Will there ever come a day???!!

Hello there, and a hearty hello to all alternative tuners...!!!

This post may seem a little off topic, but something has been in my mind for
quite a while now...

You see, I read a book by Mr.Ray Kurtzweil called "THE AGE OF SPIRITUAL
MACHINES", and in it, he claims that there will be a day, circa 2030, IF
Moore's law holds true, that computers will become SELF aware, and have
passed the Turing test.

At this time, in this book, Ray Kurtzweil claimed that the VAST majority of
popular culture music will be composed by ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, and this
would truely become self aware.

We could have NO WAY to know as to weather a human or a computer composed
whatever musical peice through sampleing, mathematical synthesis, physical
modeling...

Obviously, if I were given a software synthesizer, and sequencer as a gift,
with all the functions, bells whistles, and attachments for waveform
creation and microtuneing, I COULD, at least theoretically practice
sequenceing, and constructing timbres related and unrelated to the
temperaments that I have on a pallette, stored in the memory of the software
synthesizer....

This could be done for effect, and, by the way, my favorite synthesis
technique is mathematical synthesis...

But, then, to figure out how all of the harmonics related to the
temperament, and DID NOT relate to the temperament, from 5Et----->73ET,
would take IMMENSE mental concentration, time and effort, to invent
instruments, and ASDR curves, store them, humanize them, place effects to
them, pan them....

By the way, (on a slight tangent here), I must say that I am BY NO MEANS a
life performer, I am a "step-time-paint-by-numbers-studio-humanizer-nerd".

A friend and I were talking about the shortcomings of the primitive new
technology, where music can be sequenced on computer COMPLELTELY visually,
and HUMANIZED, altho in my honest opinion, most of the drum humanization
software packages on Cakewalk, when shown to me didn't offer enough
expressive/stochastic control, on all time scales, with up-sample, pitch
changes, and time-stretch to be of any use to me....

.....AT LEAST YET year 2002....

But enough of this....

I wanted to ask the tuning groups COMBINED OPINIONS as to weather or not,
they agreed with Ray Kurtzweil as to the statement in his book "The Age of
Spoiritual Machines" would have its phrophercy forfilled, and all that would
need to be done is to INSTRUCT the computer to write a good song with
certain suggestions, in English, and have a two way conversation with the AI
programme and it would be done for you.

Without the effort....

What are the tuning groups combined thoughts as to this?

Do you guys and gals think that this would be a good thing???!!?

I personally think that it would be an excellent idea, for a computer to
become self aware, and intelligent, and for it to compose music for us....

ESPECIALLY MICROTONAL MUSIC.

I have been writeing a book about my experiences with mathematics, and
microtonal music, and all sorts of inventions, and the use of REALLY BIG
NUMBERS in music.

Sure, I have been told of additive synthesis a+b, ring modulation a*b, and
distortion synthesis a^b, where a and b are waveforms, but I got to thinking
about triadic operators with three waveforms a, b and c, where a+b=a[1]b,
a*b=a[2]b, a^b=a[3]b, a&b=a[Super=power}b, and so on to ......a[c]b.

Of course, this can be mapped to an isoceles triangle with tfour pats I call
a TRACKTRIX.

These operators can also be non(9)-adyic [a[b]c][a'[b']c'][a''[b'']c''], and
27-adyic.

I look foward to this day when numbers as big as a googalplexplexplex, and a
googalplexxxxxxx (which you will find out more about when my book:THE
CONCEPT JUNKYARD is finished), are used in music.

What are you're thoughts as to the impossibility/possibility, and as to
you're agreement or disagreement with ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE doing most of
the compositional blood, sweat and teard for you, ESPECIALLY WITH A VEIW TO
MICROTONAL MUSIC???

It is certainly not my intention to offend anyone on the list who prefers
LIVE music, and LIVE playing, but I think that AI-composition and
human------->computer interaction would be a wounderful idea.....!!!!

Any thoughts?

---Sarn RIchard Ursell.

--- In tuning@y..., Sarn Richard Ursell <thcdelta@i...> wrote:

> What are the tuning groups combined thoughts as to this?

My thoughts are that the subject belongs on metatuning, and that computers are already in some sense intelligent (e.g, they can play chess, which we associate with intelligence) and are never going to be self-aware unless we learn to generate awareness. What would a computer do differently if it was aware?

genewardsmith wrote:

> --- In tuning@y..., Sarn Richard Ursell <thcdelta@i...> wrote:
>
> > What are the tuning groups combined thoughts as to this?
>
> My thoughts are that the subject belongs on metatuning, and that computers are already in some sense intelligent (e.g, they can play chess, which we associate with intelligence) and are never going to be self-aware unless we learn to generate awareness. What would a computer do differently if it was aware?

