The Logic of Animate Behaviour
I feel very grateful to have this opportunity to study computer science in this period of my life. My interest in this area is not separate from the challenge of creative music in the next time cycle. Computer technology for me involves the extended implications of this subject – as it applies to computer music and the possibility to establish fresh directives/areas for creative explor- ation .I believe that The challenge of creative music in the next time cycle will see the need for 1) expanded time/space logics( and functions) that give fresh opportunities to establish definition and 2) fresh tools (and/or instruments) that can help ‘Map’ the sonic territories that opened up in the restructural musics of the last forty years . Expanded options in this context are directly related to the emergence of increased information directives , as well as the challenge of developing fresh formal constructs that allow for dynamic creative interchange and interaction. In this context , the emergence of computer technology is totally consistent with the route of my personal development (and interest).With this discipline it is now possible to reinvestigate timbre dynamics – as a point of definition for new sound combinations/languages as well as fresh exploratory form-states. I am also interested in computer technology as part of the greater challenge of interaction dynamics – and/or artificial intelligence. The last twenty years has seen the emergence of ‘real time’ interactive computer musics that give dynamic possibilities for both instrumental and composed music . It is for this reason that the challenge of programming is so relevant in this period of my life, because the emergence of computer technology is not separate from the push towards a ‘unified field ‘ theoretical position- that is, the development of MIDI interface software has brought about fresh possibilities for creative music investigation . Interaction dynamics in this context will call for the emergence of a new field of creativity that will help define the terms of the relationship between human and non- human response dynamics (and this information will be relevant on many different levels – involving both interaction dynamics and future model building). My decision to become involved in computer technology is connected to those challenges as well as the actual beauty of the music composed in the last twenty years . After working as a composer/ multi -instrumentalist for over thirty years I have come to a point in my work where the fundamental components of my music system are now defined and ready for extension. My hope is to use computer technology to expand this body of information into the next time cycle. With a proper background in computer science it might be possible to better understand musical language and formal identity (and what a given device -particular – means when viewed as a fundamental and/or extended construct/logic component). The challenge of computer technology in this context will help establish unique environmental possibilities for creative music performance (aesthetic) and acoustic ( science) design. Computer music and the development of computer science is the most significant break- through in this time cycle . I hope to use the information learned in class to begin the process of redefining exploratory music strategies for the next time cycle. Computer technology represents a fresh opportunity to develop my music and expand my possibilities . I feel there is no end to the use of this discipline , and my hope is to continue taking classes on computer science ( leading all the way to the challenge of ‘virtual- reality logic constructs that point the way for dynamic creative experiences). Computer music and computer science is the beginning of a new phrase in the evolution of human consciousness and for this reason I am especially grateful to take this class.
The question I would like to have answered most on this subject is what program and/or computer type should I look into to build a ‘ sound generating source ‘ that demonstrates twelve fundamental sound types , from the materials of a my already defined system ( logics / identities/ or categories of sound ) – which provide the fundamental material ( or building blocks ) to create particular sound types (music types) – in both a ‘real- time’ and/or ‘constructed – time’ setting. My hope is to create a music machine that demonstrates the ability to improvise with this information as well as to inject ‘stable logic’ (or pre-set) information (music) into an existing sonic ‘experience’. The question that interests me most involves machinery decisions as well as formating. I am looking for a computer setup that will recognize musical occurrences/decisions that take place in a given acoustic sound space (in real time) that will also translate those occurrences into a ‘summation’ experience consistent with the greater ‘plan’ (idea) of the preconceived (structured) strategy (composition). Are there programs of this type already developed – are there programs that are more conducive to a construct of this type than others that I should know about?
REFLECTION PAPER NO-1
At this point in my computer education I feel the most basic challenge that awaits me is the study of algorithms and the hiearchy that underlines defining a receipt. For that reason the chapter in ‘The Turing Omnibus’ was especially important for reviewing the basic components of computer logic building. The dynamics of a given system in this context begins at the point of definition – and the study of algorithms represents the first context of language classification and structural modeling . My hope is to use this information to establish the primary ‘Identity/concept spaces’ in my music and music system. The basics of this paper will seek to speculate on possible ways of going about this task – at this point in time I cannot write of a definite strategy and/or procedure , but it is clear that the study of algorithms is consistent with what must be looked at before any model can become successful.
