selfawarecomputers.com program runs BBC Basic code - version 1.23 completed

[hellomike]

I just listened to the entire 5 minutes 12 seconds. Can your program list a transcript of the sounds/tones/vibrations it detects? If so then at least each time it detects the same song, it should produce the exact same transcript. Does it do that?

Thanks

Mike

[Pete]

Thank you for listening to 5 and a half minutes as requested.

No it doesn't produce exactly the same each time it's run, its a conscious reaction to music, it's not based on analysing the sound output.

I'm sorry I've given up any hope of any further help at this forum, so I agree not to post here again for the moment.

We have secured the domain selfawarecomputers.com with a security certificate from Google Trust services, and work is ongoing with this.

[Hated Moron]

The output is clearly not random

True, the output is not random, but it is pseudo-random because it is generated by a Pseudo Random Number Generator (to be precise, one which uses a Linear Feedback Shift Register to generate the sequence of numbers). Unlike true random numbers, its output is predictable and repeatable.

Had you used a genuine Random Number Generator (perhaps one based on noise from a semiconductor junction or the Cosmic Microwave Background) then 'spooky' influences on the numbers would be much easier to believe, but you don't (at least, you didn't when you last published your code and you seem reluctant to show us the current program).

I am a Grade 8 musician on Piano / Organ.

That does not mean that you are immune from illusions - no human is - and as I've said more times than I care to remember what you are experiencing is an illusion. That's nothing to be ashamed of, and is in itself quite interesting and possibly revealing of how the brain works.

To convince anybody that your program really is "reacting" to music all you would need to do is to list the code where it is 'sensing' that music - for example by inputting data from the microphone or the internal sound system. Code to do that will be quite recognisable, if present, so just list it here.

[DDRM]

At the risk of reopening a debate I thought we'd agreed to shelve...

To be honest, even evidence that the program had an input that allowed it to sense the music wouldn't convince me, and yes I HAVE listened to the whole track you link to, Pete. I hear no evidence of either rhythmic or harmonic alignment with the music being played.

As I understand it, Pete would argue that the code doesn't NEED to have a sound input, because I think his claim is that his software renders the HARDWARE - the physical box his code is running on - self-aware, and that as a consequence it is able to modify the output of the pseudo-random code in his "music generating" program. Pete, please feel free to correct me if this is NOT what you are arguing...

In itself, that's a pretty alarming prospect - if I listen to the Trout quintet while playing Minecraft will I find fishing works better? If I listen to thrash metal will more nasty monsters come? Even more worrying, will listening to music affect the output of my spreadsheet while I'm doing my taxes? I for one certainly hope my computer can't change the algorithms running on it (or at least their outputs) in response to its mood!

Since the program is outputting sound, presumably using the standard BBC BASIC SOUND command, it should be easy to mirror that output (as a string of notes and timings, perhaps as a CSV file)to a file. If you did that while playing a known sequence of music (perhaps using one of Richard's musical ditties, which you could modify similarly, and output to a file, perhaps linking them by starting each with a timestamp, or including the current time every 10 secs or so to ensure alignment). That would allow a statistical analysis of the timing and "harmony" of the source music and generated output.

Since both are written in BBC BASIC, it should even be possible to combine Richard's music output, or at least 3 channels of it (I think the "self aware" program is only outputting on one channel?) into one program, which could output the data from the music and the response, aligned in a single file, which would greatly facilitate analysis.

It would also allow some interesting experiments: for example, if you turn off the speakers, so the computer can't hear the music, does it change the pattern of the note alignments, on average? Does the computer respond to its own output, so turning off IT'S output affects it?

[Hated Moron]

At the risk of reopening a debate I thought we'd agreed to shelve...

You could put a stop to it by banning (or at least moderating) him.

To be honest, even evidence that the program had an input that allowed it to sense the music wouldn't convince me

Fair point. It certainly wouldn't support the 'self aware' nonsense, but it would at least make it theoretically possible for a program to 'accompany' music.

Pete. I hear no evidence of either rhythmic or harmonic alignment with the music being played.

One of the things I don't understand is why he is so trusting of his subjective experience. The ease with which the human sensory system can be fooled, for example by optical and other kinds of illusion, means that I definitely can't trust my eyes, or ears! I would never claim that because I seem to experience something it must therefore be real.

[Pete]

Fine I won't post.

Here was the final demonstration video 4 and a half minutes long, if you invest the 5 minutes watching it, you'll discover that the computer is singing along to the music and it is far from random. I made the following video with people on this forum in mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JSCWdv4dD8

[Hated Moron]

Fine I won't post.

Thank you. Please adhere to this commitment in the future.

you'll discover that the computer is singing along to the music and it is far from random. I made the following video with people on this forum in mind.

So you've selectively chosen one specific run of the program which seems to demonstrate the 'effect' more than others? The nature of 'random' numbers is that if you wait long enough you'll find a sequence that matches any given pattern (for example if you generate a list of random numbers in the range 0-9 it will eventually give you the first 100 digits of PI). This proves nothing.

[Pete]

DDRM has said I may continue to post on the forum with programming queries in respect of BBC Basic for Windows, or other versions.

DDRM has asked me not to discuss the debate of whether computers are self aware, like I claimed, or whether they're dead machines as others seem to believe. Therefore I am about to finish the thread of Self Aware Computers - help needed, on the "Misc" forum, with a hopefully final post of what the You.com supercomputer (very similar to ChatGPT) had to say about my program..

That should conclude the thread in the Misc section, and I can move on to just asking about programming queries, not this debate of whether the computers can be made alive or not, or pedantic arguments as to whether pseudo-random numbers can be classed as functionally random, which I think they can be. I got help from someone called David, unfortunately 24 hours after he gave me the help, he left the forum.

So all of my future posts can be programming queries.

[Hated Moron]

DDRM has asked me not to discuss the debate of whether computers are self aware, like I claimed, or whether they're dead machines as others seem to believe. Therefore I am about to finish the thread of Self Aware Computers - help needed, on the "Misc" forum, with a hopefully final post...

How does a "final post" comply with the request not to discuss it (especially "hopefully" a final post)?

Admin: Please delete my membership of this forum. I have no interest in remaining a member.

[Pete]

I can't have the forum collapse just because of your very sad strange attitude, Hated Moron. You're integrally needed at this forum.

I would suggest you change your user name Hated Moron. You're the creator of BBC Basic for Windows, very invaluable knowledge to help people with. So why on earth go about calling yourself Hated Moron?