how would Beethoven compose today?

[Preston]

The Hammerklavier could not have been written today so it is a contradictory question to ask what it would have sounded like! Beethoven born today even if he were still a composer would not be writing music that sounds anything like the Beethoven we know. Your initial question is a hypothetical impossibility with no answer and speculation is fruitless I'm afraid.

Why could it have not been written today, if Beethoven was immediately transported into the future before he was about to write it?

[Chris]

I am not saying that only the master takes one to the divine. I see what you are saying about mastery, but when I look at complete mastery of music it could only be achieved through spirituality, otherwise it would not be mastered, to me. If there was someone who understood music to a complete point of mastery but was not spiritual, at first I would find it impossible, then I would believe that this person is surely not touched with the divine. Beethoven did pray and quite often, according to what I have read, particularly in front of Karl, I think. He would kneel down- stone deaf, with his ears ringing uncontrollably, and filled with music- and pray, because he still believed- which is hard for a lot of people, especially who have seen the complete bitterness of life, yet most of them, mad or not, continue to believe. I find this utterly sad and touching. Either way, I do not wish to talk about spirituality or religion really anymore, seriously. It is a complex and touchy subject for me.

Well, beauty is certainly a philosophical subject. But music is also a kind of science. A composer must master his tools - pitch, rhythm, timbre, etc. to accel, though his end is beauty. But perhaps not only beauty but function as well. Perhaps composers are closer to architects than painters.

I do not understand. You talk as if creating an accurate and entire perfectly evolving world or universe through programming and CGI, is almost simple?

Perhaps not easy, but simple maybe. How many fundamental laws are there that govern the universe? Not too many, really. We don't fully understand them yet, but that's the goal - to discover the "theory of everything" that explains things in one perfect equation.

I imagine it to be almost impossible, . Do you not think that in the say, Star Wars galaxy, that the programming they had would blow our minds? I do. We cannot even create completely accurate AI, such as C-3PO or R2, yet. This is what I meant by limited.

Ah, now AI is another subject altogether. Trying to simulate a living being is something other than creating a physical world, which is just geometry. Personally, I don't think we will ever develop true AI.

[Preston]

Personally, I don't think we will ever develop true AI.

I do not understand what you mean by true AI? Do you mean AI at its most complete and perfect stage? If so, it is probably best that we do not create it, I feel that this could end in our demise.

[Chris]

I do not understand what you mean by true AI? Do you mean AI at its most complete and perfect stage? If so, it is probably best that we do not create it, I feel that this could end in our demise.

I mean a virtual person, essentially. I don't think it is possible.

[Preston]

I mean a virtual person, essentially. I don't think it is possible.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but AI is artificial intelligence, not a living soul, with consciousness and understandings. If you are saying that it would be impossible to create a living thing through programming, then I completely agree. Although, I do not know all of the mysteries and elements of programming. I absolutely could not see a soul being created through computer technology?

I think that true AI, would be the focus of creating something that would seem like it could think, entirely, but could not even feel what it is "thinking", perhaps I am wrong. The problem with what I call true AI, is that it would have some type of an understanding of perhaps everything, which could lead to a miscalculation, depending on how it was programmed- if it was programmed to think freely, then I feel it could easily turn against humans or other species with true thought, based on its ability to "think", which could be very problematic, if you understand what I mean.

The person that used to post as George Lucas on SS, has stopped posting since March 13, although when he did, people would often ask "what would the Star Wars galaxy be like today", and he would basically say that it would be over run by supreme technology that wiped out every sentient being!!!

[Peter]

Why could it have not been written today, if Beethoven was immediately transported into the future before he was about to write it?

Well of course time travel in the sense you mean is an impossibility at present but surely were such a thing possible, the shock of finding yourself effectively in a new world would change your plans for that day and forever?!! It is so hypothetical this point Preston and I don't really understand what you're getting at. We have Beethoven's music as it is and it doesn't need to be changed or 'improved' with modern technology - as it stands the Hammerklavier is the greatest sonata ever written.

[Chris]

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but AI is artificial intelligence, not a living soul, with consciousness and understandings. If you are saying that it would be impossible to create a living thing through programming, then I completely agree. Although, I do not know all of the mysteries and elements of programming. I absolutely could not see a soul being created through computer technology?

Yes, that's what I mean.

I think that true AI, would be the focus of creating something that would seem like it could think, entirely, but could not even feel what it is "thinking", perhaps I am wrong. The problem with what I call true AI, is that it would have some type of an understanding of perhaps everything, which could lead to a miscalculation, depending on how it was programmed- if it was programmed to think freely, then I feel it could easily turn against humans or other species with true thought, based on its ability to "think", which could be very problematic, if you understand what I mean.

Well, presumably we'd hardcode an "off" switch into it!

[Chaszz]

Yes, that's what I mean.



Well, presumably we'd hardcode an "off" switch into it!

Much thoughful science fiction has been devoted to the concept of the rebellious, hostile AI. Long before HAL in "2001," there were the Berserkers of Fred Saberhagen, a series of books and stories about a renegade race of self-replicating machines which considered humans evil and hunted them down. Dan Simmons, in his great Endymion quartet of novels, invented The Core, an electronic network that hid in the interstellar communications pathways and sought to enslave mankind. Isaac Asimov was the only major SF author to posit benevolent robots. He invented three laws which would be programmed into every robot to keep it from harming humans, and wrote a vast body of wonderful fiction about humanity's development alongside that of robots, punctuated by conflicts among the three laws.

[Chris]

Much thoughful science fiction has been devoted to the concept of the rebellious, hostile AI. Long before HAL in "2001," there were the Berserkers of Fred Saberhagen, a series of books and stories about a renegade race of self-replicating machines which considered humans evil and hunted them down. Dan Simmons, in his great Endymion quartet of novels, invented The Core, an electronic network that hid in the interstellar communications pathways and sought to enslave mankind. Isaac Asimov was the only major SF author to posit benevolent robots. He invented three laws which would be programmed into every robot to keep it from harming humans, and wrote a vast body of wonderful fiction about humanity's development alongside that of robots, punctuated by conflicts among the three laws.

Yes. I have to admit, I am not at all a fan of Asimov.