The sonic model I hope to advance is a model that contains twelve sound construct sources : that being ( to give four examples) 1) long sounds 2) low sounds 3) intervallic sounds 4) gradient sounds . My hope is to create an interactive computer language that will seek to create a state of ‘music’ based on the primary and secondary tendencies of each construct ( as a given musical occurrence extracts material from a given context – sound field – for the purpose of making music ( which for this project is defined as selecting and activating sounds that can be heard by a listener : – to define this process further , the context of logic that I seek to advance will involve the activation of sound in a given time space that can also be affected by the use of further increments in a given time space ). In this context music then becomes a context of possible relationships that involve time space particulars and/or specifications . The challenge then of algorithm construction is no light matter , for the terms of a given set of specifications will determine what mixture of variables should be activated – this is true on several levels ; as a composing entity I will seek to build a system that must be able to react ( compose) based on its own internal ‘forward decision process’ ( as related to moment to moment decision making so that the computer will be able to play with/by itself ) as well as from outside stimulation ( which in this case could be interacting with a human being/musician ). The dynamics then of a given algorithm must be clearly designed and consistent with the specifications raised in this paper.
Before I can begin to think about the challenge of language categories it might first be necessary to define terms for the extended purposes of this project effort. Because at the heart of my effort is only the hope to have a positive experience with ‘hearing music’ and creating music . Yet for the purpose of this project it might be necessary to better define what this effort can mean in an extended sense – because I am aware that the computer in itself has no music ( or sense of music for that matter) . It remains for me to define the context of responses that will provide the context of decision making for the computer ( concepts like ‘beautiful’ or ‘existing’ mean noting to the computer – it remains for me to define these categories in a way that can allow for an action to take place inside of the comput- er ). The concept of a relevant algorithm for this project begins here , on this most basic level. For the challenge of a construction receipt in a project of this sort must define a context of manipulation that allows for a state of actions that results in a context of ‘sound/music’ decisions ( which are generated in a defined and/or specified time space). It then remains for me to define the basic context of asestitic qualities that will underlie the process of decision making that will lie at the heart of this effort – my hope is simple; that the logic I am building will establish a 1) state of sound that draws it source material from the twelve sound construct pool of material ( in both its principal state properties and mixture-state properties ) , 2) that the context of decision making define entering and exit time space co- ordinates that allow for targeted use of a given extraction of material components , 3) and that underlying the reality of these operations is the logic of change and surprise . I will comment on each parameter.
The concept of a recipe that creates a state of sound based on the manipulation of twelve receipts ( sound types) is in fact what I’m looking for. Receipt in this context consist of receipts for the ingrediences of a given category of manipulations – involving the inherent manipulations of a given set of variables . If the source language is ‘intervallic sounds’ the inherent manipulations factor would/could be 1) great distances from pitch to pitch 2) chromatic changes from targeted ( recognized source point to next targeted source point 3) if a given pitch is activated then the tempo/or rate of sound use increases to a targeted quality 4) if a given set of pitches( phrases) are activated then a given set of actions will happen ( ie. if something is ‘triggered’ then something else will happen). The challenge of aesthetics in this context will determine the context of what manipulations are relevant – and more and more the challenge of artificial intelligence takes on a new significance . At this point in my project I can only think in terms of establishing points of ‘activation’ – based on existential ‘ change’ ( as a way to focus on the context of decision making involved in choosing what sound will be activated and for what reason/logic) .To understand this viewpoint let me first describes my experiences in this medium . With the exception of a hand full of composers ( notably the music of Karlheniz Stockhausen and the American composer George Lewis ) I have not been very impressed with computer music – and this is especially true for the interactive computer experimental musics. For my musical taste, much of this music was either too mechanical of too predictable . Still, the challenge of the medium cannot be held to judgement because of bad concert listening experiences – no , the challenge of the next time cycle is directly related to the expanded options opened up through computer music . I intend to construct a model of computer music decision making that will address the needs of the improvising musician as a way to deal with the immediacy of ‘ recognition ‘ and response ( in real time ). The concept of a receipt in this