chemical reactions in the brain, art is a mere recombination of something seen before and nothing more, love is only a set of biological instincts combined with those chemical reactions and nothing more, and life is only an existence of a biological organism and nothing more.
A religious person sees something more in all of the above. It is something that can only be an experience, it cannot be logically proved or theorized.
Quote from: "uncloned"I ask...
is art just a "problem" to be solved?
or is art something more than that?
With all due respect I read your words and I find the thought - the reality your words paint, as incredibly cold as it reduces what I see as your perception of humans as something less than vital or alive. Humans as only wet-ware processors.
That an "artificial" being (really non-biological sentient being) would have something to say I do not question. But it would not be from the perspective of a human. Neither would full communication with Dolphins.
No. It's precisely the opposite. Humans are so unique that I don't want them wasting their creativity in activities so trivial that they can be solved by machines.
Would you have humans calculating logarithms by hand? No.
Of course art is not just a "problem" to be solved. I never said that. On the other hand, suppose that, instead of having to use Modplug Tracker to make a piece of music, write the notes, choose volume and panning envelopes, gather samples, etc, etc, you could just imagine the piece of music and send it to a computer and have it produce the sound automatically from what you imagined. Wouldn't that be an improvement?
Don't you use the "interpolate" feature in volume columns? Isn't that so you don't have to waste time entering the volume row by row?
I think you have misunderstood me.
A different subject is the question of whether an artificial being could become, in a sense, as sentient as a human, provided that its intelligence is at least equal to that of a human being. Dolphins is not a good example, because they are not as intelligent as humans, or at least, their mind is not like that of humans.
Perfect example: Pixar. Pixar is composed of some of the best creative minds in the world. They spend their creative energy in defining what is to be shown, but computers do the hard work of generating the images. People say: "this image should look like that, with a light here and another there", and model the characters and objects, but a computer then makes the calculations necessary to generate the image. If such calculations were to be performed by people, making these movies wouldn't even be possible.
Quote from: "PPH"In general, those problems don't require creativity. Creativity is, for now, a human feature only. The "communication" you mention is still in the human realm. But things that can be automated can be left to computers, so humans have more time to address what is really important they address.
This is were I'm getting my POV from.
That computers are a tool as any other, such as a hammer, or violin, sure thing.
But I question the validity of "creativity" as "art" from a non-sentient machine.
Quote from: "PPH". Dolphins is not a good example, because they are not as intelligent as humans, or at least, their mind is not like that of humans.
Why would you want minds like humans?
Isn't a totally different way of thinking from human just as valid?
That is like saying a growing plant based on silicon instead of carbon would not be truly alive.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"I found that a lot of people interpret art differently. However, I do find the increasing view on everything as cold and materialistic. I think a lot of it is connected to the way religion is portrayed in the mind of the majority.
If you look at modern movies which touch upon religion in the mainstream, you would see stories about people to whom faith is something of a perversion of what faith should be and of how it was understood in the past. Today faith is basically a zombified state of human mind when a person tries to persuade oneself to believe in something that is truly impossible in our world, and he does not believe in it but he tries to persuade himself that he does. And people try to live in that illusion and they call it faith - no wonder thinking people reject that kind of "religion".
.
I think often atheists are substituting technology, science or some version of "the universe / multiverse" for "religion" and "God".
My take is that many people equate religion (which is ritual) with spirituality . These things are not necessarily the same and do not need each other to exist.
Quote from: "uncloned"Quote from: "PPH"In general, those problems don't require creativity. Creativity is, for now, a human feature only. The "communication" you mention is still in the human realm. But things that can be automated can be left to computers, so humans have more time to address what is really important they address.
This is were I'm getting my POV from.
That computers are a tool as any other, such as a hammer, or violin, sure thing.
But I question the validity of "creativity" as "art" from a non-sentient machine.
I never disputed that.
Quote from: "uncloned"Quote from: "PPH". Dolphins is not a good example, because they are not as intelligent as humans, or at least, their mind is not like that of humans.
Why would you want minds like humans?
