Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Alan Turing
89 views
Skip to first unread message
Cryptoengineer
May 12, 2013, 11:45:16 PM5/12/13
to
On May 10, 11:01 am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey
> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
> So, of course, I am writing about a lot about books where Turing is a character (actually, it's the main topic of my dissertation) like the Cryptonomicon, Breaking the code, Enigma (even if he is not really the character)... maybe I forget some...
> But, Turing and his works have directly inspired a lot of science-fiction writings.
> Of course, the most obvious is The Turing Option by Harrison and Minsky.
> But you also have the Voigt-Kampff test in Do androids dream of electric sheep? which clearly a modification of the Turing Test. It's basically the same issue, but where the Turing Test is about the intelligence of the IA, the Voigt-Kampff is about the emotional capacity of the IA.
>
> What do think you of this?
> Have you any idea about it?
I'm reposting this to rec.arts.sf.written, which is probably a better
group for the task. I'm also setting followups to go there, so you'll
need to check that group.
pt
> Hey
> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
> So, of course, I am writing about a lot about books where Turing is a character (actually, it's the main topic of my dissertation) like the Cryptonomicon, Breaking the code, Enigma (even if he is not really the character)... maybe I forget some...
> But, Turing and his works have directly inspired a lot of science-fiction writings.
> Of course, the most obvious is The Turing Option by Harrison and Minsky.
> But you also have the Voigt-Kampff test in Do androids dream of electric sheep? which clearly a modification of the Turing Test. It's basically the same issue, but where the Turing Test is about the intelligence of the IA, the Voigt-Kampff is about the emotional capacity of the IA.
>
> What do think you of this?
> Have you any idea about it?
I'm reposting this to rec.arts.sf.written, which is probably a better
group for the task. I'm also setting followups to go there, so you'll
need to check that group.
pt
JRStern
May 13, 2013, 1:14:05 AM5/13/13
to
Look up debates about John Searle's "Chinese Room" parable.
It's not exactly a case of Turing being a character in fiction, but
there is a lot of taking his name in vain.
J.
Wayne Throop
May 13, 2013, 1:14:54 AM5/13/13
to
:: willia...@gmail.com
:: I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in
:: dissertation) like the Cryptonomi= con, Breaking the code, Enigma
of the acronymicon of Abdul Alhazred. Or maybe it's just french,
for Intelligence Artificielle. Just curious.
: Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>
: I'm reposting this to rec.arts.sf.written, which is probably a better
Reversing the usual turing test, an elemental gatekeeper named Alan is
an AI that validates access, by having the AI determine if any entrant
is both human, and the specific human they purport to be.
He has an Alan Turing tee shirt made of asbestos (so it isn't burned away
by the moat of magma from which he conducts his interviews).
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TrueNames
:: I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in
:: literature. So, of course, I am writing about a lot about books
:: where Turing is a chara= cter (actually, it's the main topic of my
:: dissertation) like the Cryptonomi= con, Breaking the code, Enigma
:: (even if he is not really the character)... maybe I forget some...
:: But, Turing and his works have directly inspired a lot of
:: science-fiction w= ritings. Of course, the most obvious is The
:: But, Turing and his works have directly inspired a lot of
:: Turing Option by Harrison and Minsky. But you also have the
:: Voigt-Kampff test in Do androids dream of electric sh= eep? which
:: clearly a modification of the Turing Test. It's basically the same
:: issue, but where the Turing Test is about the intelligence of the IA,
:: the Voigt-Kampff is about the emotional capacity of the IA.
::
:: What do think you of this? Have you any idea about it?
I wonder if by "IA" is meant "AI", or if this is some new aspect
:: issue, but where the Turing Test is about the intelligence of the IA,
:: the Voigt-Kampff is about the emotional capacity of the IA.
::
:: What do think you of this? Have you any idea about it?
of the acronymicon of Abdul Alhazred. Or maybe it's just french,
for Intelligence Artificielle. Just curious.
: Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com>
: I'm reposting this to rec.arts.sf.written, which is probably a better
: group for the task. I'm also setting followups to go there, so you'll
: need to check that group.
I note that one interesting Turing reference is in Vinge's "True Names".
: need to check that group.
Reversing the usual turing test, an elemental gatekeeper named Alan is
an AI that validates access, by having the AI determine if any entrant
is both human, and the specific human they purport to be.
He has an Alan Turing tee shirt made of asbestos (so it isn't burned away
by the moat of magma from which he conducts his interviews).
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TrueNames
Anthony Nance
May 13, 2013, 7:39:33 AM5/13/13
to
because I can't tell if he wants discussion or references,
but in case it's the latter:
If you go to Alex Kasman's Mathematical Fiction site
( http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/ ), and do
a search for "Turing" as a "Keyword in Summary", you
get about 36 results -- maybe some of them will help.
Tony
David DeLaney
May 13, 2013, 8:34:24 AM5/13/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:14:05 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>A lot of philosophy, too.
>
>Look up debates about John Searle's "Chinese Room" parable.
>
>It's not exactly a case of Turing being a character in fiction, but
>there is a lot of taking his name in vain.
And which leads _directly_ to The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson, among others?
>A lot of philosophy, too.
>
>Look up debates about John Searle's "Chinese Room" parable.
>
>It's not exactly a case of Turing being a character in fiction, but
>there is a lot of taking his name in vain.
Dave, you would never break the chain
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Greg Goss
May 13, 2013, 1:05:30 PM5/13/13
to
author. To head up an article about "Parry", a program that simulated
extreme paranoia, Analog used the title "Turing Point" (which the eye
naturally reads as "Turning Point", with the blurb "We have created
the first intelligent computer -- and it's insane."
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Robert Carnegie
May 13, 2013, 4:10:35 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, 13 May 2013 12:48:45 UTC+1, David DeLaney wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:14:05 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> >A lot of philosophy, too.
> >
> >Look up debates about John Searle's "Chinese Room" parable.
> >
> >It's not exactly a case of Turing being a character in fiction, but
> >there is a lot of taking his name in vain.
>
> And which leads _directly_ to The Diamond Age by
> Neal Stephenson, among others?
Well... there's a simulated fictional fantasy world
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 22:14:05 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> >A lot of philosophy, too.
> >
> >Look up debates about John Searle's "Chinese Room" parable.
> >
> >It's not exactly a case of Turing being a character in fiction, but
> >there is a lot of taking his name in vain.
>
> And which leads _directly_ to The Diamond Age by
> Neal Stephenson, among others?
in that book, which introduces the idealised
"Turing Machine" - the little robot that runs
along a punched program tape, and is analogous to
whatever any digital computer does - or something
like that - and proceeds to reveal that the whole
(fantasy) world is made of Turing tape.
The Turing character in _Cryptonomicon_ apparently
goes around telling people the theory that human
beings are Turing Machines too, with no "ghost in
the machine".
And I heard someone describe a Philip K. Dick story (?)
where a surgery patient is shown to have a Turing tape
running through his torso - if I understood - and
interfering with the tape produces very peculiar effects.
The Turing Test is not meant as a real exercise,
but as a "thought experiment", a thing which
Terry Pratchett mischievously described as "One that
you can't do, and which won’t work." Really it is
a way of asking: what is consciousness, and can a
machine satisfy you that it has it? And if not,
why not?
Terry Pratchett was thinking about that other experiment
where there is a cat in a box that may or may not be dead,
I think, and imagined what would happen if the cat escaped
from the box in that state, and people like the Turing Test
well enough to try to do that, too.
I think it's unfair, because presumably a human "player"
tries to convince you that they are human - which they are -
but the computer has to lie. It's as if I had to pretend
to be Irish - I'd probably be caught out.
Quadibloc
May 13, 2013, 4:53:55 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 2:10 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> I think it's unfair, because presumably a human "player"
> tries to convince you that they are human - which they are -
> but the computer has to lie. It's as if I had to pretend
> to be Irish - I'd probably be caught out.
Of course the Turing Test is unfair. It is meant to be _sufficient_,
> I think it's unfair, because presumably a human "player"
> tries to convince you that they are human - which they are -
> but the computer has to lie. It's as if I had to pretend
> to be Irish - I'd probably be caught out.
not _necessary_, since he was writing to convince a disbelieving world
that machines could be intelligent.
Now, though, we know that we are actually conscious - we truly
experience our sensations. The Turing Test was a way of putting aside
the problem that we can't test if a machine does that - indeed, we
don't know for sure about our fellow human beings, hence solipsism can
be proposed by philosophers as an illustration of the issue.
But maybe someday we will be able to explore the "astral plane" or
whatever, and determine that electronic machines with artificial
neurons also magically create souls on that plane, while von Neumann
devices running programs that pass the Turing test do not. The Turing
Test is what we must make do with because of our utter ignorance of
the seemingly supernatural aspects of human consciousness. (This is
not a claim that they _are_ actually supernatural; the ignorance could
be about the nature of the natural world.)
John Savard
Don Kuenz
May 13, 2013, 7:15:49 PM5/13/13
to
>>On May 10, 11:01?am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hey
>>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
>>> So, of course, I am writing about a lot about books where Turing is
>>> a character (actually, it's the main topic of my dissertation) like
>>> the Cryptonomicon, Breaking the code, Enigma (even if he is not
>>> really the character)... maybe I forget some...
>>>
>>> But, Turing and his works have directly inspired a lot of
>>> science-fiction writings.
>>>
>>> Of course, the most obvious is The Turing Option by Harrison and
>>> Minsky.
>>> But you also have the Voigt-Kampff test in Do androids dream of
>>> electric sheep? which clearly a modification of the Turing Test.
>>> It's basically the same issue, but where the Turing Test is about
>>> the intelligence of the IA, the Voigt-Kampff is about the emotional
>>> capacity of the IA.
>>>
>>> What do think you of this?
>>> Have you any idea about it?
It's less than clear to me exactly what role the Turing test played in
>>> Hey
>>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
>>> So, of course, I am writing about a lot about books where Turing is
>>> a character (actually, it's the main topic of my dissertation) like
>>> the Cryptonomicon, Breaking the code, Enigma (even if he is not
>>> really the character)... maybe I forget some...
>>>
>>> But, Turing and his works have directly inspired a lot of
>>> science-fiction writings.
>>>
>>> Of course, the most obvious is The Turing Option by Harrison and
>>> Minsky.
