Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

[Dimebag]

Computers can only follow human designed algorithms. They cannot create; only obey.

Man, this understanding is stuck in the 1940s.

We have self-modifying code now. It behaves dynamically in a ways that programmer generally anticipates, but cannot predict precisely.

We have non-deterministic algorithms which have bounds of behaviour, like humans have bounds imposed by physics.

To the extent that all compositions are formulaic a computer can run a program with some (once again) human defined random parameters.

Human defined random parameters? That's an oxymoron.

Humans cannot define true randomness.

Any fool can find examples of computer generated music on the internnet, but the same fool cannot understand the most basic truth that these examples are simply evidence that computers are incapable of creating musical compositions.

Only a fool would suggest that there's some important difference.

There is not the slightest hint of a computer achieving anything close to feeling music and deriving pleasure from it. Without that, music is beyond computer understanding.

As if those things are necessary for producing music?

You could I suppose try to write a response to fool a Turing Test, but this again will be nothing more than a computer obeying a human designed algorithm.

Your understanding of determinism and non-determinism is still stuck in the toilet of Philosophy.

You still treat those as ontological, not epistemic qualities.

Music is essentially tied to emotion. Computers may be able to copy or randomly generate musical compositions which share similar aspects of different kinds of music, but, computers can neither feel the emotions which music is intended to evoke, nor can they use emotions to inform a musical composition.

Furthermore, music is about life, and, the human condition, two more things which computers cannot (currently) understand.

So, they may be able to mimic certain styles, even certain artists or composers, and randomly generate content based around those aspects or patterns it identifies, but it would not be informed in the same way a piece of music is usually created.

[SteveKlinko]

Musical Creativity can not be implemented by configuring a Neural Net. The Neural Net will be able to configure for Patterns in Musical input but will never be Creative, thereby producing anything that has new Patterns that is Enjoyable to the Human Music Experience.

OK, but is that really true, or do you just want it to be true?

Why are computers now playing more beautiful, more creative and more enjoyable (to the observers) Chess than any other Grandmastrer in human history?

Music is Enjoyed at the Conscious Experience level.
If you think Computers are Experiencing Music then it is up to you to show that.
It is not up to me to show that Computers don't Experience Music.

Chess is Algorithmic.

[Terrapin Station]

Haahhhhh! The AI was inspired. Good one.

Yes. It's calleed Machine Learning. Key word. Learning.

The algorithm couldn't generate music.
Then it listened to some music.
Then it could generate music.

Notice how you ignored the science and went for the special pleading, how you can be "inspired" but computers can't.

Musical Creativity can not be implemented by configuring a Neural Net. The Neural Net will be able to configure for Patterns in Musical input but will never be Creative, thereby producing anything that has new Patterns that is Enjoyable to the Human Music Experience.

But computers have already produced unique music that some people enjoy.

[Skepdick]

Music is Enjoyed at the Conscious Experience level.
If you think Computers are Experiencing Music then it is up to you to show that.
It is not up to me to show that Computers don't Experience Music.

Don't bore me with philosophy.

Humans already enjoy music that a computer generated.
Humans can't tell that the music was generated by a computer.
That's a double-blind experiment - that's where science stops and sophistry begins.

Whether computers can "feel", "experience", "enjoy" or "have consciousness" is the problem of other minds.

Prove to me that YOU can "feel", "experience", "enjoy" and "have consciousness". You certainly pretend that you do. Very well at that.

Chess is Algorithmic.

So is music composition.

[Terrapin Station]

Music is essentially tied to emotion. Computers may be able to copy or randomly generate musical compositions which share similar aspects of different kinds of music, but, computers can neither feel the emotions which music is intended to evoke, nor can they use emotions to inform a musical composition.

Furthermore, music is about life, and, the human condition, two more things which computers cannot (currently) understand.

A lot of music is not "about" emotion in any conventional sense, and is not about "life and the human condition." Re emotions in conventional senses, I'm talking about things like happiness, sadness, etc., as opposed to emotions (which generally don't have conventional terms) that are purely/uniquely aesthetic in nature.

[SteveKlinko]

Yes. It's calleed Machine Learning. Key word. Learning.

The algorithm couldn't generate music.
Then it listened to some music.
Then it could generate music.

Notice how you ignored the science and went for the special pleading, how you can be "inspired" but computers can't.

Musical Creativity can not be implemented by configuring a Neural Net. The Neural Net will be able to configure for Patterns in Musical input but will never be Creative, thereby producing anything that has new Patterns that is Enjoyable to the Human Music Experience.

But computers have already produced unique music that some people enjoy.

Even Random Noise and Tones can be Enjoyable to some people, up to a point.

[Skepdick]

Even Random Noise and Tones can be Enjoyable to some people, up to a point.

