What do you think a machine is!

Fair enough. Not alive, active is more what I was looking for. My bad there.

On we go:

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Its proven you don't believe living things are machines, obviously as we have started being able to modify them they are.

Human's aren't nuts and bolts machines, they're not machines in the common sense as I said, which you have apparantly ignored haven't you? If you want to be technical and get into the specifics of BIOmechanics, then again, as I said, yes.

My argument was, is and will always be that humans aren't the same as nuts and bolts machines, man made tools and mechanisms, nor will they ever be. You continually ignore that point to your discredit.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You have been it's no biggie

How childish, you disappoint me.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You started it in another thread telling me you could own me 😂 you haven't ever. I actually don't believe anyone can be owned on a forum and was playing *** for tat.

What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

You disagreed and upon realising how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope again you miss the point the fact we can modify everything about humans from the way they think to how the muscles absorb protein indicates they are machines - you miss the point again.

You're making about 90 different points, and you accused ME of flip flopping. All the points you've made, I've understood. They're just dumb.

Let's get on topic: You disagreed when I said no technology sans human intellect will ever produce music as emotional or intricate as a band of human musicians. Do you still hold this view?

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
We agree in this but I asked you what you thought a machine was a machine does not have to be nuts and bolts. Yoiu back track by giving a narrow definition of what a machine is.

A machine doesn't have to be nuts and bolts, I said in my first post that people refer to machines as many things. Primarily they are constructed my men with synthetic or possibly natural materials, but still created by men. A machine first and foremost is what you find in a factory. I never, ever said there was no other kind of machine did I? No. I said that humans aren't the common version and perception of machine.

Try reading my posts.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You see all emotion is in the opinion of many is a response to stimuli, as machines get more complex they will feel emotion. Pathetic speculation. Hmm you can't prove it is or isn't. You only prove you lack imagination. Yup you don't like me posting supporting links usually because you have none to support your lack of speculation. 🙂

Speculate what? Hahaha, you're being so silly. You're using "will", will? Will implies that it's an inevitability, which suggests there's proof for this. Show it.

Secondly, will's and maybe's are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable.

-AC

I lost my whole post 😂 I will redo it later suffice to say it has evidence to back it AC.

I never doubted your ability to post links and claim "This is what I believe." You're A+ in that class.

What I HOPE I will see is you replying to this:

"Speculate what? Hahaha, you're being so silly. You're using "will", will? Will implies that it's an inevitability, which suggests there's proof for this. Show it.

Secondly, will's and maybe's are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable."

And the part before it. Since those are the relevant parts on which you created this thread.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I never doubted your ability to post links and claim "This is what I believe." You're A+ in that class.

What I HOPE I will see is you replying to this:

"Speculate what? Hahaha, you're being so silly. You're using "will", will? Will implies that it's an inevitability, which suggests there's proof for this. Show it.

Secondly, will's and maybe's are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable."

And the part before it. Since those are the relevant parts on which you created this thread.

-AC

No more silly than saying they "won't" ever heard of Copernicus 🙂

Now I will reply properly 🙂

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fair enough. Not alive, active is more what I was looking for. My bad there.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How childish, you disappoint me.

What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

yes I admit to playing *** for tat 🙂 I am childish often! As regards your statement thats an issue from the past and one I can easily find!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

You disagreed and upon realizing how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.

Nope I never specified a type of machine I have merely shown your understanding of what a machine is "nuts and bolts" is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon.

Ever heard of David Cope?

No......

here let me help

Professor David Cope
Department of Music
UC Santa Cruz
Title: Experiments in Musical Intelligence

Abstract:
I began Experiments in Musical Intelligence in 1981 as an attempt to create new instances of music in my style. With a lack of quantifiable definitions of style, I concentrated on the commonalties in the works of certain composers, commonalties I call signatures. By 1987 Experiments in Musical Intelligence had produced works (arguably) in the styles of Bach and Mozart, among others. Further experimentation allowed for more extensive output both in terms of work length and complexity as well as stylistic diversity. Experiments in Musical Intelligence subsequently produced new works in the styles of composers as contrasting as Stravinsky, Palestrina, and Joplin. These works have been discussed and, in part, reproduced in my books Computers and Musical Style (1991), Experiments in Musical Intelligence (1996), and The Algorithmic Composer (2000) published by A-R Editions, Madison, Wisconsin and Virtual Music (2001) published by MIT Press.
Never huh AC 😂

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You disagreed and upon realizing how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.