>>> But you also have the Voigt-Kampff test in Do androids dream of
>>> electric sheep? which clearly a modification of the Turing Test.
>>> It's basically the same issue, but where the Turing Test is about
>>> the intelligence of the IA, the Voigt-Kampff is about the emotional
>>> capacity of the IA.
>>>
>>> What do think you of this?
>>> Have you any idea about it?
PKD's fictional Voigt-Kampff test. Although lots of people justifiably
see a connection between the two tests did PKD himself actually say or
write anything at all about the Turing test?
It seems more probable to me that the common polygraph (ie lie detector)
used by police departments inspired PKD's Voigt-Kampff device. Both
polygraph and Voigt-Kampff measure physiological arousal. The polygraph
in response to simple statements, the Voigt-Kampff in response to
scenarios that encourage empathy.
>>I'm reposting this to rec.arts.sf.written, which is probably a better
>>group for the task. I'm also setting followups to go there, so you'll
>>need to check that group.
>
> The blurb from a seventies Analog article might be interesting to that
> author. To head up an article about "Parry", a program that simulated
> extreme paranoia, Analog used the title "Turing Point" (which the eye
> naturally reads as "Turning Point", with the blurb "We have created
> the first intelligent computer -- and it's insane."
typically took only a few minutes for Eliza to turn most people into
unholy cusses emoting a steady stream of blue spew.
Once, during a party, a wise guy started Eliza using my dumb terminal,
my modem, and the minicomputer at work. This particular minicomputer
kept programs running even after a modem line drop. The next day my boss
stopped by my office to talk about the minicomputer cussing out a user
in another city who remotely connected to the minicomputer.
Eliza's provocative nature might make for a good test of humanness.
Perhaps we can call it the Voigt-Kuenz test. LOL.
--
Don Kuenz
Robert Carnegie
May 13, 2013, 8:44:08 PM5/13/13
to
On Monday, 13 May 2013 21:10:35 UTC+1, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> And I heard someone describe a Philip K. Dick story (?)
> where a surgery patient is shown to have a Turing tape
> running through his torso - if I understood - and
> interfering with the tape produces very peculiar effects.
.... [*]
> And I heard someone describe a Philip K. Dick story (?)
> where a surgery patient is shown to have a Turing tape
> running through his torso - if I understood - and
> interfering with the tape produces very peculiar effects.
(!)
Rich Horton
May 13, 2013, 11:06:31 PM5/13/13
to
"Alderley Edge", by Jim Cowan, from the March/April 1995 issue of the
excellent short-lived magazine CENTURY; "Oracle", by Greg Egan, from
Asimov's Science Fiction in 200; and "Tangents", by Greg Bear
(character not Turing but evidently based on Turing), from Omni in
1986.
(*What is it about "hard" SF writers named Greg: not just Egan and
Bear but Benford as well.) (And one could add Greg Feeley, not
precisely know as a "hard" SF writer but he's done some, as well as
much less well known Analog writer Gregory Bennett, but I suppose that
would be stretching the point.)
willia...@gmail.com
May 14, 2013, 8:15:35 AM5/14/13
to
> I wonder if by "IA" is meant "AI", or if this is some new aspect
>
> of the acronymicon of Abdul Alhazred. Or maybe it's just french,
>
> for Intelligence Artificielle. Just curious.
You're right, it's an error... from french!
>
> of the acronymicon of Abdul Alhazred. Or maybe it's just french,
>
> for Intelligence Artificielle. Just curious.
willia...@gmail.com
May 14, 2013, 9:30:01 AM5/14/13
to
Wow! Thanks for all of your answers!
On Monday, May 13, 2013 8:10:35 PM UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> The Turing character in _Cryptonomicon_ apparently
>
> goes around telling people the theory that human
>
> beings are Turing Machines too, with no "ghost in
>
> the machine".
>
>
>
Of course, the Turing Test was a "thought experiment" (as the Turing Machine was, by the way). And I agree about what is the point of such an experiment. But, the intersting thing in literature, and especially in science fiction, is that "thought experiments" can seem real and be done in a narrative way.
I suppose Pratchett was talking about the Schrödinger's cat.
On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:15:49 PM UTC, Don Kuenz wrote:
> It's less than clear to me exactly what role the Turing test played in
>
> PKD's fictional Voigt-Kampff test. Although lots of people justifiably
>
> see a connection between the two tests did PKD himself actually say or
>
> write anything at all about the Turing test?
>
>
>
> It seems more probable to me that the common polygraph (ie lie detector)
>
> used by police departments inspired PKD's Voigt-Kampff device. Both
>
> polygraph and Voigt-Kampff measure physiological arousal. The polygraph
>
> in response to simple statements, the Voigt-Kampff in response to
>
> scenarios that encourage empathy.
Indeed, you are right : we can't assume as a sure thing that the Turing Test inspired the Voigt-Kampff. I just didn't think of this other possibility!
Anyway, we will never know what Dick was thinking about when he wrote it. But, if I can find the PKD's story Robert Carnegie (thanks to him) is talking about, it will help to support my hypothesis: I can't imagine PKD didn't know Turing and the Turing Test, but this can prove it.
On Monday, May 13, 2013 8:10:35 PM UTC, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> The Turing character in _Cryptonomicon_ apparently
>
> goes around telling people the theory that human
>
> beings are Turing Machines too, with no "ghost in
>
> the machine".
>
>
>
> And I heard someone describe a Philip K. Dick story (?)
>
> where a surgery patient is shown to have a Turing tape
>
> running through his torso - if I understood - and
>
> interfering with the tape produces very peculiar effects.
>
>
>
>
> where a surgery patient is shown to have a Turing tape
>
> running through his torso - if I understood - and
>
> interfering with the tape produces very peculiar effects.
>
>
>
> The Turing Test is not meant as a real exercise,
>
> but as a "thought experiment", a thing which
>
> Terry Pratchett mischievously described as "One that
>
> you can't do, and which won’t work." Really it is
>
> a way of asking: what is consciousness, and can a
>
> machine satisfy you that it has it? And if not,
>
> why not?
>
>
>
> Terry Pratchett was thinking about that other experiment
>
> where there is a cat in a box that may or may not be dead,
>
> I think, and imagined what would happen if the cat escaped
>
> from the box in that state, and people like the Turing Test
>
> well enough to try to do that, too.
>
>
>
>
> but as a "thought experiment", a thing which
>
> Terry Pratchett mischievously described as "One that
>
> you can't do, and which won’t work." Really it is
>
> a way of asking: what is consciousness, and can a
>
> machine satisfy you that it has it? And if not,
>
> why not?
>
>
>
> Terry Pratchett was thinking about that other experiment
>
> where there is a cat in a box that may or may not be dead,
>
> I think, and imagined what would happen if the cat escaped
>
> from the box in that state, and people like the Turing Test
>
> well enough to try to do that, too.
>
>
>
> I think it's unfair, because presumably a human "player"
>
> tries to convince you that they are human - which they are -
>
> but the computer has to lie. It's as if I had to pretend
>
> to be Irish - I'd probably be caught out.
Actually Turing really said he thought the mind was a Turing Machine, if I trust his biographies.
>
> tries to convince you that they are human - which they are -
>
> but the computer has to lie. It's as if I had to pretend
>
> to be Irish - I'd probably be caught out.
Of course, the Turing Test was a "thought experiment" (as the Turing Machine was, by the way). And I agree about what is the point of such an experiment. But, the intersting thing in literature, and especially in science fiction, is that "thought experiments" can seem real and be done in a narrative way.
I suppose Pratchett was talking about the Schrödinger's cat.
On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:15:49 PM UTC, Don Kuenz wrote:
> It's less than clear to me exactly what role the Turing test played in
>
> PKD's fictional Voigt-Kampff test. Although lots of people justifiably
>
> see a connection between the two tests did PKD himself actually say or
>
> write anything at all about the Turing test?
>
>
>
> It seems more probable to me that the common polygraph (ie lie detector)
>
> used by police departments inspired PKD's Voigt-Kampff device. Both
>
> polygraph and Voigt-Kampff measure physiological arousal. The polygraph
>
> in response to simple statements, the Voigt-Kampff in response to
>
> scenarios that encourage empathy.
Anyway, we will never know what Dick was thinking about when he wrote it. But, if I can find the PKD's story Robert Carnegie (thanks to him) is talking about, it will help to support my hypothesis: I can't imagine PKD didn't know Turing and the Turing Test, but this can prove it.
David DeLaney
May 14, 2013, 10:06:06 AM5/14/13
to
On 2013-05-13, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Now, though, we know that we are actually conscious - we truly
> experience our sensations.
Or, at least, we _think_ we do...
> Now, though, we know that we are actually conscious - we truly
> experience our sensations.
Dave, we can experience that for you wholesale
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
Robert Carnegie
May 14, 2013, 3:43:06 PM5/14/13
to
On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 14:30:01 UTC+1, willia...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:15:49 PM UTC, Don Kuenz wrote:
> > It's less than clear to me exactly what role the
> > Turing test played in PKD's fictional Voigt-Kampff test.
> > Although lots of people justifiably see a connection
> > between the two tests did PKD himself actually say or
> > write anything at all about the Turing test?
> >
> > It seems more probable to me that the common polygraph
> > (ie lie detector used by police departments inspired
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 11:15:49 PM UTC, Don Kuenz wrote:
> > It's less than clear to me exactly what role the
> > Turing test played in PKD's fictional Voigt-Kampff test.
> > Although lots of people justifiably see a connection
> > between the two tests did PKD himself actually say or
> > write anything at all about the Turing test?
> >
> > It seems more probable to me that the common polygraph
> > PKD's Voigt-Kampff device. Both polygraph and
> > Voigt-Kampff measure physiological arousal.
> > The polygraph in response to simple statements,
> > the Voigt-Kampff in response to scenarios that
> > encourage empathy.
>
> Indeed, you are right : we can't assume as a sure thing
> that the Turing Test inspired the Voigt-Kampff.
> I just didn't think of this other possibility!
>
> Anyway, we will never know what Dick was thinking about
> when he wrote it. But, if I can find the PKD's story
> Robert Carnegie (thanks to him) is talking about,
> it will help to support my hypothesis: I can't imagine
> PKD didn't know Turing and the Turing Test, but this
> can prove it.
