tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4193740285942976350.post2081402061316532532..comments2026-04-16T02:54:27.935-07:00Christopher Dobrianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06843383785021795537noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4193740285942976350.post-40442468218526114642022-08-11T05:43:00.059-07:002022-08-11T05:43:00.059-07:00Are there any generative composers who completely eschew randomness? loveslaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14568045215200875029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4193740285942976350.post-39259170566445511972011-01-30T08:42:34.773-08:002011-01-30T08:42:34.773-08:00&quot;How did the composer arrive at that decision? That previous aesthetic decision was presumably made using one of those same three means: systematic (using a system that is itself based on earlier aesthetic decisions), intuitive (using a system that has not yet been fully and consciously formalized), or arbitrary (using some unknown criteria or no criteria). So we see that rule-based decision making can always be traced back to some prior choice, either systematic or arbitrary.&quot;<br /><br />I guess for rule based decision making this could be the case, but I wonder if another form of knowledge might have far more influence on these processes: the pattern matching function of the mind. Watching FMRI video of thought processes in flight, it seems like decisions which are being attributed to either intuitive or arbitrary means could instead be bubbling up from our highly associative memory structures. Processes of perception and free association merge to generate a stream of concepts that compete for our consciousness. If a process like this is at the heart of decision making, then I wonder what the limits are for with a purely rule based system that doesn&#39;t incorporate an associative memory?Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03072242299988314846noreply@blogger.com