On Consciousness

[dafydd]

, since no scientists actually claim have achieved it what chance to we have on a forum.

Again please, in English.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Again please, in English.

Achieved consciousness via programming.

Ya know, the topic of this thread.

What else would I be talking about in this thread do you think?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Computation ... is for computers and logical brains.

Art music and creativity (humanities) is for humans.

Until they aren't. This is just consciousness of the gaps.

Computers are already amazingly good at composing original music.

While at a conference some years ago (I think it was ILC 2005), I attended an evening concert of computer music. A group of researchers had written programs that analyzed the compositional styles of various famous composers, including Bach and Mozart. They then fed that analysis into a computer program that wrote original music in the style of Bach, or Mozart, or whomever.

The computer-composed music in the style of Bach sounded very much like Bach, but it was original music, not Bach. The computer-composed music in the style of Mozart sounded very much like Mozart, but it was original music, not Mozart. And the music was very good.

I don't remember the names of the researchers who had written these computer programs, but it may have been Heinrich Taube, who presented one of the tutorials (which I did not attend) at ILC 2005. In any case, Taube's Common Music software will serve as an example of a computer program that's capable of composing original music: http://commonmusic.sourceforge.net/

 

[quarky]

Did you guys know that Britteny Spears is a computer simulation?

 

[quarky]

I kind of miss Max Headroom.

 

[quarky]

Why won't anyone argue with me?
I'm lonely.

 

[blobru]

Exactly right.
Computationalists accuse those that don't buy their thesis as religious, when in fact it's them that are.
The truly religious do not go about saying there are gaps in our knowledge, but that there are none.
That is a requirement of "transcending the flesh".
Take RD's discussion around teleportation, or replacing his neurons one by one with a switch.
100% certainty is required no icky doubts.

Neurons tend to be very fussy about who they work with; unless by "a switch" is meant some sort of artificial neuron with the same properties of synaptic connectivity, neurotransmission, and electrophysiology, we know replacing neurons with switches won't work (we can't even replace a neuron with another neuron if they don't synch up exactly: see Llinás' law^WP); as for teleportation - yawn - have had that discussion elsewhere, and raised several what seem to me fatal objections to it, even as a thought-experiment only (a few of which here), as a means to transfer and preserve "consciousness" (but tp's a side-issue anyone wishing to reopen should continue there, I think).

Why won't anyone argue with me?
I'm lonely.

Hippy (lonely hippy).

eta: how did you like Strawson's panpsychism thesis?

 

[dlorde]

No icky flesh, no point in being creative. No desire. No point to anything, really.

Why? what does icky flesh have to do with creativity or desire?

Are the paralysed less creative or desirous?

 

[calebprime]

Why? what does icky flesh have to do with creativity or desire?

Are the paralysed less creative or desirous?

Creativity involves pleasure, maybe. Pleasure involves flesh, embodiment, working juices.

I can try to explain what I meant.

This is because I think it's better to try to be responsive, but not because I think I can do an adequate job of explaining myself.

Also, I regret entering the discussion, even whimsically. This stuff is so important to me that almost anything anyone -- including me -- says can make me pretty upset and screw me up for days. Skin too thin, kitchen too hot. So go easy on the snark.

My field is music composition, and I've hung around MIT for a couple years and some of the Kurzweil people in the distant past.

I don't think that some aspects of creative activities -- composing music, writing stories -- are completely mysterious.

There are rules, traditions, habits, patterns that can be analyzed.

http://www.psmag.com/culture/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/


David Cope did a very sophisticated program that could do a pretty good imitation of so-so original compositions by Mozart, and a lousy imitation of bad Stravinsky.

I will eat something unpalatable, however, if Cope's program ever spits out a new Mozart piano concerto that gives me chills when I listen. What Cope's program is doing is a combination of stored patterns and some more abstract rules. If Cope succeeded in coding the most abstract of these rules to the degree that it can sound like late Mozart at his best, he has musical insight close to Mozart. Or maybe not. However, I don't think he has succeeded.

