Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!srt
From: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.books,net.ai
Subject: Re: Hofstadter on computer music
Message-ID: <5386@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 14:32:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5386
Posted: Mon May 13 14:32:44 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 02:06:49 EDT
References: <582@tpvax.fluke.UUCP> <195@u1100s.UUCP> <14174@watmath.UUCP> <5327@ucla-cs.ARPA> <239@sdcc13.UUCP>
Reply-To: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (Scott Turner)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.books:1816 net.ai:2750
Summary: 

In article <239@sdcc13.UUCP> ee163acp@sdcc13.UUCP (DARIN JOHNSON) writes:
>
>  <a discussion of computer music, randomness>
>
>I didn't mean to imply that the program would be totally random, but
>there would have to be a tiny bit somewhere, else the input would
>completely determine the output.  (Unless there is a new concept around)

The same can be said for human beings, right?  Do we have a "random" element,
or does our input completely determine our output?  The point is that if we
could build a computer program that could experience as wide a range of
existence as a human, then its output would be no more a trivial function of
its input than would be a human's.  I think one problem you may have is that
you believe you could look at the code for a music generating program and
understand what output would be produced.  This simply isn't true anymore
(see, for instance, Lenat's thesis (AM) or Dyer's (BORIS), both programs did
things that surprised their authors), and certainly wouldn't be true for a
program that could produce genius level work.  It would be as complex and
opaque as a human mind.
    Scott R. Turner
    ARPA:  (now) srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA  (soon) srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
    UUCP:  ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt
    SPUDNET: ...eye%srt@russet.spud