Re: Oh! The pain!

[as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia)]

In <270aq4$j41@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman) writes:

>>I see nothing antiquated in the notion that machines are tools, not
>>substitutes for human skill (at least, so far).

>And I'd bet you've never seen Jon say otherwise.  Be clueful and don't
>assume.

We cleared that up in E-mail.  Thanks for adding your 1.5 cents.

>>But I am, by my own admission, not fully aware of the range of technology
>>available to today's songwriter.  Does there exist some machine which can
>>take a musical ignoramus and use his/her fingers to produce a symphony to
>>rival the much-adored Fifth?  If so, I'd love to have one!  :)

>No such beast.

'Twas rhetorical and sardonic.  Be clueful and don't assume.

>>I think, to reiterate, that the quarrel lies not with the technology, but
>>with the accompanying atrophy of human skill.

>The same has been said about every technological advance forever,
>but I don't see brain's atrophying in light of computers, or composers
>atrophying in light of sequencers.

Then, with all due respect, you are not looking.  I see it everywhere. 
Whether this is due to the technology or...

...no.  Let me be clearer.  I hate to reopen a old discussion as you've done
here, but I did *not* mean to say that human skill *atrophies* as a result
of new technology.  I meant to say only that certain human skills do not
develop if they have technology upon which to rely.  Some of these skills
are unlamented; some are very sorely missed indeed.  E.g., the use of
spelling checkers may seem to be a convenience, but it rarely encourages
people to learn to be observant and careful about what they're typing in the
first place.  (Note the word "brain's" in your remark above, which is
incorrect.)  Another example, quoted directly: "fully automated cameras that
take the art out of photography."  Sure, everyone will come out with nice
pictures (in theory)...but they'll all be the same.  Photography will become
mechanical and bloody boring.  How about microwaves which render the owner
helpless to cook a "real" meal without one?

Here's the big one.  The glass teat.  The TV.  The human skills of original,
complex thought and imagination is being ripped to shreds by the crap that
shows up on the screen.  After nursing at Ellison's Bane for an hour or two,
everyone's brain is a little less puissant.

But, you argue, the technology doesn't *prevent* the development of these
skills.  One can always choose to develop them.  Absolutely correct.  But
the technology certainly tempts the average user to ignore those skills, and
the day is not far off when virtually all of the population will be utterly
dependent upon electrical devices for survival, and will be as they were
coming down out of the trees when the outlets go dead.

This is a very technophobic argument.  It's an unsurprising one coming from
a fan of _Dune_, in which machines which "think" are regarded as taboo and
the human mind is encouraged to develop and become the organic computer it
should be by right.  Another quote, this one indirect: "it *is* surprising,
in a post on Internet."  But I am the walking embodiment of contradiction,
and simultaneously lean upon my computer as a crutch and want to put an axe
through its supercilious innards.

>You seem to be mistaking technology to deliver a wider range of dreck
>with technology to make music.

There's no difference, sir.  The difference is in the user.  And if you're
going to tell me that the musician who can compose music with *or* without
the sequencer does not produce less "dreck" than the musician who relies on
the sequencer, then I will launch my parallel argument, which takes place in
the field of literature.  If you choose not to debate the point further,
then I shall rest my case with this volume.

Your move.

>Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
> "Mommy mommy, turn on your headlights!  Daddy's car is parked in your garage!"
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Normally, I am above making disparaging comments about .signatures.  But a
quote from a "dirty" joke whose variants were first told to me by third-graders
is very slightly tasteless, n'est-ce pas?

Drewcifer
-- 
----  Andrew D. Simchik ? as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ? Tree of Schnopia
\ ----  HAIL ERIS!  ALL HAIL DISCORDIA! ? BITE ME, IT'S FUN!  ?   shade
 \\bi/  Go to sleep, little earth...and Dream of the Endless. ? and sweet
   \/  "Words weren't made for cowards."--Happy Rhodes        ?   water