Should someone tell Mike about random number generators? My very first program, written more than a half century ago and ran on a Burroughs E-101 electromechanical accounting machine, composed NEW rock and roll tunes. Every time the program ran, the notes for a new tune came out on the printer.
Steve ============= On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > Ben: "Non-algorithmic programming" is an oxymoron ... unfortunately >> you (literally) don't really know what you're talking about ... >> >> >> Perhaps the best way to understand the total limits of an algorithm and a >> Turing machine – limits about which Ben is completely blinkered – is to >> think in terms of pianos. >> >> A piano can in its own way be thought of as a universal machine if you >> see the keys as potentially controlling any kind of mechanical action >> whatsoever – as being able to control not just strings producing sounds, >> but, alternatively say,/ muscles producing movements, or >> letters-to-be-printed and so on >> >> So let us now visualise what an algo is - >> >> it’s essentially this: >> >> >> http://www.google.com/imgres?safe=off&biw=1644&bih=748&tbm=isch&tbnid=OuNVMNmhd1rAKM:&imgrefurl=http://www.jackofalltraining.com/992/history-of-video-games/ibm-punchcard&docid=ylBjcCSwu8c3VM&imgurl=http://www.jackofalltraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ibm-punchcard.gif%253Fae39b2&w=583&h=267&ei=xL2PUaPKHce20QWN_4HABQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=585&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=332&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&tx=696&ty=311 >> >> it’s a punch card (or a piano roll) for a piano >> >> Note for the deeply unimaginative – it doesn’t matter whether an algo is >> not simply one,but an extremely complex set,of variable punch cards, it’s >> still basically a punch card >> >> And what that means is, if we in turn think of that card as directing the >> keys of a piano: >> >> the algo/punch card plays a SPECIFIC SET OF KEYS in a SPECIFIC ORDER. >> >> So it can play only ONE specific key at any one point. Aonly only ONE >> specific tune over a given period. >> >> Look at that punch card and that piano again – there are a WHOLE SET OF >> OTHER POTENTIAL HOLES AND OTHER POTENTIAL KEYS that could be played, but >> aren’t being used from A1 to Z30, say. But an algo can’t play ANY KEY at a >> given point, it can only play ONE - B4 say. - not A2 B3 H4 , , just >> flipping B4.. >> >> And over a given sequence of key presses, it can play ONLY ONE TUNE – >> just B4 H2 C3 D9 etc. . And if we see an algo as a set of punch cards, >> well it can play only ONE SET of tunes over time. >> >> What’s more it’s always an OLD tune. Or if it’s an evolutionary algo, a >> mash up of an old tune. >> >> That algo isn’t just a punch card, it’s a STRAITJACKET – literally, >> mechanically a straitjacket. >> >> This is the limitation of an algo – and a Turing machine – it can only >> play ONE tune/set of tunes , only play ONE note at any point. It has a >> totally limited repertoire. This is the limitation that the field of AGI >> is supposed to overcome. >> >> Now Ben thinks that this is the way things HAVE to be – there simply is >> no other possibility – the Turing machine – the algo/punch-card-based >> machine is basically the only kind of machine possible, the only kind of >> software possible. Punch cards are the only way to press keys. Not >> surprisingly since Ben has never done, or thought about, anything else >> besides algos – he’s somewhat conditioned. >> >> The only thing a machine/program can do apparently, to put that another >> way, is we may say, to ITERATE – to repeat the one command it has been >> given at any point. >> >> But that is obviously false – look again at that piano – it has many >> keys, not just one.. >> >> It is both mechanically and computationally possible to IMPROVISE - >> >> to play ANY key at a given point, and ANY SEQUENCE of keys over time, to >> play ANY TUNE. >> >> That means, by extension, to play NEW, DIFFERENT KEYS at a given point, >> to any that have been tried before in a given context. >> >> That’s what creative, improvising musicians actually do – *mechanically* >> – they try many different keys. They “play around” – try other possible >> keys/notes – try many alternative keys/notes - new notes in context, whose >> musical effect they have no means of predicting >> >> Note, for the imaginatively impaired, this does NOT have to be a random >> business. It can be constrained by goals, which mean that only keys >> suitable to those goals are chosen – for example, to be crude, >> predominantly lower keys, if you’re aiming for sad music. >> >> So, let us rephrase that : while it is mechanically possible to play ANY >> key, it is also *reasonably*/intelligently possible to play not just one >> but “MULTIPLE” (i.e. “any of many” but not necessarily all keys randomly) >> >> How is it computationally possible to do this? Ben apparently hasn’t >> heard of nondeterministic programming, and the command that allows you to >> try any of many alternatives – hasn’t heard of true mechanical trial and >> error – hasn’t realised that machines can indeed improvise. >> >> It’s computationally possible, it’s mechanically possible. You don’t have >> to play just one given note, one given key at a time – or have tunnel >> vision like Ben – you can play any note, any key. You can play new notes. >> >> So now you have seen the basic concept of the Tintner Machine. >> >> A Turing Machine is actually only *one* form of computer/robot NOT the >> only one as unimaginative Ben thinks. It’s a punch card version of a >> computer, a horribly STRAITJACKETED computer/robot/.piano. >> >> It’s a bloody useful machine, as we all know, as long as you just want to >> play one tune or one set of tunes, the same old set of tunes. >> >> But if you want to do something new, creative – something that hasn’t >> been done before - play new notes (i.,e. new in context of a given piece >> of music) and new tunes - it’s USELESS. No algo or punch card has ever >> played a new note, ever taken a single new step. It can only use certain >> very limited parts of its body, not new parts and only play certain very >> limited keys. >> >> A Tintner Machine is a creative machine – one that is still *programmed* >> – but programmed nondeterministically – to try any (or any of multiple) >> reaonsable notes –any action that it is capable of - to make as full use >> of its body, its piano as possible – – as full use of a computer/robot as >> possible -and explore new territories whether in the world of music or the >> world at large (unlike Turing machines and Ben in their virtual prisons). >> >> A Tintner Machine – a free machine - is perfectly possible –and is >> absolutely essential – if we want a machine that can take new courses of >> action – take new journeys in new fields – and construct new structures. >> >> If someone here wants to create a more formal version of a Tintner >> Machine, parallel but opposed to that of the Turing tape machine, there’s a >> historic opportunity here.One needs a very visual illustration, similar to >> the tape, of a machine/computer that can play any note, not just one. >> >> P.S. What Ben and others here will do, faced with a radically new idea, >> is perfectly predictable. They will resort to *logic* and legalistic >> *definitions* and bog things down in a morass of words, anything to resist >> thinking outside their paradigm/straitjacket. >> >> There is one main thing you need to hold on to here. Is it mechanically >> and computationally possible to play ANY key on a piano, not just one, at a >> given point? Yes, of course, it is. >> >> And is a machine that can invent an infinity of tunes – an infinity of >> possible courses of action – somewhat more useful than a machine that can >> only play one? Yes, of course it is. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