Now, what I say next is not an argument from incredulity, it's simple incredulity, or incomprehension of my own processes, desires, and projects.

If I'm anything like other composers, I judge what I'm doing from a variety of different perspectives. One very important basis of judgement is whether listening to what I've done gives me pleasure. This response of pleasure is the end result of many complex judgments -- most of which are not entirely conscious, although some are conscious. It manifests, at best, as hair-raising, or chills. It involves my whole body. It relates to the whole history of prior attempts, which have everything to do with my projects in life -- who I want to be, who I've tried to be.

Same with my response to any composers whose work I've come to know very well and love. (Or jazz improvisers.) Not only do I respond to amazing harmonies, rhythms, melodies, textures, (ingredients that can be heard as the piece unfolds), but the piece I love by some composer is understandable in terms of her life's work -- against the background of her other pieces and her life's projects, her purpose. What is this 'purpose' of which I speak?

(I'm not talking about pop or other dilute forms of music.)

What -- bad trends aside -- must drive formal innovation is a pleasure response. That sounds good. That's exciting.

The Rite of Spring must have sounded good to Stravinsky as he was composing it. What is this 'good' of which I speak? What is this pleasure?

Marvin Minksy said that emotions would be easy to program in AI, so I'm aware that even in the distant past of AI, some of the heavy thinkers didn't think there was anything sacred about emotions.

I've only seen humans compose good music worthy of the name, and I've only seen humans (as opposed to animals or computers) respond to it at a high level. To do so, they have to have musical training, intelligence, and emotions and desires in good working order. (This rules out The Sex Pistols, I'm afraid.) So I simply have no other examples of how creativity of a non-human, non-pleasure-based kind could work. Maybe it could.

In observing myself -- and this is why I care to try to explain, and why I care very deeply -- I'm terrified when my emotions seem to stop working properly, and my pleasure responses stop working. I'm desperate to know why. I spend almost all my time trying to figure this out these days, searching for the answer. It's really not a question I could ask a doctor, either.

It's like the joke about the bacon and eggs. The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. I'm the pig in this scenario.

Rather than shoot this down, take it as a stuttering, not-too-willing attempt to at least step up and explain what I mean.

Now I'll leave the thread. Sorry for this post, as well. I simply don't want to always be a blurt-and-run type.

Why want to do anything? What is wanting?

 

[Modified]

Computers are already amazingly good at composing original music.

While at a conference some years ago (I think it was ILC 2005), I attended an evening concert of computer music. A group of researchers had written programs that analyzed the compositional styles of various famous composers, including Bach and Mozart. They then fed that analysis into a computer program that wrote original music in the style of Bach, or Mozart, or whomever.

The computer-composed music in the style of Bach sounded very much like Bach, but it was original music, not Bach. The computer-composed music in the style of Mozart sounded very much like Mozart, but it was original music, not Mozart. And the music was very good.

I don't remember the names of the researchers who had written these computer programs, but it may have been Heinrich Taube, who presented one of the tutorials (which I did not attend) at ILC 2005. In any case, Taube's Common Music software will serve as an example of a computer program that's capable of composing original music: http://commonmusic.sourceforge.net/

A perfect example. Composing original music is something that requires consciousness, until it doesn't. Of course, now it will be "Computers can compose original music in the style of others, but not in unique styles", until they do.

 

[calebprime]

A perfect example. Composing original music is something that requires consciousness, until it doesn't. Of course, now it will be "Computers can compose original music in the style of others, but not in unique styles", until they do.

This is in line with my post, so I'll just ask whether we could have a side-by-side example of a great Mozart piece with a computer-composed Mozart imitation.

It would be interesting to test and see.

Music composition and music response -- unlike chess -- are only partly rule-based. The rest is taste. Taste is not trivial, however, even if it's confusing to talk about.

I've got no problem with the (possible) reality that computer programs could compose really good music -- and some of the stuff I heard by Cope wasn't bad -- but I doubt very much that they are doing so currently, or will do so in my lifetime.