Got it: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Ant>
> > Voigt-Kampff measure physiological arousal.
> > The polygraph in response to simple statements,
> > the Voigt-Kampff in response to scenarios that
> > encourage empathy.
>
> Indeed, you are right : we can't assume as a sure thing
> that the Turing Test inspired the Voigt-Kampff.
> I just didn't think of this other possibility!
>
> Anyway, we will never know what Dick was thinking about
> when he wrote it. But, if I can find the PKD's story
> Robert Carnegie (thanks to him) is talking about,
> it will help to support my hypothesis: I can't imagine
> PKD didn't know Turing and the Turing Test, but this
> can prove it.
The character in fact is an android, but in Dick's stories
neither you nor he are sure what that really means.
And the tape isn't exactly Turing tape, but the point of
the Turing Machine - never mind whether a thought experiment
and a mathematical ideal are the same thing - is that
any computer running on tape - or on gigabytes of RAM -
is just doing the same thing. But this tape is probably
some generations on from Turing's real paper tape.
Maybe the story is more like hacking a virtual reality,
which was discussed in _Snow Crash_, since other people
see the results.
Robert Carnegie
May 14, 2013, 4:10:31 PM5/14/13
to
...as for the V-K test - yes, it investigates emotions,
both positive and negative, and physiological responses.
Several commentators online see this as a deliberate
rejection of the Turing test, although I think we still
haven't cleared up whether Dick knew about that at all.
Then again, we're teased - told by unreliable characters
in the story - that some human beings would fail
the V-K. On the other hand, androids are said to be
getting better at feeling, or showing, emotions.
The Turing test says: if you can't detect a difference,
can you continue to claim that there is a difference?
Can we say how Dick felt about androids - androids and
aliens, two similar enigmas? It isn't the same as how
his human characters feel, necessarily, but androids
don't get many happy endings, as far as I can see.
But neither do most other people. If things do go well
then you're probably about to find out that you are
programmed to explode the first time you laugh, or that
you died three chapters ago, or that you are somebody's
hallucination. Well, the exploding is for androids,
but, it doesn't have to be.
By the way, I feel it /ought/ to mean something,
that I /anticipated/ that Gooogle would ask me,
"Did you mean: Dick Turpin?" But (pkd tape chest)
actually found the story.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Turpin>
both positive and negative, and physiological responses.
Several commentators online see this as a deliberate
rejection of the Turing test, although I think we still
haven't cleared up whether Dick knew about that at all.
Then again, we're teased - told by unreliable characters
in the story - that some human beings would fail
the V-K. On the other hand, androids are said to be
getting better at feeling, or showing, emotions.
The Turing test says: if you can't detect a difference,
can you continue to claim that there is a difference?
Can we say how Dick felt about androids - androids and
aliens, two similar enigmas? It isn't the same as how
his human characters feel, necessarily, but androids
don't get many happy endings, as far as I can see.
But neither do most other people. If things do go well
then you're probably about to find out that you are
programmed to explode the first time you laugh, or that
you died three chapters ago, or that you are somebody's
hallucination. Well, the exploding is for androids,
but, it doesn't have to be.
By the way, I feel it /ought/ to mean something,
that I /anticipated/ that Gooogle would ask me,
"Did you mean: Dick Turpin?" But (pkd tape chest)
actually found the story.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Turpin>
P. Taine
May 14, 2013, 5:58:31 PM5/14/13
to
not paper. One of the operations of a Turing machine is to over-write the
symbol in a cell on the tape, which doesn't really work at all for punched tape,
and probably not for paper.
P. Taine
Don Kuenz
May 14, 2013, 8:00:14 PM5/14/13
to
P. Taine <us...@domaine.invalid> wrote:
> Note that the "tape" in a Turing machine is NOT punched paper tape, a probably
> not paper. One of the operations of a Turing machine is to over-write the
> symbol in a cell on the tape, which doesn't really work at all for punched tape,
> and probably not for paper.
Reality often rewards a field engineer's ingenuity.
> Note that the "tape" in a Turing machine is NOT punched paper tape, a probably
> not paper. One of the operations of a Turing machine is to over-write the
> symbol in a cell on the tape, which doesn't really work at all for punched tape,
> and probably not for paper.
One fine day, on-site, one wrong instruction punched on a paper tape was
the only thing standing between me and a glorious night out on the town.
Unfortunately, my relatively expensive paper tape puncher was located
ten miles away in the mainframe glass room at the home office. Given my
hubris, traveling twenty miles round trip to recompile a program seemed
like too steep a price to pay.
Why not just MacGyver the errant instruction into a NOP instead? Simply
fill-in a few holes, and presto-chango a NOP.
Now, how to go about filling-in a couple of holes in a paper tape using
the office supplies on hand? Masking tape promised to foul the paper
tape reader. Besides, this was an office, not an auto body shop.
Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
--
Don Kuenz
David DeLaney
May 14, 2013, 9:27:34 PM5/14/13
to
Dave
David Mitchell
May 15, 2013, 4:18:44 AM5/15/13
to
On 13/05/13 04:45, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On May 10, 11:01 am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hey
>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
Greg Egan has written a short story in which Turing is quite a major
> On May 10, 11:01 am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hey
>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
character (although I'm not sure he's ever named); but I can't find the
damned thing on his web-site, sorry.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
Rich Horton
May 15, 2013, 6:59:41 AM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:18:44 +0100, David Mitchell
<david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 13/05/13 04:45, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On May 10, 11:01 am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hey
>>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
>
>Greg Egan has written a short story in which Turing is quite a major
>character (although I'm not sure he's ever named); but I can't find the
>damned thing on his web-site, sorry.
"Oracle"
<david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 13/05/13 04:45, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On May 10, 11:01 am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Hey
>>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
>
>Greg Egan has written a short story in which Turing is quite a major
>character (although I'm not sure he's ever named); but I can't find the
>damned thing on his web-site, sorry.
David DeLaney
May 15, 2013, 10:43:08 AM5/15/13
to
On 2013-05-15, David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 10, 11:01 am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
>
> Greg Egan has written a short story in which Turing is quite a major
> character (although I'm not sure he's ever named); but I can't find the
> damned thing on his web-site, sorry.
And Alan Turing is a character in the backstory of one of the nine magical
>> On May 10, 11:01 am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
>
> Greg Egan has written a short story in which Turing is quite a major
> character (although I'm not sure he's ever named); but I can't find the
> damned thing on his web-site, sorry.
factions in White Wolf's Mage: The Awakening RPG. (His death was actually
what ripped open access to the Digital Web, many years before the Sleepers
ever knew about it...)
Dave, I think Apple denies their logo is a reference to him?
David Mitchell
May 15, 2013, 1:41:14 PM5/15/13
to
Greg Goss
May 15, 2013, 1:41:22 PM5/15/13
to
David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Dave, I think Apple denies their logo is a reference to him?
whoosh?
>Dave, I think Apple denies their logo is a reference to him?
Greg Goss
May 15, 2013, 1:57:21 PM5/15/13
to
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Dave, I think Apple denies their logo is a reference to him?
>
>whoosh?
OK, after a quick google, I've seen the discussion.
>David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Dave, I think Apple denies their logo is a reference to him?
>
>whoosh?
One page discussing the legend talks about Apple's "iconic white
apple" obviously is someone too young to remember the iconic rainbow
apple that was their logo for a very long time. Adding the gay
rainbow to symbolize a gay suicide would make the legend even more
powerful.
Except that the rainbow flag to symbolize gays appears (according to
Wikipedia) to be two years newer than the rainbow apple logo.
The claim by the logo designer that the bite was provided "to provide
scale so that it could be distinguished from a cherry" makes perfect
sense to me. I find that the link to Turing seems very weak here.
The link between computing theory as symbolized by Turing and
computing hacking as represented in the early microcomputers is strong
NOW, but I think that the two fields were much further apart in the
seventies.
Joy Beeson
May 16, 2013, 10:44:20 AM5/16/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:00:14 -0500, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net>
wrote:
> Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
> and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
What a crying shame that the office didn't use Liquid Paper brand
white-out.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
wrote:
> Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
> and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
white-out.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Kurt Busiek
May 16, 2013, 5:36:04 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-15 00:00:14 +0000, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:
> Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
> and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
Why does Viola have to do it? If it'll solve the problem, do it yourself!
> Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
> and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Jorgen Grahn
May 16, 2013, 6:14:48 PM5/16/13
to
On Mon, 2013-05-13, Don Kuenz wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 10, 11:01?am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Hey
>>>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
...
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 10, 11:01?am, william.le...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Hey
>>>> I am writing a master's dissertation about Alan Turing in literature.
>>>> Of course, the most obvious is The Turing Option by Harrison and
>>>> Minsky.
>>>> But you also have the Voigt-Kampff test in Do androids dream of
>>>> electric sheep? which clearly a modification of the Turing Test.
>>>> It's basically the same issue, but where the Turing Test is about
>>>> the intelligence of the IA, the Voigt-Kampff is about the emotional
>>>> capacity of the IA.
>>>>
>>>> What do think you of this?
>>>> Have you any idea about it?
>
> It's less than clear to me exactly what role the Turing test played in
> PKD's fictional Voigt-Kampff test. Although lots of people justifiably
> see a connection between the two tests did PKD himself actually say or
> write anything at all about the Turing test?
I have read much of PKD's fiction and some of his non-fiction (essays,
>>>> Minsky.
>>>> But you also have the Voigt-Kampff test in Do androids dream of
>>>> electric sheep? which clearly a modification of the Turing Test.
>>>> It's basically the same issue, but where the Turing Test is about
>>>> the intelligence of the IA, the Voigt-Kampff is about the emotional
>>>> capacity of the IA.
>>>>
>>>> What do think you of this?
>>>> Have you any idea about it?
>
> It's less than clear to me exactly what role the Turing test played in
> PKD's fictional Voigt-Kampff test. Although lots of people justifiably
> see a connection between the two tests did PKD himself actually say or
> write anything at all about the Turing test?
speeches, insane ramblings etc). As far as I can tell he doesn't
refer to computer science or AI a lot, maybe not at all. (Not that I
believe he was completely ignorant on the subjects.)
