Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

SteveKlinko
Posts: 794
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:04 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:50 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:03 pm Holy crap, man, I wasn't saying anything about simulations.

If you can't observe the external world there's zero way for you to know that the external world has jackshit to do with consistency or that it even exists at all.
So exactly How do you Directly Observe the External World? Are you going to say "I just do it" with no Explanation? If so, You realize how Hollow that rings?
Via your senses. That's the whole function of them. Again, there's no way to argue that this is not the case based on observation/study of senses and how they work, because if we argue that it's not the case that senses work via accessing the external world, then we can't argue that we can even observe eyes, ears, optic nerves, etc. in the first place.
Since you believe your Senses do Directly Access the External World then, How does that work? If you were observing a Cube in the External world you should be able to Observe all six sides at the same time if you were truly Observing the Cube as a Cube in the External World. But I'll bet that you cannot Observe all six sides of the Cube simultaneously. If the Cube was a Box you should be able to Observe inside the Box because your Claim is that you Observe Objects as they are. But you cannot do all these things. At best you are only Observing a 2D Representation of the External World just like you would if you were only Observing the Reflected Light. Do you agree that you may not be Observing the Objects themselves but rather you are Observing the Reflected Light?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:14 pm Since you believe your Senses do Directly Access the External World then, How does that work? If you were observing a Cube in the External world you should be able to Observe all six sides at the same time
Say what?

How does that make any sense to you?

Seriously, it seems like mentally-disabled reasoning.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:14 pm Since you believe your Senses do Directly Access the External World then, How does that work? If you were observing a Cube in the External world you should be able to Observe all six sides at the same time if you were truly Observing the Cube as a Cube in the External World. But I'll bet that you cannot Observe all six sides of the Cube simultaneously. If the Cube was a Box you should be able to Observe inside the Box because your Claim is that you Observe Objects as they are. But you cannot do all these things. At best you are only Observing a 2D Representation of the External World just like you would if you were only Observing the Reflected Light. Do you agree that you may not be Observing the Objects themselves but rather you are Observing the Reflected Light?
I probably should have asked in a way that would more likely engender an answer. Why in the world would it seem to you like if one is observing an external-world cube rather than a mental representation of the same that one would see all sides at the same time? From what spatiotemporal point of reference or spatiotemporal situatedness are you imagining this from?
Dimebag
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Dimebag »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:39 am
Dimebag wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:34 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 11:30 am
Okay, but then, especially in the context of doing philosophy, we need to think about this and address why/how we'd know that it's justified.

We're also not addressing how we'd obtain any information about other people (under the assumption that we can't actually observe them).
To your first question, I would suggest going outside of philosophy and investigating some psychology/neuroscience of perception.
So first, (a) I'm asking this to get people suggesting certain things here to think more, and to think philosophically about what they're suggesting, and (b) I'm asking in in the context of people suggesting that one can't actually observe an external world.

So even if (a) were not my goal, due to (b) looking at psychology and neuroscience of perception is going to do little good, because very few psychologists or neuroscientists are forwarding solipsistic idealist nonsense. (And insofar as they would be, (a) would be my goal in interaction with them, which I'd have to try to initiate, etc.)
To your second point,the information about other people is obtained indirectly through our perception of them, just the same way all other information is obtained.
That's a simple and very insufficient answer. If you believe that we're only aware of something mental, so that you're forwarding what turns out to be solipsism (whether you think of it that way or not (not would be because you're not thinking very rationally about this)), then how would we know that we are experiencing indirect perception of a real world? That's what I want you to think about more, because you're not reasoning about it very well yet. Me reading stuff from people who aren't solipsists/who aren't suggesting that we can only experience our own minds isn't going to help YOU think about what you're saying more; it isn't going to help YOU think in a more rigorous philosophical manner.
Actually no one is saying you don’t see an external world. What is being said is, the external world that IS seen, occurs indirectly, via perception. So, we don’t see THE outside world, we see impressions OF the outside world, on our perceptual systems. Now if you would prefer to ignore the intermediary layer of perception which provides those impressions of the outside world, that’s fine, but it IS ignorance.

The reason it is NOT solipsistic to speak about reality and perception this way, is because our perception WORKS EFFECTIVELY for us to navigate in the world, so it must be capturing something at minimum useful about the outside world. It is, in a sense pragmatically true. Furthermore, once one understands this, one can also realise that this is the ONLY way one could EVER observe the outside world. We can gain knowledge about the external world which goes beyond our perceptual system, using instruments which can capture information our perceptual system is not set up to capture, and in that way, our perception of the external world is incomplete, however, in terms of survival it IS tuned wonderfully.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

Dimebag wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:25 pm Actually no one is saying you don’t see an external world.
Steve wrote, and I quoted back on page 8: "We do not See things in the external World."
What is being said is, the external world that IS seen, occurs indirectly, via perception. So, we don’t see THE outside world, we see impressions OF the outside world, on our perceptual systems.
And here you are writing this, too. "We don't see THE outside world."