And here, I'm really talking about music from the classical to modern-classical tradition, but it wouldn't have to be. It would only have to be complex enough -- non-trivial composition.

eta: since I need to protect myself from being insulted or discouraged by the things people will say, I'll not read further. Someone could pm me if they want to share blind listening test info. That wouldn't be depressing in itself. JREF snark is, however.

 

[quarky]

This is in line with my post, so I'll just ask whether we could have a side-by-side example of a great Mozart piece with a computer-composed Mozart imitation.

It would be interesting to test and see.

Music composition and music response -- unlike chess -- are only partly rule-based. The rest is taste. Taste is not trivial, however, even if it's confusing to talk about.

I've got no problem with the (possible) reality that computer programs could compose really good music -- and some of the stuff I heard by Cope wasn't bad -- but I doubt very much that they are doing so currently, or will do so in my lifetime.

And here, I'm really talking about music from the classical to modern-classical tradition, but it wouldn't have to be. It would only have to be complex enough -- non-trivial composition.

eta: since I need to protect myself from being insulted or discouraged by the things people will say, I'll not read further. Someone could pm me if they want to share blind listening test info. That wouldn't be depressing in itself. JREF snark is, however.

Hey! Get back here! My snark is like the snark of cotton candy. I also spent a few years with m.i.t. nerds, but I'm cool, right?

As per music, should this new technological insidiousness prevail, I could imagine that various marketable 'recordings' would be marked with tags.

Organically played; no growth hormones involved in the production; real live stuff; possible joints smoked, but hey, you can't have everything.

I can spot fake drums from 1000 miles. (radio) and I hate it.
Perhaps I'm ultra sensitive and have allergies.

Btw, you're always allowed on my lawn.

 

[blobru]

A snark program would be interesting. A program that output pithy insults without ever getting off on them. Might even be transhuman.

 

[quarky]

You bethcha, blobru.

We grow snark free tomatoes on this farm.
I choose not to eat them, but not because they aren't full of the awesome.
It's because I'm all ate up about the snark.

I'm sure you understand.
You're very understandy, by nature.

 

[blobru]

I only eat virtual tomatoes myself. And listen to virtual music. And read books written by infinite monkeys (none of whom can write for the poo they fling at me except every once in a while, one of them - wow! - then back to writing crap, or flinging it).

 

[Zeuzzz]

In any case, Taube's Common Music software will serve as an example of a computer program that's capable of composing original music: http://commonmusic.sourceforge.net/

Doesn't seem to work on my PC. I am running Win 7x64 though and this is x32.

What does it do?

The link you gave only says some of the technical information and that it is written in C++.

I will be impressed if this could ever create music that could be sold online via beat-port, or other music selling online platforms. That would be a crucial factor in determining such a programs success or failure. If people buy the music it makes just as readily as modern artists in the same charts, then that proves it's worth in terms of human musical consciousness.

 

[quarky]

I had sex with the Queen of England.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

David Cope did a very sophisticated program that could do a pretty good imitation of so-so original compositions by Mozart, and a lousy imitation of bad Stravinsky.

It's entirely possible that the concert I attended featured music written by David Cope's program. I don't remember.

This is in line with my post, so I'll just ask whether we could have a side-by-side example of a great Mozart piece with a computer-composed Mozart imitation.

The concert I attended did feature side-by-side examples of an average piece by Bach with a computer-generated piece in the style of Bach, and an average piece by Mozart with a computer-generated piece in the style of Mozart, without any indication in the program as to which was which.

That may have worked as a blind comparison for others, but not for me. I recognized the genuine Bach and the genuine Mozart. I did not think the genuine compositions were better than the computer's compositions, but I do not pretend to be a musician on your level.

 

[quarky]

I had sex with the Queen of England.

I'm not suggesting that it was in any way titillating.

Actually, she paid me quite well.

Better than Barb Bush, truth be told.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I saw a photograph of the Queen of England one time. It was hard for me to believe that she was really that small.