There are probably real PKD scholars though who would be glad to
answer questions about this for a thesis.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
ppint. at pplay
May 16, 2013, 7:48:36 PM5/16/13
to
- hi; in article, <kn3j8q$gi$1...@dont-email.me>,
ku...@busiek.com "Kurt Busiek" demanded:
- love, a ppint. as wonders who's orchestrating all this
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
a superfluous upward key-change is the last resort of the incompetent composer
or producer of pop songs: the penultimate being the infliction of violins.
ku...@busiek.com "Kurt Busiek" demanded:
> Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:
>>Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
>>and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
>
>Why does Viola have to do it? If it'll solve the problem, do it yourself!
- violas have to be good for *something*
>>Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
>>and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
>
>Why does Viola have to do it? If it'll solve the problem, do it yourself!
- love, a ppint. as wonders who's orchestrating all this
[drop the "v", and change the "f" to a "g", to email or cc.]
--
a superfluous upward key-change is the last resort of the incompetent composer
or producer of pop songs: the penultimate being the infliction of violins.
David DeLaney
May 16, 2013, 11:29:21 PM5/16/13
to
On 2013-05-17, "ppint. at pplay" <v$af$pp...@i-m-t.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ku...@busiek.com "Kurt Busiek" demanded:
>> Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:
>>>Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
>>>and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
>>
>>Why does Viola have to do it? If it'll solve the problem, do it yourself!
>
> - violas have to be good for *something*
...the smoke from burning one smells better than a banjo's?
> ku...@busiek.com "Kurt Busiek" demanded:
>> Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:
>>>Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
>>>and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
>>
>>Why does Viola have to do it? If it'll solve the problem, do it yourself!
>
> - violas have to be good for *something*
> - love, a ppint. as wonders who's orchestrating all this
Don Kuenz
May 17, 2013, 1:50:09 AM5/17/13
to
Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:00:14 -0500, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
>> and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
>
> What a crying shame that the office didn't use Liquid Paper brand
> white-out.
It was indeed a bottle of Liquid Paper. A black and white (plain
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:00:14 -0500, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
>> and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
>
> What a crying shame that the office didn't use Liquid Paper brand
> white-out.
vanilla) bottle as shown in the lower left corner of the uppermost
photo here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Paper
--
Don Kuenz
Don Kuenz
May 17, 2013, 1:51:34 AM5/17/13
to
Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-15 00:00:14 +0000, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:
>
>> Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
>> and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
>
> Why does Viola have to do it? If it'll solve the problem, do it yourself!
Viola should be voila (with an accent above the a).
> On 2013-05-15 00:00:14 +0000, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:
>
>> Let me think ... Viola! Just put a few drops of white out into the holes
>> and wait for it to solidify. Problem solved. :)
>
> Why does Viola have to do it? If it'll solve the problem, do it yourself!
--
Don Kuenz
Brian M. Scott
May 17, 2013, 2:46:17 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 00:51:34 -0500, Don Kuenz
<gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in <news:2013...@crcomp.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
And omission of that accent is a grave error. (But you are
simply making Kurt's point explicit.)
Brian
<gar...@crcomp.net> wrote in <news:2013...@crcomp.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
simply making Kurt's point explicit.)
Brian
Robert Bannister
May 17, 2013, 9:28:30 PM5/17/13
to
--
Robert Bannister
JRStern
May 18, 2013, 12:47:06 PM5/18/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 19:00:14 -0500, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net>
wrote:
Truly?
I have trouble believing that would work on the "high-speed paper tape
readers" that were current back in my environments.
But getting *any* paper tape to read correctly and without
self-destruction, was always dicey. The fancy mylar paper tapes that
came late in the game were probably better, but I still wanted no part
of them.
As far as paper tape in a Turing Machine, theoretically you never have
to overwrite a cell, all programs can be translated to a similar
program that uses a new length of tape instead, making a horrendously
inefficient TM orders of magnitude *more* inefficient! God bless John
VonNeumann who gave us random access memory of words instead of a
bitstream tape, even if it took some years before we got very good at
building them.
J.
wrote:
I have trouble believing that would work on the "high-speed paper tape
readers" that were current back in my environments.
But getting *any* paper tape to read correctly and without
self-destruction, was always dicey. The fancy mylar paper tapes that
came late in the game were probably better, but I still wanted no part
of them.
As far as paper tape in a Turing Machine, theoretically you never have
to overwrite a cell, all programs can be translated to a similar
program that uses a new length of tape instead, making a horrendously
inefficient TM orders of magnitude *more* inefficient! God bless John
VonNeumann who gave us random access memory of words instead of a
bitstream tape, even if it took some years before we got very good at
building them.
J.
Charlton Wilbur
May 19, 2013, 6:38:11 PM5/19/13
to
>>>>> "RC" == Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
RC> Then again, we're teased - told by unreliable characters in the
RC> story - that some human beings would fail the V-K. On the other
RC> hand, androids are said to be getting better at feeling, or
RC> showing, emotions. The Turing test says: if you can't detect a
RC> difference, can you continue to claim that there is a
RC> difference?
I think it's much more subtle than that, though.
Some years back Douglas Hofstadter gave a lecture at UMass on David
Cope's computer program EMI - Exeriments in Musical Intelligence. EMI
analyzes the corpus of music by a composer, and then writes music in the
style of that composer. Dr. Hofstadter played selections of music, and
challenged the audience to say which one was Bach and which one was EMI
writing in the style of Bach, then which one was Chopin and which one
was EMI writing in the style of Chopin.
This lecture was attended both by students and faculty in computer
science and related disciplines, and by students and faculty in music.
Nearly all the students and faculty in music could tell the difference
between the real composer and EMI in a matter of moments. The results
among other students and faculty were indistinguishable from guessing.
Dr. Hofstadter then argued that, *because* more than half of the
audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach and fake Bach,
*therefore* EMI represented an understanding of Bach's style. What I'd
say, instead, is that EMI holds up a mirror to one's own understanding:
*because* half of the audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach
and fake Bach, *therefore* we can conclude that the intricacies and
nuances of Bach are unfamiliar to many people, leaving them only with a
superficiaal understanding of his musical style.
Likewise with the Turing test: if you can't tell whether the person on
the other side is a computer or a person, should it be scored as a
success for the entity on the other side, or should it be scored as a
failure for you?
(This also recapitulates one of Hofstadter's problems: he is an amateur
in so many fields, and speaks so authoritatively in all of them; but
having heard how far off he is in music, I strongly doubt his bona fides
in any field where I can't personally verify them.)
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
RC> Then again, we're teased - told by unreliable characters in the
RC> story - that some human beings would fail the V-K. On the other
RC> hand, androids are said to be getting better at feeling, or
RC> showing, emotions. The Turing test says: if you can't detect a
RC> difference, can you continue to claim that there is a
RC> difference?
I think it's much more subtle than that, though.
Some years back Douglas Hofstadter gave a lecture at UMass on David
Cope's computer program EMI - Exeriments in Musical Intelligence. EMI
analyzes the corpus of music by a composer, and then writes music in the
style of that composer. Dr. Hofstadter played selections of music, and
challenged the audience to say which one was Bach and which one was EMI
writing in the style of Bach, then which one was Chopin and which one
was EMI writing in the style of Chopin.
This lecture was attended both by students and faculty in computer
science and related disciplines, and by students and faculty in music.
Nearly all the students and faculty in music could tell the difference
between the real composer and EMI in a matter of moments. The results
among other students and faculty were indistinguishable from guessing.
Dr. Hofstadter then argued that, *because* more than half of the
audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach and fake Bach,
*therefore* EMI represented an understanding of Bach's style. What I'd
say, instead, is that EMI holds up a mirror to one's own understanding:
*because* half of the audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach
and fake Bach, *therefore* we can conclude that the intricacies and
nuances of Bach are unfamiliar to many people, leaving them only with a
superficiaal understanding of his musical style.
Likewise with the Turing test: if you can't tell whether the person on
the other side is a computer or a person, should it be scored as a
success for the entity on the other side, or should it be scored as a
failure for you?
(This also recapitulates one of Hofstadter's problems: he is an amateur
in so many fields, and speaks so authoritatively in all of them; but
having heard how far off he is in music, I strongly doubt his bona fides
in any field where I can't personally verify them.)
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Brian M. Scott
May 20, 2013, 12:12:54 AM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:38:11 -0400, Charlton Wilbur
<cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote in
<news:8738tir...@new.chromatico.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
I agree. For an earlier example see Fritz Kreisler's
concerto 'in the style of Vivaldi', which is nice enough but
nothing like Vivaldi.
[...]
Brian
<cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote in
<news:8738tir...@new.chromatico.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
concerto 'in the style of Vivaldi', which is nice enough but
nothing like Vivaldi.
[...]
Brian
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 20, 2013, 12:47:50 AM5/20/13
to
When I took my first art history course, one element of the final exam
was looking at a bunch of Cubist paintings and identifying which were
by Pablo Picasso and which were by Georges Braques -- Picasso and
Braques had collaborated in inventing Cubism and were deliberately
imitating each other's style in the early days, TRYING to make their
work indistinguishable.
To anyone with an eye for art, though, it was still screamingly obvious
who painted which -- the good ones were by Picasso, and the bad ones
were by Braques. I was amazed to discover that some of my classmates
got as many as half of them wrong. (I, and several others, got all
twelve right.)
That was after a semester of training in art appreciation.
So -- expecting untrained amateurs to tell real Bach from fake? Ha. Silly.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1466291532/
David Dyer-Bennet
May 20, 2013, 1:31:17 PM5/20/13
to
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
> Some years back Douglas Hofstadter gave a lecture at UMass on David
> Cope's computer program EMI - Exeriments in Musical Intelligence. EMI
> analyzes the corpus of music by a composer, and then writes music in the
> style of that composer. Dr. Hofstadter played selections of music, and
> challenged the audience to say which one was Bach and which one was EMI
> writing in the style of Bach, then which one was Chopin and which one
> was EMI writing in the style of Chopin.
>
> This lecture was attended both by students and faculty in computer
> science and related disciplines, and by students and faculty in music.
> Nearly all the students and faculty in music could tell the difference
> between the real composer and EMI in a matter of moments. The results
> among other students and faculty were indistinguishable from guessing.