Isn't a totally different way of thinking from human just as valid?
That is like saying a growing plant based on silicon instead of carbon would not be truly alive.
Again, I never said only human thinking is valid. If a dolphin thought like a human, he would probably die. I never said dolphins should think like humans. I just meant, of course humans can't communicate well with dolphins. I was exploring the possibility of an artificial being becoming sentient like a human. Of course, his perspective would be different from a human. But given sufficient intelligence, why wouldn't it be able to communicate with a human being? We are not so far apart in our opinions.
I think you guys need to read this to stimulate your brains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Computer_Music
it reminds me of the flying spaghetti monster.
QuoteMy take is that many people equate religion (which is ritual) with spirituality.
Religion is not only ritual. While it is true that religion and church as a human organization has and will always have a lot of imperfection, religion is not just a set of rituals.
Spirituality, on the other hand, is a very vague term.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"To them spirit is a only and not more than a set of chemical reactions in the brain, art is a mere recombination of something seen before and nothing more, love is only a set of biological instincts combined with those chemical reactions and nothing more, and life is only an existence of a biological organism and nothing more.
Louigi, all of the above is just as magic with or without religion. As for "and nothing more", I think "an existence of a biological organism" is infinitely more amazing (and also infinitely more likely) than "So God created man in his own image". You don't need an imaginary friend to feel butterflies in your stomach you know... ;)
I cannot agree. A biological organism has no purpose. It lives and then it just dies. Religious view puts a man and any other creature into a larger context.
But at this point we again come to how we understand religion and God. If by religion one means just some things that people made up, then of course - it is pointless to philosophize with him at all.
I do not find any special wonder in being amazed by the world as it is. Of course it is impressive, but that amazement is not self-sufficient. Knowing how great nature is and yet knowing that my life has no greater purpose and I will eventually just disappear forever as if I never existed - it will not give the foundation I seek.
I am not sure if this is the right place to say this - we are all from different countries and very different cultural contexts. Anyway, for someone who might know what I mean, religion is something you come to inevitably.
A religious man has a wider look on everything. No matter what happens he can put it into a larger context. Religion is not dogmatic (or rather, the word dogma in its modern sense is a bit different from what it was originally meant).
Anyway, I am sure I am not making sense to many people.
I think spirituality came before religion
Religion is ritual and codes of conduct
A religion is any systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one's origins, one's place in the world, or a responsibility to live and act in the world in particular ways. Religion is often equated with faith and belief in a higher power or truth, but it is more commonly defined in religious studies as the patterns that express that faith and reinforce it in day-to-day living. One can share the philosophy of a religion, believing in its higher truth, without manifesting that faith religiously.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
I think aboriginal peoples have a clue somewhere....
At some point in history an ancestor a thought occurred that there might be more than what the senses say. Unfortunately I think this revelation has been abused throughout history to control and use people.
Right on. Religion took over, claiming spirituality. And then abuse it. to abuse people.
Aboriginals were spiritual people. They declared a mountain as 'holy', meaning that from that moment on nobody would enter that area.
Look what happens when religions declare something 'holy'.
They will smash each other heads for centuries because of some stupid temple or book.
Chris, Sam - this is not the point. If religion is abused, it says nothing about religion. If a technology is abused - it says noting about the technology. It is possible to abuse almost anything in this world.
Also, do not generalize, Sam. Not all religious people are religious fanatics.
Quote from: "Sam_Zen"Right on. Religion took over, claiming spirituality. And then abuse it. to abuse people.
Aboriginals were spiritual people. They declared a mountain as 'holy', meaning that from that moment on nobody would enter that area.
Look what happens when religions declare something 'holy'.
They will smash each other heads for centuries because of some stupid temple or book.
You are confusing religion with religious institutions. The aboriginals you are referring to had a religion.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"A religious man has a wider look on everything. No matter what happens he can put it into a larger context. Religion is not dogmatic (or rather, the word dogma in its modern sense is a bit different from what it was originally meant).
Once again we have completely opposite views. I find it a religious man makes everything fit into his predefined context, which to me is the most narrow way you can look on anything.