Again highlighting your narrow understanding🙂 Machines I my mind are far more varied than nuts and bolts, that was your answer not mine 🙂

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fair enough. Not alive, active is more what I was looking for. My bad there.

Not even active outside of a host - again your lack of knowledge finds you out.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
On we go:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Human's aren't nuts and bolts machines, they're not machines in the common sense as I said, which you have apparently ignored haven't you? If you want to be technical and get into the specifics of BIOmechanics, then again, as I said, yes.

My argument was, is and will always be that humans aren't the same as nuts and bolts machines, man made tools and mechanisms, nor will they ever be. You continually ignore that point to your discredit.

Nope your original argument was machines can "never" feel emotion

I ask you what you considered a machine to be as to me humans are a lot of machines working together. I posted this widely accepted Scientific concept, which is an extension of of something 11 year olds understand called "levels of organization" which uses the "mechanistic model of biology".

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How childish, you disappoint me.

What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

yes I admit to playing *** for tat 🙂 I am childish often! As regards your statement thats an issue from the past and one I can easily find!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What the hell? So you're admitting to being childish and combining it with a claim I never said? In the recent thread where this machine "debate" came up, I said that no amount of computer technology or man made system will ever have the ability to produce music as emotional or "real" as a human band.

You disagreed and upon realizing how stupid your view was, you backed out and tried to worm and weasel your way into "What about viruses?" when nobody spoke about viruses. The debate started from the music discussion, a debate which you have no hope in.

Nope I never specified a type of machine I have merely shown your understanding of what a machine is "nuts and bolts" is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon.

Ever heard of David Cope?

No......

here let me help

Professor David Cope
Department of Music
UC Santa Cruz
Title: Experiments in Musical Intelligence

Abstract:
I began Experiments in Musical Intelligence in 1981 as an attempt to create new instances of music in my style. With a lack of quantifiable definitions of style, I concentrated on the commonalties in the works of certain composers, commonalties I call signatures. By 1987 Experiments in Musical Intelligence had produced works (arguably) in the styles of Bach and Mozart, among others. Further experimentation allowed for more extensive output both in terms of work length and complexity as well as stylistic diversity. Experiments in Musical Intelligence subsequently produced new works in the styles of composers as contrasting as Stravinsky, Palestrina, and Joplin. These works have been discussed and, in part, reproduced in my books Computers and Musical Style (1991), Experiments in Musical Intelligence (1996), and The Algorithmic Composer (2000) published by A-R Editions, Madison, Wisconsin and Virtual Music (2001) published by MIT Press.
Never huh AC 😂

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Secondly, will's and maybes' are just you saying what you think will happen. It's not about a lack of imagination, it's about me believing that machines in the traditional sense will never ever possess the compassionate intellect or emotion to make a masterpiece in art.

Agree? If not, prove it. You say they WILL in time be able to feel emotions, machines, man made systems. Prove it, if they WILL, if it's inevitable.

-AC

will's and maybes based on things lie David Copes experiments. Better than "wont's" based on no evidence. What do you consider a masterpiece in art to be. All to often it is a poor copy of nature. Fractal patterns which are generated randomly can certainly be art.

Anyway Computers have started composing - Cope played a game where he tested Musicians to see if they could work out which pieces were written by a computer and which were not. They couldn't.

Game Over!!!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope I never specified a type of machine I have merely shown your understanding of what a machine is "nuts and bolts" is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon.

Ever heard of David Cope?

No......

here let me help

Professor David Cope
Department of Music
UC Santa Cruz
Title: Experiments in Musical Intelligence

Abstract:
I began Experiments in Musical Intelligence in 1981 as an attempt to create new instances of music in my style. With a lack of quantifiable definitions of style, I concentrated on the commonalties in the works of certain composers, commonalties I call signatures. By 1987 Experiments in Musical Intelligence had produced works (arguably) in the styles of Bach and Mozart, among others. Further experimentation allowed for more extensive output both in terms of work length and complexity as well as stylistic diversity. Experiments in Musical Intelligence subsequently produced new works in the styles of composers as contrasting as Stravinsky, Palestrina, and Joplin. These works have been discussed and, in part, reproduced in my books Computers and Musical Style (1991), Experiments in Musical Intelligence (1996), and The Algorithmic Composer (2000) published by A-R Editions, Madison, Wisconsin and Virtual Music (2001) published by MIT Press.
Never huh AC 😂

A) I'll believe-man made machines can have emotion when I see it for myself. Until that day, I'll not believe it to be possible. That's not a matter of me being narrow minded, it's a matter of me simply not believing one concept because I've got no reason to. Again with the cut and pasts, your credibility is dwindling.