>
> Dr. Hofstadter then argued that, *because* more than half of the
> audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach and fake Bach,
> *therefore* EMI represented an understanding of Bach's style. What I'd
> say, instead, is that EMI holds up a mirror to one's own understanding:
> *because* half of the audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach
> and fake Bach, *therefore* we can conclude that the intricacies and
> nuances of Bach are unfamiliar to many people, leaving them only with a
> superficiaal understanding of his musical style.
I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in music were telling.
> Some years back Douglas Hofstadter gave a lecture at UMass on David
> Cope's computer program EMI - Exeriments in Musical Intelligence. EMI
> analyzes the corpus of music by a composer, and then writes music in the
> style of that composer. Dr. Hofstadter played selections of music, and
> challenged the audience to say which one was Bach and which one was EMI
> writing in the style of Bach, then which one was Chopin and which one
> was EMI writing in the style of Chopin.
>
> This lecture was attended both by students and faculty in computer
> science and related disciplines, and by students and faculty in music.
> Nearly all the students and faculty in music could tell the difference
> between the real composer and EMI in a matter of moments. The results
> among other students and faculty were indistinguishable from guessing.
>
> Dr. Hofstadter then argued that, *because* more than half of the
> audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach and fake Bach,
> *therefore* EMI represented an understanding of Bach's style. What I'd
> say, instead, is that EMI holds up a mirror to one's own understanding:
> *because* half of the audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach
> and fake Bach, *therefore* we can conclude that the intricacies and
> nuances of Bach are unfamiliar to many people, leaving them only with a
> superficiaal understanding of his musical style.
Did they think "That sounds like Bach, but I know all his pieces for x
and this isn't one of them"?
> Likewise with the Turing test: if you can't tell whether the person on
> the other side is a computer or a person, should it be scored as a
> success for the entity on the other side, or should it be scored as a
> failure for you?
sapience; it's not a well-developed mechanism for actually making fine
distinctions.
> (This also recapitulates one of Hofstadter's problems: he is an amateur
> in so many fields, and speaks so authoritatively in all of them; but
> having heard how far off he is in music, I strongly doubt his bona fides
> in any field where I can't personally verify them.)
being crazy wrong, that being my degree field.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 20, 2013, 1:33:19 PM5/20/13
to
Kip Williams
May 20, 2013, 4:21:11 PM5/20/13
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote, On 5/20/13 1:33 PM:
There's one of the most amazing things about Bach, Liszt, Czerny,
Saint-Saens, and others. They just wrote so much. I couldn't sit here
and copy out the works of one of them, but they even thought of them all.
Kip W
rasfw
Saint-Saens, and others. They just wrote so much. I couldn't sit here
and copy out the works of one of them, but they even thought of them all.
Kip W
rasfw
Robert Carnegie
May 20, 2013, 5:31:51 PM5/20/13
to
it isn't?
I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
usually tell their work apart?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 20, 2013, 5:34:30 PM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-20 17:31:51 -0400, Robert Carnegie said:
> On Monday, 20 May 2013 18:33:19 UTC+1, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On 2013-05-20 13:31:17 -0400, David Dyer-Bennet said:
>>> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in
>>> music were telling. Did they think "That sounds like
>>> Bach, but I know all his pieces for x and this isn't
>>> one of them"?
>>
>> I really doubt all of them could say that; Bach wrote
>> a LOT of music.
>
> But is all of it different? Or, is it the point that
> it isn't?
I don't understand the question.
> On Monday, 20 May 2013 18:33:19 UTC+1, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On 2013-05-20 13:31:17 -0400, David Dyer-Bennet said:
>>> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in
>>> music were telling. Did they think "That sounds like
>>> Bach, but I know all his pieces for x and this isn't
>>> one of them"?
>>
>> I really doubt all of them could say that; Bach wrote
>> a LOT of music.
>
> But is all of it different? Or, is it the point that
> it isn't?
> I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
> usually tell their work apart?
romantic than his father's, for example. One of his brothers (I forget
which, but I think it's Johann something) sounds like a cheap imitation
of their father. They're quite varied.
Wayne Throop
May 20, 2013, 6:27:18 PM5/20/13
to
:: I know there were several musical Bachs; can people usually tell
:: their work apart?
: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
: Yes. Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach's music is much lighter and more
:: their work apart?
: Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
: Yes. Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach's music is much lighter and more
: romantic than his father's, for example. One of his brothers (I
: forget which, but I think it's Johann something) sounds like a cheap
: imitation of their father. They're quite varied.
And as I understand it, PDQ Bach's works are particularly distinctive.
: forget which, but I think it's Johann something) sounds like a cheap
: imitation of their father. They're quite varied.
Carl Dershem
May 20, 2013, 9:30:12 PM5/20/13
to
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) typed in news:13690...@sheol.org:
Rather say particularly undistinctive. PDQ's main field was plagiarism.
That said, he did/does so in a way that lets you know what he is doing. I
don't know of any other coposer who layers things together in quite the way
he does.
cd
That said, he did/does so in a way that lets you know what he is doing. I
don't know of any other coposer who layers things together in quite the way
he does.
cd
Robert Carnegie
May 20, 2013, 9:35:04 PM5/20/13
to
On Monday, 20 May 2013 22:34:30 UTC+1, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On 2013-05-20 17:31:51 -0400, Robert Carnegie said:
>
> > On Monday, 20 May 2013 18:33:19 UTC+1, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
> >> On 2013-05-20 13:31:17 -0400, David Dyer-Bennet said:
>
> >>> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in
> >>> music were telling. Did they think "That sounds like
> >>> Bach, but I know all his pieces for x and this isn't
> >>> one of them"?
> >>
> >> I really doubt all of them could say that; Bach wrote
> >> a LOT of music.
Quite a mass - although,
> On 2013-05-20 17:31:51 -0400, Robert Carnegie said:
>
> > On Monday, 20 May 2013 18:33:19 UTC+1, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
> >> On 2013-05-20 13:31:17 -0400, David Dyer-Bennet said:
>
> >>> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in
> >>> music were telling. Did they think "That sounds like
> >>> Bach, but I know all his pieces for x and this isn't
> >>> one of them"?
> >>
> >> I really doubt all of them could say that; Bach wrote
> >> a LOT of music.
> > But is all of it different? Or, is it the point that
> > it isn't?
>
> I don't understand the question.
"written towards the end of his life, most of the
music was recycled from earlier works which Bach
felt represented his art at its very best."
I don't say that he /just/ did that, but if it all
sounds the same - if for instance he repeatedly
uses the "have a banana" phrase - then that will be
noticeable when it's missing. But, of course, a
good computer imitation ought to imitate that
as well.
Howard Brazee
May 21, 2013, 3:43:56 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 01:30:12 +0000 (UTC), Carl Dershem
<der...@cox.net> wrote:
>>: Yes. Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach's music is much lighter and more
>>: romantic than his father's, for example. One of his brothers (I
>>: forget which, but I think it's Johann something) sounds like a cheap
>>: imitation of their father. They're quite varied.
>>
>> And as I understand it, PDQ Bach's works are particularly distinctive.
>
>Rather say particularly undistinctive. PDQ's main field was plagiarism.
>
>That said, he did/does so in a way that lets you know what he is doing. I
>don't know of any other coposer who layers things together in quite the way
>he does.
Playing a music box that is slowing down is distinctive. And his way
<der...@cox.net> wrote:
>>: Yes. Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach's music is much lighter and more
>>: romantic than his father's, for example. One of his brothers (I
>>: forget which, but I think it's Johann something) sounds like a cheap
>>: imitation of their father. They're quite varied.
>>
>> And as I understand it, PDQ Bach's works are particularly distinctive.
>
>Rather say particularly undistinctive. PDQ's main field was plagiarism.
>
>That said, he did/does so in a way that lets you know what he is doing. I
>don't know of any other coposer who layers things together in quite the way
>he does.
of getting to the stage where I saw him (in Denver).
--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.
Brian M. Scott
May 21, 2013, 5:33:03 PM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:31:17 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfkip2d...@dd-b.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
[...]
>> (This also recapitulates one of Hofstadter's problems: he
>> is an amateur in so many fields, and speaks so
>> authoritatively in all of them; but having heard how far
>> off he is in music, I strongly doubt his bona fides in
>> any field where I can't personally verify them.)
> I couldn't finish reading GEB, drove me crazy. I remember
> his math being crazy wrong, that being my degree field.
On the contrary, and limiting myself strictly to the
mathematics: he gave one of the best presentations for the
intelligent layman that I've seen anywhere. It most
certainly was not 'crazy wrong'.
Brian
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfkip2d...@dd-b.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
[...]
>> (This also recapitulates one of Hofstadter's problems: he
>> is an amateur in so many fields, and speaks so
>> authoritatively in all of them; but having heard how far
>> off he is in music, I strongly doubt his bona fides in
>> any field where I can't personally verify them.)
> I couldn't finish reading GEB, drove me crazy. I remember
> his math being crazy wrong, that being my degree field.
mathematics: he gave one of the best presentations for the
intelligent layman that I've seen anywhere. It most
certainly was not 'crazy wrong'.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
May 21, 2013, 5:39:13 PM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
<news:942403e9-7e97-4fa7...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
> usually tell their work apart?
Easily.
Brian
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
<news:942403e9-7e97-4fa7...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
> usually tell their work apart?
Brian
Chris Buckley
May 21, 2013, 5:53:23 PM5/21/13
to
came out. I was a PhD student in Cornell Computer Science (possibly
the top mathematical CS dept in the country at that time) with a minor in
graduate level mathematical logic. Sometimes his language was not
quite mathematically rigorous, but it was fantastic for its target audience.
Chris
Walter Bushell
May 21, 2013, 6:24:51 PM5/21/13
to
In article <avckqo...@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> The blurb from a seventies Analog article might be interesting to that
> author. To head up an article about "Parry", a program that simulated
> extreme paranoia, Analog used the title "Turing Point" (which the eye
> naturally reads as "Turning Point", with the blurb "We have created
> the first intelligent computer -- and it's insane."
> --
Oh no. Psychotic patients and non directive therapists are easy to
simulate and were done very early.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> The blurb from a seventies Analog article might be interesting to that
> author. To head up an article about "Parry", a program that simulated
> extreme paranoia, Analog used the title "Turing Point" (which the eye
> naturally reads as "Turning Point", with the blurb "We have created
> the first intelligent computer -- and it's insane."