What is this larger context you speak of? Is it the meaning of life? To worship a god so that one can enter heaven? I pity you if you truly think life has no purpose without religion. You don't like it when people tell you what you're like as a religious person, so why do you make assumptions about how atheists perceive the world? Do you know what it's like not to be a believer?
QuoteI find it a religious man makes everything fit into his predefined context, which to me is the most narrow way you can look on anything.
Those are narrow minded people period.
Any agnostic, atheist, or theist who claims to have all the answers is full of it in my opinion.
Quote
To worship a god so that one can enter heaven?
This is why I dislike organized religion which backs this point of view. Again this is so shallow.
One should live a good and positive life for its own sake.
hmm. is a discussion about this subject possible without generalisation ?
probably not - which is why its usually avoided I guess.
Then again, I'd rather debate religion than speaker cables... :shock:
I'd rather debate speaker cables - it has a the possibility of an unbiased answer.
I don't like people who think speaker cables can solve everything
How dare you not believe in the omnipotence of speaker cables!! :)
Because I see the conspiracy behind the speaker cables.. Just check "selbac rekaeps" and you'll know what I mean..
Speaker cables are often red and black... Need I say more ? :devilsmoking:
Maybe yes. I worship Life and Love. And that's it.
very interesting topics, so lets start commenting stuff:
ihmo the human body is nothing more than a biological robot, programed to have self-born "programs" instincts (that can be overridden if needed), has sensory and living organs. One of the main self-born instinct is, the urge to store every information and experience that he encounters over life, so one can use these accumulated information to live his life more successfully. Self-consciousness is an ability, that is archived trough the intelligence. Personality is an effect of the gathered experience, and the developed intelligence (intelligence is, how well can u use, combine the gathered experience, to do or decide something).
QuoteA biological organism has no purpose.
Describe "purpose" to me. So lets imagine you did that, or someone else will tell you the purpose of the life. What if you wont be satisfied with that purpose? You will most likely chose the one that suits you the best (as you already do). And that *is* the purpose of each individual life. Its not fixed for anyone, one can choose a goal, or more goals and that will exactly become the purpose of his life. You can chose also to not do anything at all, live as you like, then die, totally up to the individual. Nobody can (or should) force a life purpose on you, no "god", no "ufo"-s. It may be so, that humanity was "made" originally with a purpose, you can chose to follow that if you found that questionable goal out, or you have the choice, to chose and try to archive some other ones. That is why this "purpose" term cannot be generalized, because we are all individuals. The sooner will more people realize this, the easier they can progress. It is a very simple logic, if you truly think about it.
Religions. Some religions are good for mind peace, or for teaching moral behavior to the masses, but i cannot agree with the ones that are trying to explain stuff that nobody can be perfectly sure of (or more worse, claiming that they know everything exactly to the smallest detail), without any evidence or logic. Im not a religious person as you most likely know, but i dont have anything against the ones who are, and are bases on basic human morals and deeds that can help build a constructive society. But i really dont like the idea of totally censuring/misinforming people, just to cover "story holes". Explain them that there are many things that we cannot be sure of at this moment, or cannot be explain atm, these fields needs more research (people can choose their life goal for instance, to research these stuff). Explain them the facts and the knowledge in pure black and white, as they are, teach them, don't misinform them. That will give them best, widest possible the options to choose from, and they can decide what will they do with their life, without any destructive influence. "Joining" one of the religion that claims to have the answer for anything in the life may sounds safe and cool, you dont have to thing about most of the stuff in the life, because they are already "explained", but its just not the right way, its misinforming them, people need to use their brains and think for themselves. Just feeling "safe", wont archive any progress at all.
Music can be used for many stuffs, as words or drawings also, for instance. Some people are using it for describing environments, or objects, there are ones that are using it strictly to please the largest amount of masses possible, it is basically a form of business to them. I am mainly using it as a tool to project my personality or my momentary mood, but there are times when im using it as a playground, or a field where i can experiment interesting new combinations.