B) "is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon."

Too simple says who? You? Why is it ok for what you say and what you SPECULATE (because that is purely what it is, you have no fact to suggest otherwise) to become enough, but my belief based on what exists today, isn't? Quite hypocritical. YOU think computers and machines will mimic emotion? Mimic? They MIGHT be able to MIMIC in future, who ever mentioned that though? I was referring to the creation and manifestation of emotions on their own, independently. Which I don't believe will ever be possible.

You think what you want, you're the one with something to prove, not me. My point is already a factual state, machines don't have emotion now and as it stands, they won't. If it happens I'll admit my wrong.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Again highlighting your narrow understanding🙂 Machines I my mind are far more varied than nuts and bolts, that was your answer not mine 🙂

Go read my first post.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Not even active outside of a host - again your lack of knowledge finds you out.

They are active, they just can't access certain characteristics such as reproduction without a host. You posted that earlier also, again, read before pasting.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope your original argument was machines can "never" feel emotion

My actual quote was that no amount of computer technology will ever be AS emotional as a band of humans. Go dig the quote up and see for yourself. Read the posts, Whirly. You're losing the plot.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I ask you what you considered a machine to be as to me humans are a lot of machines working together. I posted this widely accepted Scientific concept, which is an extension of of something 11 year olds understand called "levels of organization" which uses the "mechanistic model of biology".

Go read my first post, what did I say? I said that it's widely accepted that many parts working together, regardless of being man made or not, are often viewed or cited as "a well oiled machine." In the traditional sense, they are nuts and bolts creations of man. Last time: Read the posts.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
will's and maybes based on things lie David Copes experiments. Better than "wont's" based on no evidence. What do you consider a masterpiece in art to be. All to often it is a poor copy of nature. Fractal patterns which are generated randomly can certainly be art.

Anyway Computers have started composing - Cope played a game where he tested Musicians to see if they could work out which pieces were written by a computer and which were not. They couldn't.

Game Over!!!

You claim my won't are based on no evidence? You called ME ignorant? The evidence is the world we live in. There's no indictation that machines well ever feel pain like a human, sadness, despair, happiness or elation. None whatsoever. Mimicry? Maybe, maybe. Independent? No, and I won't believe it until I see it. You're going by the future, which doesn't even exist yet.

Besides that copy and paste job that you posted twice (haha, lame and desperate) I'll judge this "game" that Cope played, you're clutching at straws. Now that you've realised that machines won't ever have independently born emotion equal to our own, you are trying to say "No, I mean the ability to MIMIC."

The musicians he chose simply couldn't tell the difference, it doesn't mean musicians can't. He could do it with 10, they might not notice. Then if you get 10 others, they most likely will.

One crucial part that seems to have slipped your oh so able mind: All the pieces on the computer were, at some point, played and recorded by humans. All the computer is doing is arranging, it's not playing the musical instruments or creating the music itself.

This is the irony: When you finally do start typing yourself, you talk utter nonsense.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) I'll believe-man made machines can have emotion when I see it for myself. Until that day, I'll not believe it to be possible. That's not a matter of me being narrow minded, it's a matter of me simply not believing one concept because I've got no reason to. Again with the cut and pasts, your credibility is dwindling.

B) "is to simple I used you ignorance on what a virus was to highlight this. I could have used an enzyme which is certainly a machine. I had no hope, actually I think computers will be able to mimic emotion pretty soon."

Too simple says who? You? Why is it ok for what you say and what you SPECULATE (because that is purely what it is, you have no fact to suggest otherwise) to become enough, but my belief based on what exists today, isn't? Quite hypocritical. YOU think computers and machines will mimic emotion? Mimic? They MIGHT be able to MIMIC in future, who ever mentioned that though? I was referring to the creation and manifestation of emotions on their own, independently. Which I don't believe will ever be possible.