It would meditate and show compassion towards other computers.

Regards

The question about awareness assumes that awareness is a
metaphenomenon of the physical body. It completely ignores the
opposite possibility. Modern physics strongly points toward the
possibility that the physical body along with all physical phenomena
are a set of holographic-like metaphenomena generated from a
common "unified field" (uniting magnetic, electromagnetic,
gravitational, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) which is
itself not differentiable from awareness.

A philosopher scientist was once discussing this in the presence of a
group of world-class scientists and kept mentioning the intelligence
implicit in the unified field from which all natural laws and
associated phenomena are generated via a process of "sequential
symmetry breaking" (from unified field theory). A prominent
physicist, hiself a unfied field theorist, asked him why he kept
referring to the unified field as intelligent.

The philosopher asked the physicist whether he thought himself to be
intelligent. The physicist answered that he did. The philosopher then
asked him if he thought he existed outside the unified field (from
which all matter and energy theoretically arises). The physicist saw
the point clearly and responded with a facial expression that clearly
indicated an "aha" experience.

So consider the possiblity that every organism contains within it an
anolog, a practical implementation, of every natural law that has
participated in its evolution to that point. Eventually, there should
arise an organism that contains within it the complete set of natural
laws operating in nature. This organism would be capable of
reflecting locally the nature of the whole from which it originated.

It could consciously reflect on the nature of its own origin. It
could mirror the workings of nature in its own localized intelligence
and project them into objects that implemented those laws. It could
write scriptures describing itself as made in the image of its Source.

It could also stupidly deny its connection with the intelligence that
fostered its evolution. It could arrogantly consider itself, in spite
of its status as an infinitessimally small subcomponent of the cosmic
system that evolved it, as superior to everything else in the
universe from which it sprouted, and with this fragmented thinking
which destroys the integrity of the wholeness of our cosmos, create
technologies which it misapplies to destroy the very system that
sustains it.

Cheers,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., Sarn Richard Ursell <thcdelta@i...> wrote:
> Hello there, and a hearty hello to all alternative tuners...!!!
>
> This post may seem a little off topic, but something has been in my
mind for
> quite a while now...
>
> You see, I read a book by Mr.Ray Kurtzweil called "THE AGE OF
SPIRITUAL
> MACHINES", and in it, he claims that there will be a day, circa
2030, IF
> Moore's law holds true, that computers will become SELF aware, and
have
> passed the Turing test.
>
> At this time, in this book, Ray Kurtzweil claimed that the VAST
majority of
> popular culture music will be composed by ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE,
and this
> would truely become self aware.
>
> We could have NO WAY to know as to weather a human or a computer
composed
> whatever musical peice through sampleing, mathematical synthesis,
physical
> modeling...
>
> Obviously, if I were given a software synthesizer, and sequencer as
a gift,
> with all the functions, bells whistles, and attachments for waveform
> creation and microtuneing, I COULD, at least theoretically practice
> sequenceing, and constructing timbres related and unrelated to the
> temperaments that I have on a pallette, stored in the memory of the
software
> synthesizer....
>
> This could be done for effect, and, by the way, my favorite
synthesis
> technique is mathematical synthesis...
>
> But, then, to figure out how all of the harmonics related to the
> temperament, and DID NOT relate to the temperament, from 5Et-----
>73ET,
> would take IMMENSE mental concentration, time and effort, to invent
> instruments, and ASDR curves, store them, humanize them, place
effects to
> them, pan them....
>
> By the way, (on a slight tangent here), I must say that I am BY NO
MEANS a
> life performer, I am a "step-time-paint-by-numbers-studio-humanizer-
nerd".
>
> A friend and I were talking about the shortcomings of the primitive
new
> technology, where music can be sequenced on computer COMPLELTELY
visually,
> and HUMANIZED, altho in my honest opinion, most of the drum
humanization
> software packages on Cakewalk, when shown to me didn't offer enough
> expressive/stochastic control, on all time scales, with up-sample,
pitch
> changes, and time-stretch to be of any use to me....
>
> .....AT LEAST YET year 2002....
>
> But enough of this....
>
> I wanted to ask the tuning groups COMBINED OPINIONS as to weather
or not,
> they agreed with Ray Kurtzweil as to the statement in his book "The
Age of
> Spoiritual Machines" would have its phrophercy forfilled, and all
that would
> need to be done is to INSTRUCT the computer to write a good song
with
> certain suggestions, in English, and have a two way conversation
with the AI
> programme and it would be done for you.
>
> Without the effort....
>
> What are the tuning groups combined thoughts as to this?
>
> Do you guys and gals think that this would be a good thing???!!?
>
> I personally think that it would be an excellent idea, for a
computer to
> become self aware, and intelligent, and for it to compose music for
us....
>
> ESPECIALLY MICROTONAL MUSIC.
>
> I have been writeing a book about my experiences with mathematics,
and
> microtonal music, and all sorts of inventions, and the use of
REALLY BIG
> NUMBERS in music.
>
> Sure, I have been told of additive synthesis a+b, ring modulation
a*b, and
> distortion synthesis a^b, where a and b are waveforms, but I got to
thinking
> about triadic operators with three waveforms a, b and c, where a+b=a
[1]b,
> a*b=a[2]b, a^b=a[3]b, a&b=a[Super=power}b, and so on to ......a[c]b.
>
> Of course, this can be mapped to an isoceles triangle with tfour
pats I call
> a TRACKTRIX.
>
> These operators can also be non(9)-adyic [a[b]c][a'[b']c'][a''[b'']
c''], and
> 27-adyic.
>
> I look foward to this day when numbers as big as a
googalplexplexplex, and a
> googalplexxxxxxx (which you will find out more about when my
book:THE
> CONCEPT JUNKYARD is finished), are used in music.
>
> What are you're thoughts as to the impossibility/possibility, and
as to
> you're agreement or disagreement with ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE doing
most of
> the compositional blood, sweat and teard for you, ESPECIALLY WITH A
VEIW TO
> MICROTONAL MUSIC???
>
> It is certainly not my intention to offend anyone on the list who
prefers
> LIVE music, and LIVE playing, but I think that AI-composition and
> human------->computer interaction would be a wounderful
idea.....!!!!
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
> ---Sarn RIchard Ursell.