> --
Oh no. Psychotic patients and non directive therapists are easy to
simulate and were done very early.
--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx
Walter Bushell
May 21, 2013, 6:31:16 PM5/21/13
to
In article <ylfkip2d...@dd-b.net>,
with a small subset.
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in music were telling.
> Did they think "That sounds like Bach, but I know all his pieces for x
> and this isn't one of them"?
Nobody knows *all* of Bach. Even most music students will be familiar
> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in music were telling.
> Did they think "That sounds like Bach, but I know all his pieces for x
> and this isn't one of them"?
with a small subset.
Walter Bushell
May 21, 2013, 6:38:49 PM5/21/13
to
In article <XnsA1C6BCE71DB...@78.46.70.116>,
PDQ was not a composer, he was a decomposer. Still, "The Abduction of
Figaro" has it's points.
I am a swineherd yessiree.
Soowie!
That's Papa Ganiner of the couple Mama and Papa Gainer.
Figaro" has it's points.
I am a swineherd yessiree.
Soowie!
That's Papa Ganiner of the couple Mama and Papa Gainer.
Jim G.
May 21, 2013, 7:01:50 PM5/21/13
to
Brian M. Scott sent the following on 5/21/2013 4:39 PM:
Especially if you listen to them Bach to Bach.
Oh, come on. *Someone* was gonna say it.
--
Jim G. | A fan of good reading, good writing, and fellow bookworms
http://www.goodreads.com/jimgysin/
http://www.librarything.com/home/jimgysin
Oh, come on. *Someone* was gonna say it.
--
Jim G. | A fan of good reading, good writing, and fellow bookworms
http://www.goodreads.com/jimgysin/
http://www.librarything.com/home/jimgysin
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
May 21, 2013, 7:06:16 PM5/21/13
to
In article <kngu8g$i37$1...@dont-email.me>,
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Brian M. Scott sent the following on 5/21/2013 4:39 PM:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> <news:942403e9-7e97-4fa7...@googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
>>> usually tell their work apart?
>>
>> Easily.
>
>Especially if you listen to them Bach to Bach.
>
>Oh, come on. *Someone* was gonna say it.
>
And did, pdq.
>Brian M. Scott sent the following on 5/21/2013 4:39 PM:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> <news:942403e9-7e97-4fa7...@googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
>>> usually tell their work apart?
>>
>> Easily.
>
>Especially if you listen to them Bach to Bach.
>
>Oh, come on. *Someone* was gonna say it.
>
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Brian M. Scott
May 21, 2013, 7:41:47 PM5/21/13
to
On 21 May 2013 21:53:23 GMT, Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com>
wrote in <news:slrnkpnr6...@pc5.sabir.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 2013-05-21, Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:31:17 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
>><dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfkip2d...@dd-b.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> (This also recapitulates one of Hofstadter's problems: he
>>>> is an amateur in so many fields, and speaks so
>>>> authoritatively in all of them; but having heard how far
>>>> off he is in music, I strongly doubt his bona fides in
>>>> any field where I can't personally verify them.)
>>> I couldn't finish reading GEB, drove me crazy. I remember
>>> his math being crazy wrong, that being my degree field.
>> On the contrary, and limiting myself strictly to the
>> mathematics: he gave one of the best presentations for the
>> intelligent layman that I've seen anywhere. It most
>> certainly was not 'crazy wrong'.
general and set-theoretic topology at Madison four years
before it came out, with a graduate minor in mathematical
logic.
Brian
wrote in <news:slrnkpnr6...@pc5.sabir.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 2013-05-21, Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:31:17 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
>><dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfkip2d...@dd-b.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> (This also recapitulates one of Hofstadter's problems: he
>>>> is an amateur in so many fields, and speaks so
>>>> authoritatively in all of them; but having heard how far
>>>> off he is in music, I strongly doubt his bona fides in
>>>> any field where I can't personally verify them.)
>>> I couldn't finish reading GEB, drove me crazy. I remember
>>> his math being crazy wrong, that being my degree field.
>> On the contrary, and limiting myself strictly to the
>> mathematics: he gave one of the best presentations for the
>> intelligent layman that I've seen anywhere. It most
>> certainly was not 'crazy wrong'.
> I would agree. It was certainly much admired in my
> circles when it came out. I was a PhD student in Cornell
> Computer Science (possibly the top mathematical CS dept
> in the country at that time) with a minor in graduate
> level mathematical logic. Sometimes his language was not
> quite mathematically rigorous, but it was fantastic for
> its target audience.
My situation was roughly comparable: I'd completed my PhD in
> circles when it came out. I was a PhD student in Cornell
> Computer Science (possibly the top mathematical CS dept
> in the country at that time) with a minor in graduate
> level mathematical logic. Sometimes his language was not
> quite mathematically rigorous, but it was fantastic for
> its target audience.
general and set-theoretic topology at Madison four years
before it came out, with a graduate minor in mathematical
logic.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
May 21, 2013, 8:14:39 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:31:16 -0400, Walter Bushell
<pr...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:proto-136952....@news.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <ylfkip2d...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in music
>> were telling. Did they think "That sounds like Bach, but
>> I know all his pieces for x and this isn't one of them"?
> Nobody knows *all* of Bach.
Only because we don't actually *have* all of Bach.
> Even most music students will be familiar with a small
> subset.
Some of us non-music-students are familiar with a pretty
large subset. In my case, for instance, four orchestral
suites, a dozen harpsichord concerti, the six Brandenburgs,
three violin concerti, at least two works for solo lute, at
least two of the cello suites, the Goldberg Variations, the
Italian Concerto, the six Little Preludes, both books of the
Well-Tempered Clavier, the six keyboard partitas, the French
suites and the English suites, the two- and three-part
inventions, a bunch of organ works -- BWV 552 is an especial
favorite: the prelude is always good for gooseflesh -- the
Mass in B Minor, a bunch of cantatas, and I've probably
forgotten some that I'd recognize. (I don't mean that I
could necessarily identify each of these pieces, but I'd
recognize them as familiar works by Bach.)
Brian
<pr...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:proto-136952....@news.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> In article <ylfkip2d...@dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in music
>> were telling. Did they think "That sounds like Bach, but
>> I know all his pieces for x and this isn't one of them"?
> Nobody knows *all* of Bach.
> Even most music students will be familiar with a small
> subset.
large subset. In my case, for instance, four orchestral
suites, a dozen harpsichord concerti, the six Brandenburgs,
three violin concerti, at least two works for solo lute, at
least two of the cello suites, the Goldberg Variations, the
Italian Concerto, the six Little Preludes, both books of the
Well-Tempered Clavier, the six keyboard partitas, the French
suites and the English suites, the two- and three-part
inventions, a bunch of organ works -- BWV 552 is an especial
favorite: the prelude is always good for gooseflesh -- the
Mass in B Minor, a bunch of cantatas, and I've probably
forgotten some that I'd recognize. (I don't mean that I
could necessarily identify each of these pieces, but I'd
recognize them as familiar works by Bach.)
Brian
Walter Bushell
May 21, 2013, 8:25:24 PM5/21/13
to
> Brian M. Scott sent the following on 5/21/2013 4:39 PM:
> > On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> > <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> > <news:942403e9-7e97-4fa7...@googlegroups.com>
> > in rec.arts.sf.written:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
> >> usually tell their work apart?
> >
> > Easily.
>
> Especially if you listen to them Bach to Bach.
>
> Oh, come on. *Someone* was gonna say it.
Just don't try to give Burt Bach a Roc.
> > On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> > <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> > <news:942403e9-7e97-4fa7...@googlegroups.com>
> > in rec.arts.sf.written:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
> >> usually tell their work apart?
> >
> > Easily.
>
> Especially if you listen to them Bach to Bach.
>
> Oh, come on. *Someone* was gonna say it.
Robert Bannister
May 21, 2013, 9:31:26 PM5/21/13
to
On 22/05/13 6:24 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <avckqo...@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> The blurb from a seventies Analog article might be interesting to that
>> author. To head up an article about "Parry", a program that simulated
>> extreme paranoia, Analog used the title "Turing Point" (which the eye
>> naturally reads as "Turning Point", with the blurb "We have created
>> the first intelligent computer -- and it's insane."
>> --
>
> Oh no. Psychotic patients and non directive therapists are easy to
> simulate and were done very early.
>
Did you say "stimulate"?
> In article <avckqo...@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> The blurb from a seventies Analog article might be interesting to that
>> author. To head up an article about "Parry", a program that simulated
>> extreme paranoia, Analog used the title "Turing Point" (which the eye
>> naturally reads as "Turning Point", with the blurb "We have created
>> the first intelligent computer -- and it's insane."
>> --
>
> Oh no. Psychotic patients and non directive therapists are easy to
> simulate and were done very early.
>
--
Robert Bannister
Greg Goss
May 21, 2013, 9:50:32 PM5/21/13
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <avckqo...@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> The blurb from a seventies Analog article might be interesting to that
>> author. To head up an article about "Parry", a program that simulated
>> extreme paranoia, Analog used the title "Turing Point" (which the eye
>> naturally reads as "Turning Point", with the blurb "We have created
>> the first intelligent computer -- and it's insane."
>> --
>
>Oh no. Psychotic patients and non directive therapists are easy to
>simulate and were done very early.
Are you saying that "seventies" ISN'T early for computer intelligence
>In article <avckqo...@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> The blurb from a seventies Analog article might be interesting to that
>> author. To head up an article about "Parry", a program that simulated
>> extreme paranoia, Analog used the title "Turing Point" (which the eye
>> naturally reads as "Turning Point", with the blurb "We have created
>> the first intelligent computer -- and it's insane."
>> --
>
>Oh no. Psychotic patients and non directive therapists are easy to
>simulate and were done very early.
testing?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 22, 2013, 2:16:40 AM5/22/13
to
is mostly 30 years in the past so my reaction *now* doesn't mean the
same thing.
But no, at the time, it was clearly wrong.