You think what you want, you're the one with something to prove, not me. My point is already a factual state, machines don't have emotion now and as it stands, they won't. If it happens I'll admit my wrong.

Go read my first post.

They are active, they just can't access certain characteristics such as reproduction without a host. You posted that earlier also, again, read before pasting.

My actual quote was that no amount of computer technology will ever be AS emotional as a band of humans. Go dig the quote up and see for yourself. Read the posts, Whirly. You're losing the plot.

Go read my first post, what did I say? I said that it's widely accepted that many parts working together, regardless of being man made or not, are often viewed or cited as "a well oiled machine." In the traditional sense, they are nuts and bolts creations of man. Last time: Read the posts.

You claim my won't are based on no evidence? You called ME ignorant? The evidence is the world we live in. There's no indictation that machines well ever feel pain like a human, sadness, despair, happiness or elation. None whatsoever. Mimicry? Maybe, maybe. Independent? No, and I won't believe it until I see it. You're going by the future, which doesn't even exist yet.

Besides that copy and paste job that you posted twice (haha, lame and desperate) I'll judge this "game" that Cope played, you're clutching at straws. Now that you've realised that machines won't ever have independently born emotion equal to our own, you are trying to say "No, I mean the ability to MIMIC."

The musicians he chose simply couldn't tell the difference, it doesn't mean musicians can't. He could do it with 10, they might not notice. Then if you get 10 others, they most likely will.

One crucial part that seems to have slipped your oh so able mind: All the pieces on the computer were, at some point, played and recorded by humans. All the computer is doing is arranging, it's not playing the musical instruments or creating the music itself.

This is the irony: When you finally do start typing yourself, you talk utter nonsense.

-AC

long post I gave evidence again and even showed machines can compose music good enough to fool experts. You offer nothing but your opinion. No evidence.

Utter nonsense? No! Simply opinions based on theories which are beyond your education. 🙂 Come back when you've graduated and realise all knowledge is built on the ideas of others.

I like to stand on the shoulder of giants AC. You should try it sometimes it gives opinions weight and substance. By saying I I I all the time you lack this.

😉 Never say Never you're not a prophet!

Your whole post brings nothing to the table. Except your attempt at prophecy.

Machines can make music good enough to fool experts. They don't need emotion for that. You need maths.

You say machines will never feel emotion, I say it's possible I am not a prophet you are.

You say machines are nuts and bolts only then try to get out of it.

You bring nothing.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
long post I gave evidence again and even showed machines can compose music good enough to fool experts. You offer nothing but your opinion. No evidence.

Fooling experts? It's all humanly created music you fool. It's just put onto a computer and ARRANGED by the computer. You can buy programmes to do that in PC World.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Utter nonsense? No! Simply opinions based on theories which are beyond your education. 🙂 Come back when you've graduated and realise all knowledge is built on the ideas of others.

Built on, not ripped from. Either way, you're sitting there acting as if you've won something when you're fighting a losing battle.

"I've proven machines created..." no you haven't. You've proven that it can accurately arrange pieces of music. It's not sitting there thinking and feeling, "This is so moving" is it? No. It's not playing the instruments is it? No.

That's all you've done though, posted stuff you believe. Big deal, Deano does that everyday. Congrats.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I like to stand on the shoulder of giants AC. You should try it sometimes it gives opinions weight and substance. By saying I I I all the time you lack this.

I know what I want to say and what my own opinion is and where my facts come from. I don't need to post massive essays to make my posts bigger. You don't, but when you do type yourself, you come up with such horsecrap like "Machines compose."

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Your whole post brings nothing to the table. Except your attempt at prophecy.

Machines can make music good enough to fool experts. They don't need emotion for that. You need maths.

One flaw: They're not making it. There's the kicker, you see.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You say machines will never feel emotion, I say it's possible I am not a prophet you are.

As of right now, history and present are on my side. All you have is the conceptual future and what you believe to be possible. Not looking good for you.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You say machines are nuts and bolts only then try to get out of it.

I did?

The first part of my first post:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Metaphorically, people often refer to anything that consists of many individual parts working in harmony with one another, to be a "well oiled machine".