I meant to say "epiphenomenon" and not "metaphenomenon". The
difference is significant, since a metaphenomenon would be at a more
fundamental, abstract, global and comprehensive level and an
epiphenomenon is at a lower rung of the hierarchy, generated as a by-
product of some more essential phenomenon.

The corrected version follows:

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> The question about awareness assumes that awareness is a
> epiphenomenon of the physical body. It completely ignores the
> opposite possibility. Modern physics strongly points toward the
> possibility that the physical body along with all physical
phenomena
> are a set of holographic-like epiphenomenon generated from a
> common "unified field" (uniting magnetic, electromagnetic,
> gravitational, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) which is
> itself not differentiable from awareness.
>
> A philosopher scientist was once discussing this in the presence of
a
> group of world-class scientists and kept mentioning the
intelligence
> implicit in the unified field from which all natural laws and
> associated phenomena are generated via a process of "sequential
> symmetry breaking" (from unified field theory). A prominent
> physicist, himself a unified field theorist, asked him why he kept
> referring to the unified field as intelligent.
>
> The philosopher asked the physicist whether he thought himself to
be
> intelligent. The physicist answered that he did. The philosopher
then
> asked him if he thought he existed outside the unified field (from
> which all matter and energy theoretically arises). The physicist
saw
> the point clearly and responded with a facial expression that
clearly
> indicated an "aha" experience.
>
> So consider the possiblity that every organism contains within it
an
> anolog, a practical implementation, of every natural law that has
> participated in its evolution to that point. Eventually, there
should
> arise an organism that contains within it the complete set of
natural
> laws operating in nature. This organism would be capable of
> reflecting locally the nature of the whole from which it
originated.
>
> It could consciously reflect on the nature of its own origin. It
> could mirror the workings of nature in its own localized
intelligence
> and project them into objects that implemented those laws. It could
> write scriptures describing itself as made in the image of its
Source.
>
> It could also stupidly deny its connection with the intelligence
that
> fostered its evolution. It could arrogantly consider itself, in
spite
> of its status as an infinitessimally small subcomponent of the
cosmic
> system that evolved it, as superior to everything else in the
> universe from which it sprouted, and with this fragmented thinking
> which destroys the integrity of the wholeness of our cosmos, create
> technologies which it misapplies to destroy the very system that
> sustains it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Sarn Richard Ursell <thcdelta@i...> wrote:
> > Hello there, and a hearty hello to all alternative tuners...!!!
> >
> > This post may seem a little off topic, but something has been in
my
> mind for
> > quite a while now...
> >
> > You see, I read a book by Mr.Ray Kurtzweil called "THE AGE OF
> SPIRITUAL
> > MACHINES", and in it, he claims that there will be a day, circa
> 2030, IF
> > Moore's law holds true, that computers will become SELF aware,
and
> have
> > passed the Turing test.
> >
> > At this time, in this book, Ray Kurtzweil claimed that the VAST
> majority of
> > popular culture music will be composed by ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE,
> and this
> > would truely become self aware.
> >
> > We could have NO WAY to know as to weather a human or a computer
> composed
> > whatever musical peice through sampleing, mathematical synthesis,
> physical
> > modeling...