Brian M. Scott
May 22, 2013, 3:45:07 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 01:16:40 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfk1u8z...@dd-b.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:31:17 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
>> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfkip2d...@dd-b.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> (This also recapitulates one of Hofstadter's problems: he
>>>> is an amateur in so many fields, and speaks so
>>>> authoritatively in all of them; but having heard how far
>>>> off he is in music, I strongly doubt his bona fides in
>>>> any field where I can't personally verify them.)
>>> I couldn't finish reading GEB, drove me crazy. I remember
>>> his math being crazy wrong, that being my degree field.
>> On the contrary, and limiting myself strictly to the
>> mathematics: he gave one of the best presentations for the
>> intelligent layman that I've seen anywhere. It most
>> certainly was not 'crazy wrong'.
> Well, I'm not going to re-read it to see what I think now,
> plus my math is mostly 30 years in the past so my
> reaction *now* doesn't mean the same thing.
> But no, at the time, it was clearly wrong.
Which simply means that you didn't know enough to judge it
correctly.
Brian
<dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfk1u8z...@dd-b.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:31:17 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
>> <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in <news:ylfkip2d...@dd-b.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>> Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> (This also recapitulates one of Hofstadter's problems: he
>>>> is an amateur in so many fields, and speaks so
>>>> authoritatively in all of them; but having heard how far
>>>> off he is in music, I strongly doubt his bona fides in
>>>> any field where I can't personally verify them.)
>>> I couldn't finish reading GEB, drove me crazy. I remember
>>> his math being crazy wrong, that being my degree field.
>> On the contrary, and limiting myself strictly to the
>> mathematics: he gave one of the best presentations for the
>> intelligent layman that I've seen anywhere. It most
>> certainly was not 'crazy wrong'.
> Well, I'm not going to re-read it to see what I think now,
> plus my math is mostly 30 years in the past so my
> reaction *now* doesn't mean the same thing.
> But no, at the time, it was clearly wrong.
correctly.
Brian
Walter Bushell
May 22, 2013, 8:04:16 AM5/22/13
to
In article <eazrfssch3zr$.9qrrac7rbhjn$.d...@40tude.net>,
Sounds like a small subset; E Power Biggs had collections of Bach
organ favorites, he was up to volume 5 of favs the last time I looked.
organ favorites, he was up to volume 5 of favs the last time I looked.
Charlton Wilbur
May 22, 2013, 11:44:10 AM5/22/13
to
>>>>> "DDB" == David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
DDB> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in music were
DDB> telling. Did they think "That sounds like Bach, but I know all
DDB> his pieces for x and this isn't one of them"?
In my case, it was a mixture. Some of the pieces were obviously Bach
because I recognized them. But one of the things that makes Bach
distinctive is that instead of using a dozen different musical figures,
all unrelated, in a particular piece, he'll use a dozen different
figures that are variations on two or three figures. If there are two
distinct figures in a phrase, the next phrase will have variations on
those two figures. There's also a richness to his harmonic language
that results from treating harmony as an emergent property of
counterpoint; 19th century chord-based theory and analysis treat
counterpoint as a decorative elaboration of harmony, which leads to a
different sort of richness.
The syntax was all Bach: there was nothing formally objectively wrong
with EMI's pseudo-Bach. But the semantics were meaningless.
>> Likewise with the Turing test: if you can't tell whether the
>> person on the other side is a computer or a person, should it be
>> scored as a success for the entity on the other side, or should
>> it be scored as a failure for you?
DDB> And that test is a quick thought experiment to attempt to
DDB> define sapience; it's not a well-developed mechanism for
DDB> actually making fine distinctions.
I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that: it is a quick
thought-experiment, but it's much more productive to treat it as a
source for questions than as a source for answers.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
DDB> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in music were
DDB> telling. Did they think "That sounds like Bach, but I know all
DDB> his pieces for x and this isn't one of them"?
In my case, it was a mixture. Some of the pieces were obviously Bach
because I recognized them. But one of the things that makes Bach
distinctive is that instead of using a dozen different musical figures,
all unrelated, in a particular piece, he'll use a dozen different
figures that are variations on two or three figures. If there are two
distinct figures in a phrase, the next phrase will have variations on
those two figures. There's also a richness to his harmonic language
that results from treating harmony as an emergent property of
counterpoint; 19th century chord-based theory and analysis treat
counterpoint as a decorative elaboration of harmony, which leads to a
different sort of richness.
The syntax was all Bach: there was nothing formally objectively wrong
with EMI's pseudo-Bach. But the semantics were meaningless.
>> Likewise with the Turing test: if you can't tell whether the
>> person on the other side is a computer or a person, should it be
>> scored as a success for the entity on the other side, or should
>> it be scored as a failure for you?
DDB> define sapience; it's not a well-developed mechanism for
DDB> actually making fine distinctions.
I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that: it is a quick
thought-experiment, but it's much more productive to treat it as a
source for questions than as a source for answers.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Charlton Wilbur
May 22, 2013, 11:48:54 AM5/22/13
to
>>>>> "CD" == Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net> writes:
CD> That said, he did/does so in a way that lets you know what he is
CD> doing. I don't know of any other coposer who layers things
CD> together in quite the way he does.
Look to the concerts organized by Gerard Hoffnung. Although you have to
have a much deeper knowledge of music to get a lot of the jokes - the
piano concerto he commissioned is absolutely hysterical because it turns
into a battle between the soloist playing the Grieg piano concerto (in
A, IIRC) and the orcheatra playing the Tchaikovsky piano concerto (in
B-flat). It's a masterful work both because of its references -- it's
funny because of the "conflict" between the pianist and the orchestra --
but it's also a brilliantly worked out complex bitonal structure.
CD> That said, he did/does so in a way that lets you know what he is
CD> doing. I don't know of any other coposer who layers things
CD> together in quite the way he does.
Look to the concerts organized by Gerard Hoffnung. Although you have to
have a much deeper knowledge of music to get a lot of the jokes - the
piano concerto he commissioned is absolutely hysterical because it turns
into a battle between the soloist playing the Grieg piano concerto (in
A, IIRC) and the orcheatra playing the Tchaikovsky piano concerto (in
B-flat). It's a masterful work both because of its references -- it's
funny because of the "conflict" between the pianist and the orchestra --
but it's also a brilliantly worked out complex bitonal structure.
Jim G.
May 22, 2013, 1:24:07 PM5/22/13
to
Ted Nolan <tednolan> sent the following on 5/21/2013 6:06 PM:
only after others have had hours or days to beat me to the punch. :)
> In article <kngu8g$i37$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Brian M. Scott sent the following on 5/21/2013 4:39 PM:
>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>>> <news:942403e9-7e97-4fa7...@googlegroups.com>
>>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
>>>> usually tell their work apart?
>>>
>>> Easily.
>>
>> Especially if you listen to them Bach to Bach.
>>
>> Oh, come on. *Someone* was gonna say it.
>>
>
> And did, pdq.
Just good timing for once. Usually I'll see such a golden opportunity
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Brian M. Scott sent the following on 5/21/2013 4:39 PM:
>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>>> <news:942403e9-7e97-4fa7...@googlegroups.com>
>>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I know there were several musical Bachs; can people
>>>> usually tell their work apart?
>>>
>>> Easily.
>>
>> Especially if you listen to them Bach to Bach.
>>
>> Oh, come on. *Someone* was gonna say it.
>>
>
> And did, pdq.
only after others have had hours or days to beat me to the punch. :)
Brian M. Scott
May 22, 2013, 1:42:57 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:04:16 -0400, Walter Bushell
<pr...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:proto-B89075....@news.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Sounds like a small subset; [...]
It isn't. For starters it comes to well over half of the
instrumental works.
<pr...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:proto-B89075....@news.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
It isn't. For starters it comes to well over half of the
instrumental works.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 22, 2013, 1:44:12 PM5/22/13
to
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
>>>>>> "DDB" == David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
> DDB> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in music were
> DDB> telling. Did they think "That sounds like Bach, but I know all
> DDB> his pieces for x and this isn't one of them"?
>
> In my case, it was a mixture. Some of the pieces were obviously Bach
> because I recognized them. But one of the things that makes Bach
> distinctive is that instead of using a dozen different musical figures,
> all unrelated, in a particular piece, he'll use a dozen different
> figures that are variations on two or three figures. If there are two
> distinct figures in a phrase, the next phrase will have variations on
> those two figures. There's also a richness to his harmonic language
> that results from treating harmony as an emergent property of
> counterpoint; 19th century chord-based theory and analysis treat
> counterpoint as a decorative elaboration of harmony, which leads to a
> different sort of richness.
>
> The syntax was all Bach: there was nothing formally objectively wrong
> with EMI's pseudo-Bach. But the semantics were meaningless.
Cool, thanks for explaining.
>>>>>> "DDB" == David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>
> DDB> I'd want to know *how* the students and faculty in music were
> DDB> telling. Did they think "That sounds like Bach, but I know all
> DDB> his pieces for x and this isn't one of them"?
>
> In my case, it was a mixture. Some of the pieces were obviously Bach
> because I recognized them. But one of the things that makes Bach
> distinctive is that instead of using a dozen different musical figures,
> all unrelated, in a particular piece, he'll use a dozen different
> figures that are variations on two or three figures. If there are two
> distinct figures in a phrase, the next phrase will have variations on
> those two figures. There's also a richness to his harmonic language
> that results from treating harmony as an emergent property of
> counterpoint; 19th century chord-based theory and analysis treat
> counterpoint as a decorative elaboration of harmony, which leads to a
> different sort of richness.
>
> The syntax was all Bach: there was nothing formally objectively wrong
> with EMI's pseudo-Bach. But the semantics were meaningless.
> >> Likewise with the Turing test: if you can't tell whether the
> >> person on the other side is a computer or a person, should it be
> >> scored as a success for the entity on the other side, or should
> >> it be scored as a failure for you?
>
> DDB> And that test is a quick thought experiment to attempt to
> DDB> define sapience; it's not a well-developed mechanism for
> DDB> actually making fine distinctions.
>
> I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that: it is a quick
> thought-experiment, but it's much more productive to treat it as a
> source for questions than as a source for answers.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 22, 2013, 1:45:22 PM5/22/13
to
exposure). Which makes sense; he's working so far over my head I'm not
really going to get it. PDQ Bach I'm sure I miss a lot, but I get a lot
and it's fun. Going too much past that is for people with more
knowledge than me.