Hmm, shh.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fooling experts? It's all humanly created music you fool. It's just put onto a computer and ARRANGED by the computer. You can buy programmes to do that in PC World.

Nope it's based on Musical Algorithms, the maths behind music!

'In Search of the Horowitz Factor,' Dr. Widmer and his team described giving the computer 13 recordings of Mozart piano sonatas, played into a Bösendorfer Disklavier by the pianist Roland Batik, to see if they could use the computer to determine rules that described the pianist's interpretive choices. ... It could.

You see composers choose based on rules as do performers!

Computers can be programmed to understand these rules.

Gameover again.

I'm getting bored correcting you my foolish, ill educated friend 😉

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope it's based on Musical Algorithms,

'In Search of the Horowitz Factor,' Dr. Widmer and his team described giving the computer 13 recordings of Mozart piano sonatas, played into a Bösendorfer Disklavier by the pianist Roland Batik, to see if they could use the computer to determine rules that described the pianist's interpretive choices. ... It could.

You see composers choose based on rules

Computers can be programmed to understand these rules.

Gameover again.

I'm getting bored correcting you my foolish, ill educated friend 😉

Ok, so, now your name is Whob V2.

I know about the rules of orchestral composing, don't assume that I do not. It's actually hilarious how you do say the exact same thing back to me and then act like you're proving me wrong or something.

They gave the computer the recordings first via a disklavier after a HUMAN had played them and transfered them onto the computer, it then has to be set to whatever key and structure the orchestra are playing to so that it can break it down and reconfigure it. You can do the same with any music program, granted that is more sophisticated, but that's what it does.

How many times have you worked with music on a computer? Name me some programs you've worked with. Because it seems like you're just overlooking all this for the sake of it.

Fact of the matter: It's not creating the music. End of story, this is fact. It's not creating it. It's reinterpreting it based on what it's programmed to do.

You believe it's creating it while in the same vein, post something that proves you wrong.

"Dr. Widmer and his team described giving the computer 13 recordings of Mozart piano sonatas, played into a Bösendorfer Disklavier by the pianist Roland Batik, to see if they could use the computer to determine rules that described the pianist's interpretive choices. ... It could."

Not only was it all the humans doing the work and the computer doing what it was programmed for, but they were seeing if they could USE it to determine rules by themselves, not the computer.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ok, so, now your name is Whob V2.

-AC

No your Kid Rock! right

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I know about the rules of orchestral composing, don't assume that I do not. It's actually hilarious how you do say the exact same thing back to me and then act like you're proving me wrong or something.

Then you know that its maths🙂

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They gave the computer the recordings first via a disklavier after a HUMAN had played them and transfered them onto the computer, it then has to be set to whatever key and structure the orchestra are playing to so that it can break it down and reconfigure it. You can do the same with any music program, granted that is more sophisticated, but that's what it does.

Yes the computer had to be programmed as does a human, your point is?

mine is this:

A Western college student must learn to "understand" a Beethoven symphony. The [Australian] aboriginal understands his music naturally. The Westerner can understand aboriginal music also, if he is willing to learn its language and laws and listen to it in terms of itself. It cannot be compared with a Beethoven symphony because it has nothing to do with it. Machines need programming so do people.

Dr. George Johnston has argued with Computer music the "artists angst is all in your head". 😂

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

How many times have you worked with music on a computer?

Misdirection - irrelevant

One common program that makes music like humans

Voyager: " The Voyager computer program is a powerful robot. It composes music--improvised, unpredictable music--using a virtual 64-piece orchestra. The Voyager?s inventor, George Lewis, improvises with his robotic partner, and creates music that we?d like to think only humans could make.

Game over again. I hope you're learning but I'd love some evidence of anything from you besides "I think" and "Whirly is stupid because he disagrees with me and provides evidence to support his arguments".

Keep the faith 🙂

Stay Whirly 🤘

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Yes the computer had to be programmed as does a human, your point is?

What's a computer without a human?

Game over, quite literally, for the computer. The human can go away, grab a guitar and make passionate music. The computer sits there gathering dust.