You're saying that we see something mental, correct?
Dimebag
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Dimebag »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:37 pm
Dimebag wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:25 pm Actually no one is saying you don’t see an external world.
Steve wrote, and I quoted back on page 8: "We do not See things in the external World."
What is being said is, the external world that IS seen, occurs indirectly, via perception. So, we don’t see THE outside world, we see impressions OF the outside world, on our perceptual systems.
And here you are writing this, too. "We don't see THE outside world."

You're saying that we see something mental, correct?
Correct. Consciousness is not reaching out from inside the skull and capturing anything external to it. Nor is the external world entering directly. Signals from external, either light waves, sound pressure waves are transduced via sensory receptors into neural signals, which contain the information about those external signals of light and sound. That information is interpreted by perceptual regions of our brain, which results in the conscious observing of the external world via the intermediary perceptual system. The nature of what is seen is a construct, or if you like, a reconstruction of the external world.

Without light waves, or sound waves, even IF objects exist external to us, they cannot be perceived. So, objects require both a perceptual system to receive signals, AND a transmission medium to pass signals, in the form of either light waves, or sound pressure waves.

So, to be clear. We don’t see objects directly. Nor do we see light waves directly. Objects reflect (or emit) light waves, revealing their structure encoded in those light waves, and those signals pass from the object to our sensory organs, and those signals stimulate neural impulses, which represent those signals, and the object is perceived MENTALLY. When I say, “I see the red Apple” this is a shorthand for this explanation. But again, most humans don’t understand how their perception works, and so assume that their seeing IS the direct seeing from a naive realist perspective. Most people have NO NEED to understand the actual state of affairs because it doesn’t effect them nor their ability to live in the world.

This doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with them.

I have an analogy for you. When you use a computer, to say, move around and copy, paste and delete files on your desktop, you don’t actually think about the reality of whether there is an actual file you are physically moving, copying, pasting or deleting. This is a USER INTERFACE, which makes it far more intuitive to manipulate the 1’s and 0’s which compose file structures and their virtual locations, and provides a nice easy way to perform interactions with a computer.

Similarly, you don’t need to know how your perception truly creates your reality. You don’t need to know that an Apple you see is a representation of light waves which are bouncing off an object external to your perceptual system.

So, perception is a nice user interface for enabling useful interactions with a world which can only be known VIA a mental reconstruction.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:21 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:37 pm
Dimebag wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:25 pm Actually no one is saying you don’t see an external world.
Steve wrote, and I quoted back on page 8: "We do not See things in the external World."
What is being said is, the external world that IS seen, occurs indirectly, via perception. So, we don’t see THE outside world, we see impressions OF the outside world, on our perceptual systems.
And here you are writing this, too. "We don't see THE outside world."

You're saying that we see something mental, correct?
Correct. Consciousness is not reaching out from inside the skull and capturing anything external to it. Nor is the external world entering directly. Signals from external, either light waves, sound pressure waves are transduced via sensory receptors into neural signals, which contain the information about those external signals of light and sound. That information is interpreted by perceptual regions of our brain, which results in the conscious observing of the external world via the intermediary perceptual system. The nature of what is seen is a construct, or if you like, a reconstruction of the external world.

Without light waves, or sound waves, even IF objects exist external to us, they cannot be perceived. So, objects require both a perceptual system to receive signals, AND a transmission medium to pass signals, in the form of either light waves, or sound pressure waves.

So, to be clear. We don’t see objects directly. Nor do we see light waves directly. Objects reflect (or emit) light waves, revealing their structure encoded in those light waves, and those signals pass from the object to our sensory organs, and those signals stimulate neural impulses, which represent those signals, and the object is perceived MENTALLY. When I say, “I see the red Apple” this is a shorthand for this explanation. But again, most humans don’t understand how their perception works, and so assume that their seeing IS the direct seeing from a naive realist perspective. Most people have NO NEED to understand the actual state of affairs because it doesn’t effect them nor their ability to live in the world.

This doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with them.

I have an analogy for you. When you use a computer, to say, move around and copy, paste and delete files on your desktop, you don’t actually think about the reality of whether there is an actual file you are physically moving, copying, pasting or deleting. This is a USER INTERFACE, which makes it far more intuitive to manipulate the 1’s and 0’s which compose file structures and their virtual locations, and provides a nice easy way to perform interactions with a computer.

Similarly, you don’t need to know how your perception truly creates your reality. You don’t need to know that an Apple you see is a representation of light waves which are bouncing off an object external to your perceptual system.