> >
> > Obviously, if I were given a software synthesizer, and sequencer
as
> a gift,
> > with all the functions, bells whistles, and attachments for
waveform
> > creation and microtuneing, I COULD, at least theoretically
practice
> > sequenceing, and constructing timbres related and unrelated to the
> > temperaments that I have on a pallette, stored in the memory of
the
> software
> > synthesizer....
> >
> > This could be done for effect, and, by the way, my favorite
> synthesis
> > technique is mathematical synthesis...
> >
> > But, then, to figure out how all of the harmonics related to the
> > temperament, and DID NOT relate to the temperament, from 5Et-----
> >73ET,
> > would take IMMENSE mental concentration, time and effort, to
invent
> > instruments, and ASDR curves, store them, humanize them, place
> effects to
> > them, pan them....
> >
> > By the way, (on a slight tangent here), I must say that I am BY
NO
> MEANS a
> > life performer, I am a "step-time-paint-by-numbers-studio-
humanizer-
> nerd".
> >
> > A friend and I were talking about the shortcomings of the
primitive
> new
> > technology, where music can be sequenced on computer COMPLELTELY
> visually,
> > and HUMANIZED, altho in my honest opinion, most of the drum
> humanization
> > software packages on Cakewalk, when shown to me didn't offer
enough
> > expressive/stochastic control, on all time scales, with up-
sample,
> pitch
> > changes, and time-stretch to be of any use to me....
> >
> > .....AT LEAST YET year 2002....
> >
> > But enough of this....
> >
> > I wanted to ask the tuning groups COMBINED OPINIONS as to weather
> or not,
> > they agreed with Ray Kurtzweil as to the statement in his
book "The
> Age of
> > Spoiritual Machines" would have its phrophercy forfilled, and all
> that would
> > need to be done is to INSTRUCT the computer to write a good song
> with
> > certain suggestions, in English, and have a two way conversation
> with the AI
> > programme and it would be done for you.
> >
> > Without the effort....
> >
> > What are the tuning groups combined thoughts as to this?
> >
> > Do you guys and gals think that this would be a good thing???!!?
> >
> > I personally think that it would be an excellent idea, for a
> computer to
> > become self aware, and intelligent, and for it to compose music
for
> us....
> >
> > ESPECIALLY MICROTONAL MUSIC.
> >
> > I have been writeing a book about my experiences with
mathematics,
> and
> > microtonal music, and all sorts of inventions, and the use of
> REALLY BIG
> > NUMBERS in music.
> >
> > Sure, I have been told of additive synthesis a+b, ring modulation
> a*b, and
> > distortion synthesis a^b, where a and b are waveforms, but I got
to
> thinking
> > about triadic operators with three waveforms a, b and c, where
a+b=a
> [1]b,
> > a*b=a[2]b, a^b=a[3]b, a&b=a[Super=power}b, and so on to ......a[c]
b.
> >
> > Of course, this can be mapped to an isoceles triangle with tfour
> pats I call
> > a TRACKTRIX.
> >
> > These operators can also be non(9)-adyic [a[b]c][a'[b']c']
[a''[b'']
> c''], and
> > 27-adyic.
> >
> > I look foward to this day when numbers as big as a
> googalplexplexplex, and a
> > googalplexxxxxxx (which you will find out more about when my
> book:THE
> > CONCEPT JUNKYARD is finished), are used in music.
> >
> > What are you're thoughts as to the impossibility/possibility, and
> as to
> > you're agreement or disagreement with ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
doing
> most of
> > the compositional blood, sweat and teard for you, ESPECIALLY WITH
A
> VEIW TO
> > MICROTONAL MUSIC???
> >
> > It is certainly not my intention to offend anyone on the list who
> prefers
> > LIVE music, and LIVE playing, but I think that AI-composition and
> > human------->computer interaction would be a wounderful
> idea.....!!!!
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> >
> > ---Sarn RIchard Ursell.