Brian M. Scott
May 22, 2013, 3:24:27 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:48:54 -0400, Charlton Wilbur
<cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote in
<news:87r4gzo...@new.chromatico.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>>>> "CD" == Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net> writes:
> CD> That said, he did/does so in a way that lets you know what he is
> CD> doing. I don't know of any other coposer who layers things
> CD> together in quite the way he does.
> Look to the concerts organized by Gerard Hoffnung.
> Although you have to have a much deeper knowledge of
> music to get a lot of the jokes - the piano concerto he
> commissioned is absolutely hysterical because it turns
> into a battle between the soloist playing the Grieg piano
> concerto (in A, IIRC) and the orcheatra playing the
> Tchaikovsky piano concerto (in B-flat).
It's been way too long since I last heard the Concerto
Popolare, but if I remember correctly, a few other
recognizable works get dragged in as well, including some
Gershwin. And yes, it's absolutely hysterical even with
just a listener's knowledge of classical music. (Though I
confess to a certain weakness for the more obvious humor of
'Sugar Plums' as well.)
Aha: for those who've not had the pleasure, it's on YouTube
at
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVC1AkIJh68>.
And 'Sugar Plums' is at
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9XadihIPYg>.
And the cartoon 'The Hoffnung Symphony Orchestra' is at
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFR34sxjAec>.
And for something completely different that just happened to
show up at the side of one of those, the last and longest
segment of
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP0XgTI2VE>
is an abbreviated version of Bach's Toccata & Fugue in D
Minor -- played by two very athletic dancers on the floor
keyboard at FAO Schwarz in New York; it starts at about
1:35.
[...]
Brian
<cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote in
<news:87r4gzo...@new.chromatico.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>>>> "CD" == Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net> writes:
> CD> That said, he did/does so in a way that lets you know what he is
> CD> doing. I don't know of any other coposer who layers things
> CD> together in quite the way he does.
> Look to the concerts organized by Gerard Hoffnung.
> Although you have to have a much deeper knowledge of
> music to get a lot of the jokes - the piano concerto he
> commissioned is absolutely hysterical because it turns
> into a battle between the soloist playing the Grieg piano
> concerto (in A, IIRC) and the orcheatra playing the
> Tchaikovsky piano concerto (in B-flat).
Popolare, but if I remember correctly, a few other
recognizable works get dragged in as well, including some
Gershwin. And yes, it's absolutely hysterical even with
just a listener's knowledge of classical music. (Though I
confess to a certain weakness for the more obvious humor of
'Sugar Plums' as well.)
Aha: for those who've not had the pleasure, it's on YouTube
at
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVC1AkIJh68>.
And 'Sugar Plums' is at
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9XadihIPYg>.
And the cartoon 'The Hoffnung Symphony Orchestra' is at
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFR34sxjAec>.
And for something completely different that just happened to
show up at the side of one of those, the last and longest
segment of
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psP0XgTI2VE>
is an abbreviated version of Bach's Toccata & Fugue in D
Minor -- played by two very athletic dancers on the floor
keyboard at FAO Schwarz in New York; it starts at about
1:35.
[...]
Brian
Greg Goss
May 22, 2013, 7:48:13 PM5/22/13
to
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On 2013-05-19 18:38:11 -0400, Charlton Wilbur said:
>
>> >>>>> "RC" == Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>
>> RC> Then again, we're teased - told by unreliable characters in the
>> RC> story - that some human beings would fail the V-K. On the other
>> RC> hand, androids are said to be getting better at feeling, or
>> RC> showing, emotions. The Turing test says: if you can't detect a
>> RC> difference, can you continue to claim that there is a
>> RC> difference?
>>
>> I think it's much more subtle than that, though.
>>
>> Some years back Douglas Hofstadter gave a lecture at UMass on David
>> Cope's computer program EMI - Exeriments in Musical Intelligence. EMI
>> analyzes the corpus of music by a composer, and then writes music in the
>> style of that composer. Dr. Hofstadter played selections of music, and
>> challenged the audience to say which one was Bach and which one was EMI
>> writing in the style of Bach, then which one was Chopin and which one
>> was EMI writing in the style of Chopin.
>>
>> This lecture was attended both by students and faculty in computer
>> science and related disciplines, and by students and faculty in music.
>> Nearly all the students and faculty in music could tell the difference
>> between the real composer and EMI in a matter of moments. The results
>> among other students and faculty were indistinguishable from guessing.
>>
>> Dr. Hofstadter then argued that, *because* more than half of the
>> audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach and fake Bach,
>> *therefore* EMI represented an understanding of Bach's style. What I'd
>> say, instead, is that EMI holds up a mirror to one's own understanding:
>> *because* half of the audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach
>> and fake Bach, *therefore* we can conclude that the intricacies and
>> nuances of Bach are unfamiliar to many people, leaving them only with a
>> superficiaal understanding of his musical style.
>
>I'm a bit boggled that Hofstadter would miss that so badly.
>
>When I took my first art history course, one element of the final exam
>was looking at a bunch of Cubist paintings and identifying which were
>by Pablo Picasso and which were by Georges Braques -- Picasso and
>Braques had collaborated in inventing Cubism and were deliberately
>imitating each other's style in the early days, TRYING to make their
>work indistinguishable.
>
>To anyone with an eye for art, though, it was still screamingly obvious
>who painted which -- the good ones were by Picasso, and the bad ones
>were by Braques. I was amazed to discover that some of my classmates
>got as many as half of them wrong. (I, and several others, got all
>twelve right.)
>
>That was after a semester of training in art appreciation.
>
>So -- expecting untrained amateurs to tell real Bach from fake? Ha. Silly.
I'm wondering how much of this is actual recognition. Does either
experiment have any controls to exclude the case where the trained
observer will actually have encountered that Picasso or Bach work
before? I would expect that case to be high enough to cause notable
effects on the results.
>On 2013-05-19 18:38:11 -0400, Charlton Wilbur said:
>
>> >>>>> "RC" == Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>
>> RC> Then again, we're teased - told by unreliable characters in the
>> RC> story - that some human beings would fail the V-K. On the other
>> RC> hand, androids are said to be getting better at feeling, or
>> RC> showing, emotions. The Turing test says: if you can't detect a
>> RC> difference, can you continue to claim that there is a
>> RC> difference?
>>
>> I think it's much more subtle than that, though.
>>
>> Some years back Douglas Hofstadter gave a lecture at UMass on David
>> Cope's computer program EMI - Exeriments in Musical Intelligence. EMI
>> analyzes the corpus of music by a composer, and then writes music in the
>> style of that composer. Dr. Hofstadter played selections of music, and
>> challenged the audience to say which one was Bach and which one was EMI
>> writing in the style of Bach, then which one was Chopin and which one
>> was EMI writing in the style of Chopin.
>>
>> This lecture was attended both by students and faculty in computer
>> science and related disciplines, and by students and faculty in music.
>> Nearly all the students and faculty in music could tell the difference
>> between the real composer and EMI in a matter of moments. The results
>> among other students and faculty were indistinguishable from guessing.
>>
>> Dr. Hofstadter then argued that, *because* more than half of the
>> audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach and fake Bach,
>> *therefore* EMI represented an understanding of Bach's style. What I'd
>> say, instead, is that EMI holds up a mirror to one's own understanding:
>> *because* half of the audience couldn't distinguish between real Bach
>> and fake Bach, *therefore* we can conclude that the intricacies and
>> nuances of Bach are unfamiliar to many people, leaving them only with a
>> superficiaal understanding of his musical style.
>
>I'm a bit boggled that Hofstadter would miss that so badly.
>
>When I took my first art history course, one element of the final exam
>was looking at a bunch of Cubist paintings and identifying which were
>by Pablo Picasso and which were by Georges Braques -- Picasso and
>Braques had collaborated in inventing Cubism and were deliberately
>imitating each other's style in the early days, TRYING to make their
>work indistinguishable.
>
>To anyone with an eye for art, though, it was still screamingly obvious
>who painted which -- the good ones were by Picasso, and the bad ones
>were by Braques. I was amazed to discover that some of my classmates
>got as many as half of them wrong. (I, and several others, got all
>twelve right.)
>
>That was after a semester of training in art appreciation.
>
>So -- expecting untrained amateurs to tell real Bach from fake? Ha. Silly.
I'm wondering how much of this is actual recognition. Does either
experiment have any controls to exclude the case where the trained
observer will actually have encountered that Picasso or Bach work
before? I would expect that case to be high enough to cause notable
effects on the results.
Carl Dershem
May 22, 2013, 9:44:28 PM5/22/13
to
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> typed in
news:87r4gzo...@new.chromatico.net:
Thanks! There are so many I never ran across, and so little time!
cd
news:87r4gzo...@new.chromatico.net:
cd
David Goldfarb
May 22, 2013, 11:52:39 PM5/22/13
to
In article <1q0d60p4poodo.1ri860nxjh28n$.d...@40tude.net>,
in Blue", and even "Roll Out The Barrel".
Although, I wish I'd had some way to watch the video without
reading the notes on YouTube...I'd say that the concept of
"spoilers" definitely applies.
--
David Goldfarb |"My society worries about people getting their
goldf...@gmail.com | hands on illegal drugs but they'll sell any
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | idiot a bag of concrete."
| -- Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>It's been way too long since I last heard the Concerto
>Popolare, but if I remember correctly, a few other
>recognizable works get dragged in as well, including some
>Gershwin. And yes, it's absolutely hysterical even with
>just a listener's knowledge of classical music.
Yes, both the soloist and the orchestra play bits of "Rhapsody
>Popolare, but if I remember correctly, a few other
>recognizable works get dragged in as well, including some
>Gershwin. And yes, it's absolutely hysterical even with
>just a listener's knowledge of classical music.
in Blue", and even "Roll Out The Barrel".
Although, I wish I'd had some way to watch the video without
reading the notes on YouTube...I'd say that the concept of
"spoilers" definitely applies.
--
David Goldfarb |"My society worries about people getting their
goldf...@gmail.com | hands on illegal drugs but they'll sell any
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | idiot a bag of concrete."
| -- Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Lawrence Watt-Evans
May 23, 2013, 12:17:16 AM5/23/13
to
not in any of the course materials, and I can certainly attest that _I_
hadn't seen any of them before.
--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1466291532/
0 new messages