So, perception is a nice user interface for enabling useful interactions with a world which can only be known VIA a mental reconstruction.
Which all shows that either you also don't understand or you're simply ignoring the question I'm asking. If you're claiming that what you're aware of is limited to mental phenomena (a la representationalism, say) on what grounds are you claiming to be able to observe, say, another person and their eyes, as opposed to something you could just as well be fantasizing, being the sole mind/sole thing in existence, in order to even begin to study how perception works?

And if your answer, as suggested a couple times by other posters earlier, is something along the lines of consistency/predictibility, on what grounds, again given your view that you can only experience your mind per se, are you concluding that consistency/predictability would have something to do with and would be some indication of an external world?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

I don't know if the issue isn't clear for some reason.

(A) Say that we believe that we can ONLY experience our own mental content that we take to be a representation. (That's what a number of posters are suggesting.)

(B) If we're asking why we'd believe this, we give a justification based on:

(C) Knowledge of how perceptual systems work.

If we examine how (C) would work, that is, not how perceptual systems supposedly work, but how it works that we have knowledge of the same, we say something like "via the examination of eyes, optic nerves, brains, etc. (as well as light waves, etc.)" (And after all, if this is not what we're saying, we're only saying something about mental phenomena we happen to have.)

However, given (A), we're NOT actually looking at eyes, optic nerves, brains, etc. What we're looking at is our own mental content that we take to be a representation (of eyes, optic nerves, brains, etc.)--that's the whole premise of (A). And if this isn't the case, then we can't claim (A).

So, the challenge is how we can obtain (C), where there's any sort of justification along the lines of there being an actual world, actual other people, with actual eyes, with perceptual systems that work in particular ways, and where we obtain knowledge of this, given (A).

In other words, if (A) is the case, how do we ever make a leap, how do we bootstrap our way, to ever having a justification of positing an external world that we can have representations of and know anything about.

We can't claim that we observe an external world at any point, because then we're contradicting (A), and (A) wouldn't be the case after all.

And if we're going to try to bootstrap this on something like consistency, predictability, etc. we need to be able to justify/give plausible grounds for that being an indication of there being an external world that we know something about rather than simply being an indication that we can have mental phenomena that are consistent and predictable.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

An interesting upshot of this is that if we can only know mental phenomena, we don't even have a reason to picture ourselves as really being bodies situated in the world, where we'd have eyes, brains, etc., which means there's no reason to assume anything like a picture that posits perceptual systems as they're usually understood, which means that there's no reason to posit a body-to-world relationship of anything, which also dissolves the whole notion of an ideal/real or subjective/objective or internal/external etc. split in the first place, which means there's no reason to posit that we can only know mental phenomena. So the idealist conceits dissolve that way, too.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:27 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:14 pm Since you believe your Senses do Directly Access the External World then, How does that work? If you were observing a Cube in the External world you should be able to Observe all six sides at the same time
Say what?

How does that make any sense to you?

Seriously, it seems like mentally-disabled reasoning.
It makes perfect sense. Just poorly expressed.
Sight involves interpretation. What the brain receives is 2 2D images, one from each eye. Your brain has to do the work to conceive of all 3D objects in the world.
This fact is the source of many optical illusions. Percpetions of tone and colour are also frought with problems here.
Have you ever heard a voice in the wind, or the sea in a shell? Audible illusions happen too.
In fact our direct attention tends to concentrate on our interests and this leads to a very partial apprehension of the world. The rest of existence is sort of filled up with anticipated and reconstructed things.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:28 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:27 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:14 pm Since you believe your Senses do Directly Access the External World then, How does that work? If you were observing a Cube in the External world you should be able to Observe all six sides at the same time
Say what?

How does that make any sense to you?

Seriously, it seems like mentally-disabled reasoning.
It makes perfect sense. Just poorly expressed.
Sight involves interpretation. What the brain receives is 2 2D images, one from each eye. Your brain has to do the work to conceive of all 3D objects in the world.
This fact is the source of many optical illusions. Percpetions of tone and colour are also frought with problems here.
Have you ever heard a voice in the wind, or the sea in a shell? Audible illusions happen too.
In fact our direct attention tends to concentrate on our interests and this leads to a very partial apprehension of the world. The rest of existence is sort of filled up with anticipated and reconstructed things.
What I'm talking about is how it would make sense to him to assume that (anyone is saying that) if we're actually observing a real-world cube, as opposed to a mental representation of a cube, we should be seeing all six sides of the cube at the same time. Why would he assume that or think that anyone is saying that?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:28 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:27 pm

Say what?

How does that make any sense to you?