context will be seeded in the value systems of the artist ( as well as the needs of the artist aesthetically) . Decision making in this context will involve Boolean logic constructs that will establish the point of an activation as well as what to do before that activation becomes ‘ outside of the defined summation logic’ ( with a specified transition logic component that links the ‘blended’ connections between all twelve fundamental sound types – this material will act as the fundamental sound material to be molded/activated) .Among the components that will govern aesthetic decisions in this context ( as I search to understand this model) the receipt must cover 1) imitation 2) opposition 3) change tempo (rate of specified material) 4) silence 5) timbre state 6) sub-identity functions . In other words I will seek to design a logic that deals with imitation ( and how much to allow in a given time space parameter – and on what terms. The structure of this model must be based on some kind of irregular context of array that allows for a multiple of gates to open and closebased on the dynamics ( ‘music ) that takes place in a given playing ‘encounter’( playing music , and in this case , creating music in real time through improvisation) . The term irregular in this context only refers to the need for more than one possibility ( so that the resultant ‘music’ can actualize as a fresh ‘summation experience’ to the listener) . The category of opposition could act as a logic that broadens the ‘action space’ tendencies of the music so that fresh variables can be ‘implanted’ into a given sonic logic context . This category helps to give body ( definition) to the principle component material ( specific pitch material or specific rhythmic material) by providing an ‘ sonic emphasis’ that is fresh in the context of the ‘sonic – happening’ . What this means is that if a given instrumentalist – in the act of playing ‘music’ with the computer – establishes a particular pattern ( or use of material ) that the accomplishing computer will not simply extract the same material and create a ‘un – interesting’ context of ‘dialogue’ , but will because of the category of ‘OPPOSITION’ seek to extract ( or fashion) a ‘sound – response’ based on either the introduction of fresh material ( not recognized as existing in the real – time ‘sonic actions’ ) or based on targeting – and then extracting – some aspect of some ‘sonic- imprint ‘ actualizing’ in the existing ( actual) music space. With this in mind , the category of ‘opposition’ would be important to have as a principle component in any receipt.
The category of TEMPO RECOGNITION AND CHANGE would involve the recognition of rates of sonic material in a given logic time space. In this context tempo recognition gives the computer the ability to regulate the terms of a given sonic encounter . Given phrase structures under this receipt could automatically signal ‘targeted- changes’ in velocity ( and character). The dynamics of possibilities could then influence 1) timbre changes based on a defined sonic set of conditions being met in a given time space 2) target extractions inside of a given logic condition could then be isolated and transformed into a fresh identity – that being. ‘ the musical phrase within a phrase’ ( in a different time velocity and/or timbre character). The category of tempo recognition could also influence what possibilities are ‘ not -used’ in a given logic time space parameter – extending all the way to targeting the tendencies necessary for ‘music- transformation’( point of new decision , for change or for specified change logic). The category of SILENCE could serve as a fundamental component in the same sense as the other categories. Silence in this context could help to establish the terms of a given summation sonic-encounter’ , involving how given sonic events are formed and ‘imprinted’ ( with respect to a given variables relationship to the principle characteristics of the defined fund- amental identity ( ie. receipt) what this category could mean to the ‘ imprint- character’ of the real-time music. I believe the challenge of computer music is directly related to the next set of exploratory possibilities in the coming time cycle ( the next thousand years). The computer in this regards opens a context of decisions that can allow for the same fundamental processes that we associate with ‘music and music invention’ to happen and the challenge of creative music in my opinion will involve the creation of the kind of receipt that allows for a context of decision making that duplicates the perspective of the artist . I intend to explore this area of computer science as part of the establishment of a summation music platform that demonstrates a dynamic use of form and form construction.
ANTHONY BRAXTON A GENTILE INTRO TO COMPUTER SCIENCE GNEL 631 8-10-93
INTELLIGENCE DEFINED AS
1 THE LOGIC OF ANIMATE BEHAVIOR
a. Every state ( including ‘state of consciousness’) is consistent with the dynamics of its tenet context.
aa. human perception is a phenomenon that is consistent with the state of our experience as human beings. But this condition in itself should not be confused with composite existence and might be only one plane of ‘ experiences’ and should not in itself necessarily have anything to do with totally defining ‘what is a state’ or that intelligence is a two deminsional phenomenon.
b. Every state is ‘alive’
1. animals 2. trees 3. rocks
c. As such, there are different ways of being – and beings are not always evolving in the same direction ( or way)
d. Any device that learns can evolve within its spectra/potential domain .