Hence why my points stand and yours do not. Not only do computers show no signs of being anywhere imaginably close to humans with regards to emotions, let alone having independent ones of their own, but they are useless without us.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
mine is this:

A Western college student must learn to "understand" a Beethoven symphony. The [Australian] aboriginal understands his music naturally. The Westerner can understand aboriginal music also, if he is willing to learn its language and laws and listen to it in terms of itself. It cannot be compared with a Beethoven symphony because it has nothing to do with it. Machines need programming so do people.

Dr. George Johnston has argued with Computer music the "artists angst is all in your head". 😂

Agreed, machines need to learn as do humans. You're missing the point now, though. Machines can ONLY learn if a human decides to teach it. If you sit there playing music, I can learn it and perceive it whether you want me to or not. Because humans have emotion and perception beyond that which any computer will have, if nowadays and history is anything to go by. I'll sit here and play the Moonlight Sonata with my computer off. We'll see how quickly it learns.

Again, your point falls flat.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Misdirection - irrelevant

No, quite relevant. If you've never worked with music programs on computers, don't try telling someone who has, how they work. Because you evidently have no clue.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
One common program that makes music like humans

Voyager: " The Voyager computer program is a powerful robot. It composes music--improvised, unpredictable music--using a virtual 64-piece orchestra. The Voyager?s inventor, George Lewis, improvises with his robotic partner, and creates music that we?d like to think only humans could make.

Hahaha, again you are proving yourself wrong, Whirly. Where do you think those sounds of the orchestra come from? The computer doesn't create them, humans do and humans DECIDE to teach the comp. The comp doesn't learn on it's own, the human decides to upload it and add it. The computer is not sentient, following me? Good. Then, even WITH this knowledge, the computer cannot create without a human telling it to.

It doesn't sit there thinking "Gonna whoop out a symphony." George Lewis uses it, it doesn't do anything alone.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, quite relevant. If you've never worked with music programs on computers, don't try telling someone who has, how they work. Because you evidently have no clue.

Nope I'm a geneticist and enzymologist, hence I understand machines. I have worked with AI. Your point if you don't understand AI you can't argue with me because I do?

Irrelavent

Requiem for the soul. If creating sublime music is the highest of human achievements, how come a pile of computer code writes better music than most people? By Bob Holmes. New Scientist Magazine. (August 9, 1997). "How could Mozart write a symphony more than 200 years after his death? Meet a computer program called EMI (pronounced Emmy) and its creator, a living, human composer named David Cope. Under Cope's tutelage, EMI created the 42nd symphony by analysing some of Mozart's other 41 and extracting 'essence of Mozart'."

New Scientist believe EMI "cretaes" sorry I'll take them over you!

Composer harnesses artificial intelligence to create music. By R. Colin Johnson. EE Times (December 30, 2002). "Just as IBM's Deep Blue showed the world a computer can play chess as well as a human master, Eduardo Reck Miranda, a researcher for the Sony Computer Science Laboratories Inc., aims to demonstrate a computer program able to compose original music. So far, neural networks have succeeded in imitating distinct musical styles, but truly original compositions have remained elusive. Miranda is tackling that problem with an orchestra of virtual musicians — called agents — that interact to compose original music. ... In his latest book, Composing Music with Computers (Focal Press), Miranda summarizes his AI research, which began with cellular automata and evolved into an 'adaptive games' strategy based on artificial-life models. ... For a computer to create truly novel compositions, Miranda has turned to artificial life (AL) models — the fodder for what he calls evolutionary musicology." It seems to be working.

Why I talked about artificial life you see it all comes together 😉

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Nope I'm a geneticist and enzymologist, hence I understand machines. I have worked with AI. Your point if you don't understand AI you can't argue with me because I do?

So? You evidently know shit all about music: The creation of at least.

You've gone around in so many circles I could probably create a spirograph with your posts.

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Requiem for the soul. If creating sublime music is the highest of human achievements, how come a pile of computer code writes better music than most people? By Bob Holmes. New Scientist Magazine. (August 9, 1997). "How could Mozart write a symphony more than 200 years after his death? Meet a computer program called EMI (pronounced Emmy) and its creator, a living, human composer named David Cope. Under Cope's tutelage, EMI created the 42nd symphony by analysing some of Mozart's other 41 and extracting 'essence of Mozart'."

New Scientist believe EMI "cretaes" sorry I'll take them over you!