Seriously, it seems like mentally-disabled reasoning.
It makes perfect sense. Just poorly expressed.
Sight involves interpretation. What the brain receives is 2 2D images, one from each eye. Your brain has to do the work to conceive of all 3D objects in the world.
This fact is the source of many optical illusions. Percpetions of tone and colour are also frought with problems here.
Have you ever heard a voice in the wind, or the sea in a shell? Audible illusions happen too.
In fact our direct attention tends to concentrate on our interests and this leads to a very partial apprehension of the world. The rest of existence is sort of filled up with anticipated and reconstructed things.
What I'm talking about is how it would make sense to him to assume that (anyone is saying that) if we're actually observing a real-world cube, as opposed to a mental representation of a cube, we should be seeing all six sides of the cube at the same time. Why would he assume that or think that anyone is saying that?
I said it was poorly expressed.
fact: you do not see a "cube". You cannot see a cube. The claim that you are seeing a cube would involve you in being to see all the way round. But humans cannot do that. We only see in 2D. With the help of 2 eyes we can interpret 3dimensions, and reconstruct what we beleive is a 3 dimensional world.
By disclaiming the perception of 3D he ironically says; " we should be seeing all six sides of the cube at the same time."

Or I might be being generous.

Not that any of this is related to the thread, and I see I have been drawn in to this side issue.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9671
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

It's the same with computer 'playing' of music. It works ok with Bach because a lot of Bach suits being strictly mathematical, but a computer could never play Chopin well.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:28 pm

It makes perfect sense. Just poorly expressed.
Sight involves interpretation. What the brain receives is 2 2D images, one from each eye. Your brain has to do the work to conceive of all 3D objects in the world.
This fact is the source of many optical illusions. Percpetions of tone and colour are also frought with problems here.
Have you ever heard a voice in the wind, or the sea in a shell? Audible illusions happen too.
In fact our direct attention tends to concentrate on our interests and this leads to a very partial apprehension of the world. The rest of existence is sort of filled up with anticipated and reconstructed things.
What I'm talking about is how it would make sense to him to assume that (anyone is saying that) if we're actually observing a real-world cube, as opposed to a mental representation of a cube, we should be seeing all six sides of the cube at the same time. Why would he assume that or think that anyone is saying that?
I said it was poorly expressed.
fact: you do not see a "cube". You cannot see a cube. The claim that you are seeing a cube would involve you in being to see all the way round. But humans cannot do that. We only see in 2D. With the help of 2 eyes we can interpret 3dimensions, and reconstruct what we beleive is a 3 dimensional world.
By disclaiming the perception of 3D he ironically says; " we should be seeing all six sides of the cube at the same time."

Or I might be being generous.

Not that any of this is related to the thread, and I see I have been drawn in to this side issue.
It's not that you're seeing the concept of a cube. You're seeing what x is really like (ceteris paribus--that is, barring specific perceptual, cognitive, etc. issues) from a particular spatiotemporal situatedness or "point" of reference, and what x is really like from a particular spatiotemporal situatedness/"point" of reference is that only a limited number of sides are visible. It's also important to keep in mind that there is no "spatiotemporal situatedness-free" point of reference; or as Thomas Nagel put it, there is no "view from nowhere." The very idea of that is incoherent. Properties are always as they are only as essentially parts of a system, and they always are as they are from particular points of reference, even if we're talking about concatenations of multiple points of reference as a unique spatiotemporal situatedness.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:02 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:31 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 pm
What I'm talking about is how it would make sense to him to assume that (anyone is saying that) if we're actually observing a real-world cube, as opposed to a mental representation of a cube, we should be seeing all six sides of the cube at the same time. Why would he assume that or think that anyone is saying that?
I said it was poorly expressed.
fact: you do not see a "cube". You cannot see a cube. The claim that you are seeing a cube would involve you in being to see all the way round. But humans cannot do that. We only see in 2D. With the help of 2 eyes we can interpret 3dimensions, and reconstruct what we beleive is a 3 dimensional world.
By disclaiming the perception of 3D he ironically says; " we should be seeing all six sides of the cube at the same time."

Or I might be being generous.

Not that any of this is related to the thread, and I see I have been drawn in to this side issue.
It's not that you're seeing the concept of a cube. You're seeing what x is really like (ceteris paribus--that is, barring specific perceptual, cognitive, etc. issues) from a particular spatiotemporal situatedness or "point" of reference, and what x is really like from a particular spatiotemporal situatedness/"point" of reference is that only a limited number of sides are visible. It's also important to keep in mind that there is no "spatiotemporal situatedness-free" point of reference; or as Thomas Nagel put it, there is no "view from nowhere." The very idea of that is incoherent. Properties are always as they are only as essentially parts of a system, and they always are as they are from particular points of reference, even if we're talking about concatenations of multiple points of reference as a unique spatiotemporal situatedness.
Yawn!
Post Reply