ANTHONY BRAXTON A GENTILE INTRO TO COMPUTER SCIENCE GNEL 631 8- 10- 93
YES, COMPUTERS CAN THINK
OUTLINE (for debate in class )
INTELLIGENCE DEFINED AS
1 THE LOGIC OF ANIMATE BEHAVIOR
A. Every state ( including ‘states of consciousness’) is consistent with the dynamics of its tenet context.
( a1) human perception is a condition that doesn’t necessary express all of the dynamics taking place in apparent physical and/or vibrational reality. That is , the experience of existence transcends any two dimensional construct but rather is a muti- dynamic experience .
( x1) John Muir wrote of everything in the universe having a connection ( pp- 306) His realization is relevant in this context in the sence of understanding the role of corresponding logics as a necessary component in the new definition base of the next thousand years.
B. The concept of Artificial Intelligence is not separate from the challenge of logic structures and ‘ states of recognition’ . This field of research is too dynamic to be contained in any one context – human and/or trans human.
(x2) The Church-Markov-Turing thesis in my opinion limits the domain of the discussion and wrongly assumes that there is nothing UNIQUE about extended computer dynamics – in its own right, separate from humans.
( x3) I agree with Maurice V. Wilkes ( pp 19) that there is no reason to assume that computers should operate in the same way as the brain : that the use of analogue discriminating circuits (inside of neural ‘net’ configurations ) can be included in the new models of tomorrow ) – pp 19 But the future for strong AI is unlimited and human per- ception is only one example of consciousness and the study of AI should extend into trans-human states and goals.
( x4) Syntax/ semantic argument is a limited argument when viewed against the success of classical AI.
(x5) Classical AI says that one can set into motion an appropriately structured internal ‘dance of logic’ as a model for symbol manipulation and ‘apparent recognition.
(x5) Fischler, M. A. + O Firschein. Intellegence: The Eye, The Brain, and The computer, rejected the Turin Chinese room argument as a state where a human being could not learn in – to ask this from a computer is not a valid measurement context.
EVERY STATE IS ALIVE
C. By alive in this context I am referring to :
understanding, consciousness, language and mind ( as defined by the Firschein article on page 301 in ‘Epilogue’ ). as well as ‘ intensity’ – as a condition that establishes a state of existence/consciousness.
( x 6 ) Minsky says ‘ consciousness ‘ has an evolutionary role that includes creating a model of itself for survival ( external observer/ ‘talking to one’s self’ )
(x 7) consciousness involves representation models – pp 308
( x8) This viewpoint also extends to animal and plant consciousness as part of the greater consciousness existing on earth. ( including rocks and minerals)
D. AS SUCH, THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS OF BEING- AND HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS EVOLVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION ( OR WAY) .
( x9) I agree with Nils Nilsson – who predicted that better computers will evolve that will advance- monotonic reasoning processes ( or the ‘frame’ problem) and eventually embrace ‘belief- desire- intention’ large scale systems. ( pp309)
( x10) By studying the brain we can better understand thought and language.
( x11) We need to better understand representational systems ( ie. proposition and images/ isomorphic representation)
( x12) The concept of ‘approximations’ of Pentland – pp308
E. MORE AND MORE AI STRUCTURES ARE DEVELOPING FRESH STRUCTURAL MODELS( ie. nets) THAT WILL ONE DAY DUPLICATE THE MULTIPLE LOGIC DYNAMICS OF THE HUMAN BRAIN ( TO PRODUCE A STATE WITH THE DYNAMIC SYSTEMS OF THE BRAIN) .
( x13) Sloman argues that there is no clear boundery between things that do and things that do not understand symbols.
(x 14 ) Robotic consciousness might be a mis classification.
The issue raised by Weizenbaum ( about actually exper- iencing information) is illreverent and can be bypassed by building questions based on what the computer can do ( rather than ‘can’t do’).
F. ANY DEVICE THAT LEARNS CAN EVOLVE WITHIN ITS SPECTRA/POTENTIAL DOMAIN
( x15) Evolution is the phenomenon of change and the challenge of the next time cycle will involve the creation of constructs that will provide the kind of dynamic knowledge base that can assist the challenges of tommorrow ( involving both fundamental and extended information ).