I can imagine, that the computer could easily create music in the future, that would please the masses, because mainstream music has the largest amount of "samples" to learn from, and usually have the easiest (repetitive) structures. These musics are all very much alike, and people actually are expecting them to be alike, because they are demanding features that are familiar to them. This music has no self "value", neither to people, because usually people dont even care who is the artist, or even about the music itself. They are only listening these, to bring themselves to a familiar mood. If they example would not listen to a 100 given song, but you would give them 100 other ones, the listeners will have the exact same experience, so basically they wouldnt care about the "skipped" ones. This is the perfect example of the "worthless" music or "worthless" musician. All sounds alike, on purpose of course, but they become "business product" with this, that people will chew on, and throw them after they get another fresher one. This is why i thing computers could relay these "artist", because they already dont have any personality, and their musics are already simple "copy paste, do some minor variations and changes" business product.
Unique musics in other hand, that require very careful arrangements and/or are made for different purposes, are different cup of tea. There are musics that are really unique and we're listening to them over and over cause they all give a very special atmosphere, and they don't age. This type of music is made with unique, individual ways of composing and tries to give something special, meaningful to the listener. Now if a computer technology would develop so much intelligence with computing, and gather as much experience as a human do over his life, most likely it would be able to compose these kind of special pieces too, but at this moment we seems to be very far from it, the brain has much better architecture for these stuff. And we shouldn't forget that creativity needs an insane amount of data processing/combining power, and various data storing ability, to work effectively.
So finally, the musicians, that are making unique musics with a lot of experience and expressions involved in their pieces dont have to afraid that a machine will "outperform" them. A musician who makes music only for monetary purposes, and using general structures and making totally similar products each time, could be afraid possibly, that soon a good programmed machine could take away their "job", and do it exactly as good, as humans are producing stuff (as some kind of machines) at this moment.
sorry for the large wall of text. ^_^
Some line breaks would help.. :)
But, the hammer on the head, Psi !
QuoteI can imagine, that the computer could easily create music in the future, that would please the masses, because mainstream music has the largest amount of "samples" to learn from, and usually have the easiest (repetitive) structures. These musics are all very much alike, and people actually are expecting them to be alike, because they are demanding features that are familiar to them. This music has no self "value", neither to people, because usually people dont even care who is the artist, or even about the music itself.
This is so true!
Teleological rantings are starting to appear.
You got me wrong then PPH. I wasn't ranting religion nor mainstream music, only giving my opinion from stuff, everybody have the free will to decide what will he learn from them.
About "mainstream" music, i've based it on my careful observation. I've many time asked my friends for a tracklist on some nice 1-2hour mixes, or a name of a very appealing cool track or artist name. They just said openly they dont have it, and they dont really care. A song or two may sound interesting to them, but overall they listen to these music to bring them on a wanted nice familiar mood. They cannot care less about the name or the artist, as soon as they find some fresh pieces, they tend to forget the "old" ones, and start to listen to new ones. I've had a long chatter with them too about this, they denied at first that they truly think, these artist and songs are worthless to them, but when i've faced the facts to them, they suddenly realized and admitted it. That's why i've said, this behavior tells me, this music (or artist) have absolutely no value to them, if they miss listening to some few ones, or they dont hear about some artist at all, they dont mind, coz they will listen to 100 more similar ones who will give the exact same experience to them. Try to understand what am i trying to say. :D
About religions, well as you've read that i don't have a slightest problem with them, i only strongly disagree with misinforming and censoring, i believe that these stuff have destructive and blinding nature to people (politics and product advertisements tend to have these as well), so if some religions have these, they'll definitely wont see my open acceptation or support. But still, you will not see me go and start ranting to them.
Quote from: "PPH"Teleological
Hey I didn't know that word so I looked it up. Thanks!
Quote from: "g"
Once again we have completely opposite views. I find it a religious man makes everything fit into his predefined context, which to me is the most narrow way you can look on anything.
What is this larger context you speak of?
Simple to explain.