Then I guess you've just signed yourself up to define the difference between "music" and "noise".

[Terrapin Station]

Musical Creativity can not be implemented by configuring a Neural Net. The Neural Net will be able to configure for Patterns in Musical input but will never be Creative, thereby producing anything that has new Patterns that is Enjoyable to the Human Music Experience.

But computers have already produced unique music that some people enjoy.

Even Random Noise and Tones can be Enjoyable to some people, up to a point.

Sure. So given that, how could we say that computers can't compose music that's unique (it's not simply a copy of something else) that some people enjoy?

[SteveKlinko]

Music is Enjoyed at the Conscious Experience level.
If you think Computers are Experiencing Music then it is up to you to show that.
It is not up to me to show that Computers don't Experience Music.

Don't bore me with philosophy.

Humans already enjoy music that a computer generated.
Humans can't tell that the music was generated by a computer.
That's a double-blind experiment - that's where science stops and sophistry begins.

Whether computers can "feel", "experience", "enjoy" or "have consciousness" is the problem of other minds.

Prove to me that YOU can "feel", "experience", "enjoy" and "have consciousness". You certainly pretend that you do. Very well at that.

Chess is Algorithmic.

So is music composition.

Ok, I'll stop boring you with Philosophy on this Philosophy Forum.

Simulations of a composers Music will of course sound like the composers Music.

You say you want me to stop being Philosophical, and then you launch into the Deepest Philosophical Issue of our time when you ask me to prove to you that I have Conscious Experiences. I have OPs on various Forums and a website on that, and you know it. Stop being a Goofball, and try to participate in these discussions constructively. You don't always need to live up to your Stage Name.

[Skepdick]

Simulations of a composers Music will of course sound like the composers Music.

And "simulations" (it's not a simulation, but alas) of music will always sound like music.

Where the problem?

You say you want me to stop being Philosophical, and then you launch into the Deepest Philosophical Issue of our time when you ask me to prove to you that I have Conscious Experiences. I have OPs on various Forums and a website on that, and you know it. Stop being a Goofball, and try to participate in these discussions constructively. You don't always need to live up to your Stage Name.

It's only an issue because philosophers are stupid.

[SteveKlinko]

But computers have already produced unique music that some people enjoy.

Even Random Noise and Tones can be Enjoyable to some people, up to a point.

Sure. So given that, how could we say that computers can't compose music that's unique (it's not simply a copy of something else) that some people enjoy?

Computers don't Compose anything. Computers Calculate Music based on Algorithms and stored Data.

[SteveKlinko]

Simulations of a composers Music will of course sound like the composers Music.

And "simulations" (it's not a simulation, but alas) of music will always sound like music.

Where the problem?

You say you want me to stop being Philosophical, and then you launch into the Deepest Philosophical Issue of our time when you ask me to prove to you that I have Conscious Experiences. I have OPs on various Forums and a website on that, and you know it. Stop being a Goofball, and try to participate in these discussions constructively. You don't always need to live up to your Stage Name.

It's only an issue because philosophers are stupid.

Living up to your Stage Name again, I see.

[Terrapin Station]

Even Random Noise and Tones can be Enjoyable to some people, up to a point.

Sure. So given that, how could we say that computers can't compose music that's unique (it's not simply a copy of something else) that some people enjoy?

Computers don't Compose anything. Computers Calculate Music based on Algorithms and stored Data.

Composition is the process of specifying exactly what sounds will occur, or specifying at least the parameters of the sounds to occur, with what properties (a la dynamics, phrasing, etc.) in a sequential and simultaneous temporal musical context. Computers can do that.

[tillingborn]

As I said, the Human Composer will hear the Music in the Conscious Mind as a Conscious Experience. Beethoven could certainly do that, even with failing hearing.

The Beethoven thing was a throwaway line; he probably wasn't completely deaf. The point about Bach is more interesting. According to some theories, he at least experimented with writing music mathematically, rather than aesthetically. Many artists have play around with time signatures and there is a whole genre called Math Rock. I don't think the source of a string of notes really matters, it is the audience who judges it.

[SteveKlinko]

Sure. So given that, how could we say that computers can't compose music that's unique (it's not simply a copy of something else) that some people enjoy?

Computers don't Compose anything. Computers Calculate Music based on Algorithms and stored Data.

Composition is the process of specifying exactly what sounds will occur, or specifying at least the parameters of the sounds to occur, with what properties (a la dynamics, phrasing, etc.) in a sequential and simultaneous temporal musical context. Computers can do that.

Of course, but we are exploring the Conscious Experience of Music here. A Computer will have no Clue about how it is Experienced by a Conscious Mind, but a Human Composer will.