Oh, how will I sleep knowing you chose someone else's opinion? I'll take my own facts on musical creation than a geneticist who has to get his info ripped directly from google and science magazines. You believe a publication if it makes you sleep better 😉. Just don't call me stupid when you're the one believing what you read in "New Scientist" magazine. It's not the best claim considering you've just labelled yourself a geneticist.

All of what you just said proves that it has to be involved with a human, human teachings, human emotion, human insight, human tutelage.

Edit: As per usual, you edited your post with yet another google extract to prove my point. "Under the tutelage of..." "With the aid of..."

Computers can't do it alone, we both prove this. You indirectly so.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Oh, how will I sleep knowing you chose someone else's opinion? I'll take my own facts on musical creation than a geneticist who has to get his info ripped directly from google and science magazines. You believe a publication if it makes you sleep better 😉. Just don't call me stupid when you're the one believing what you read in "New Scientist" magazine. It's not the best claim considering you've just labelled yourself a geneticist.

All of what you just said proves that it has to be involved with a human, human teachings, human emotion, human insight, human tutelage.

-AC

Composer harnesses artificial intelligence to create music. By R. Colin Johnson. EE Times (December 30, 2002). "Just as IBM's Deep Blue showed the world a computer can play chess as well as a human master, Eduardo Reck Miranda, a researcher for the Sony Computer Science Laboratories Inc., aims to demonstrate a computer program able to compose original music. So far, neural networks have succeeded in imitating distinct musical styles, but truly original compositions have remained elusive. Miranda is tackling that problem with an orchestra of virtual musicians — called agents — that interact to compose original music. ... In his latest book, Composing Music with Computers (Focal Press), Miranda summarizes his AI research, which began with cellular automata and evolved into an 'adaptive games' strategy based on artificial-life models. ... For a computer to create truly novel compositions, Miranda has turned to artificial life (AL) models — the fodder for what he calls evolutionary musicology." It seems to be working.

Why I talked about artificial life you see it all comes together 😉

Again you offer nothing except - "Whirly is stupid he believes credible publications over me". 😂

Yes Whirly, you pass "Look Mum! I can use Google.com 101". Your trophy is in the mail.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you just consider viruses to be machines. They're living organisms, not mechanical, synthetic "organisms."

back to that.

😂 Everyone with a Science degree who has posted has told you viruses are not alive. 😂

Another accepted view

Nori Kasahara, M.D., Ph.D., assistant professor of pathology and biochemistry, and one of the newest members of the Institute for Genetic Medicine and the USC/Norris Cancer Center, specializes in developing miniature packages to ferry genes to their ultimate destination. His strategy involves nesting the genes inside disabled viruses, or vectors, and then allowing the viruses to infect target cells.

"Viruses are machines that have evolved over millions of years specifically to put their DNA or RNA into a host cell," says Kasahara. "So it's beneficial to take advantage of their natural properties."

http://www.usc.edu/hsc/info/pr/ccr/96fall/nori.html

You are boring me AC

a·live ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lv)
adj.
Having life; living. See Synonyms at living.
In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive.
Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout.
Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.

me·chan·i·cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-kn-kl)
adj.
Of or relating to machines or tools: mechanical skill.
Operated or produced by a mechanism or machine: a mechanical toy dog.
Of, relating to, or governed by mechanics.
Performed or performing in an impersonal or machinelike manner; automatic: a droning, mechanical delivery of the speech.
Relating to, produced by, or dominated by physical forces: the mechanical aspect of trumpet playing.
Philosophy. Interpreting and explaining the phenomena of the universe by referring to causally determined material forces; mechanistic.
Of or relating to manual labor, its tools, and its skills

The debate really seems to be over the definition of what constitutes something as being "alive." Both AC and Whirly have different interpretations over stated definitions.

From a scientific perspective..Whirly is indeed correct about virus's not being alive.

However from a philosophical perspective..one could indeed say that AC is actually correct about them being "alive."

Moving on. My opinion about the original topic. Many of the natural processes/components that make up the human body are indeed mechanical, however, science is incapable determing/understanding/duplicating all of these processes. Those processes that are not capable of being duplicated exist within a realm which is foreign to scientists and most of humanity..that realm being the supernatural.

My two cents...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Those processes that are not capable of being duplicated exist within a realm which is foreign to scientists and most of humanity..that realm being the supernatural.

Yup you and AC believe far more in the Supernatural than I that's true.