A person who is an atheist cannot have no beliefs whatsoever. If a person proclaims himself an atheist, what he really wants to say is this: "I believe that the world is limited to what I see around myself, it is limited to what the sciences say and there is nothing more to the world than what we see - there are no supernatural powers, our universe did not originate from an entity which you call God but is rather the sum of blind forces of nature."
The concrete examples may vary, but this is the general stance. And this vision is not based on facts, it is only a belief. Facts do not tell us anything about any external powers or the origin of the Universe.
A religious person agrees that the world we see around is indeed there, but he believes that there is something more. He is not only open to perceive other possibilities, at times he actually experiences them.
The so-called materialistic point of view can be compared to a person who says that he does not believe the Universe is endless cause he can clearly see the borders outlined by the horizon.
But there is also another type of atheist, actually more common. This person says this: "I do not believe that the world and the place of a person in it is such as religious books and religions of the world say, but I do believe and feel that there is much more to the world than what we can touch, I feel a greater purpose behind my life". Such people usually speak about a personal God which they believe in.
I think at some point a lot of people come to such a position. And sometimes people who really were going to churches and everything and then sort of stopped and thought they do not believe anymore but then life would lead them back, to a more personal kind of religion.
But I think that a lot about religious institutions is regarded in too superficial a manner. A lot is misunderstood as people try to judge what is written in religious books from their everyday life logic - and thus come to such a form of opposing religion. But if you do take your time to study things, you will see that a lot of the rituals are not just some useless things, but very profound processes which have good reasons and which actually can help a person who seeks certain inner peace. Just like you should not approach arts with the logic of, say, a business, you should not approach religious questions with the logic of your everyday life in the material world.
This is not all that can be said on the subject. But, just like with any discussion, there are two ways you can go - either you can view your opponents opinion in a superficial manner, applying stereotypes and generalizations, simplifying what he is trying to say or else you might try to understand his point of view and all of the intricate details that come with it; and if not agree with the opinion than at least understand what points are your difference points.
Quote from: "g"Quote from: "PPH"Teleological
Hey I didn't know that word so I looked it up. Thanks!
I'm glad. :D That was the whole point of my post. To leave you guys wondering "What on earth is this guy saying?" and discuss some more :P
Quote from: "psishock"You got me wrong then PPH. I wasn't ranting religion nor mainstream music, only giving my opinion from stuff, everybody have the free will to decide what will he learn from them.
About "mainstream" music, i've based it on my careful observation. I've many time asked my friends for a tracklist on some nice 1-2hour mixes, or a name of a very appealing cool track or artist name. They just said openly they dont have it, and they dont really care. A song or two may sound interesting to them, but overall they listen to these music to bring them on a wanted nice familiar mood. They cannot care less about the name or the artist, as soon as they find some fresh pieces, they tend to forget the "old" ones, and start to listen to new ones. I've had a long chatter with them too about this, they denied at first that they truly think, these artist and songs are worthless to them, but when i've faced the facts to them, they suddenly realized and admitted it. That's why i've said, this behavior tells me, this music (or artist) have absolutely no value to them, if they miss listening to some few ones, or they dont hear about some artist at all, they dont mind, coz they will listen to 100 more similar ones who will give the exact same experience to them. Try to understand what am i trying to say. :D
About religions, well as you've read that i don't have a slightest problem with them, i only strongly disagree with misinforming and censoring, i believe that these stuff have destructive and blinding nature to people (politics and product advertisements tend to have these as well), so if some religions have these, they'll definitely wont see my open acceptation or support. But still, you will not see me go and start ranting to them.
I just saw you were talking about "purpose" and decided to throw that "telelogical" word to see what happened :D
Quote from: "PPH"I just saw you were talking about "purpose" and decided to throw that "telelogical" word to see what happened :D
Or maybe he was talking about "purpose" because you were going to throw in the word telelogical?
Quote from: "g"Quote from: "PPH"I just saw you were talking about "purpose" and decided to throw that "telelogical" word to see what happened :D
Or maybe he was talking about "purpose" because you were going to throw in the word telelogical?
Yeah, could be :D