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

Post Reply
Gary Childress
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Gary Childress »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:31 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 pm Computers can only follow human designed algorithms. They cannot create; only obey.
Man, this understanding is stuck in the 1940s.

We have self-modifying code now. It behaves dynamically in a ways that programmer generally anticipates, but cannot predict precisely.

We have non-deterministic algorithms which have bounds of behaviour, like humans have bounds imposed by physics.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 pm To the extent that all compositions are formulaic a computer can run a program with some (once again) human defined random parameters.
Human defined random parameters? That's an oxymoron.

Humans cannot define true randomness.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 pm Any fool can find examples of computer generated music on the internnet, but the same fool cannot understand the most basic truth that these examples are simply evidence that computers are incapable of creating musical compositions.
Only a fool would suggest that there's some important difference.
Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 pm There is not the slightest hint of a computer achieving anything close to feeling music and deriving pleasure from it. Without that, music is beyond computer understanding.
As if those things are necessary for producing music?
Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 pm You could I suppose try to write a response to fool a Turing Test, but this again will be nothing more than a computer obeying a human designed algorithm.
Your understanding of determinism and non-determinism is still stuck in the toilet of Philosophy.

You still treat those as ontological, not epistemic qualities.
I think the 64 million dollar question, though, is whether or not a computer is "conscious." Obviously, there are machines that can "learn" but aren't they ultimately executing algorithms originally designed by a human being to be carried out? In other words, isn't the "learning" based on a kind of linear calculation originating with a more simple algorithm? "Learning" doesn't necessarily imply consciousness and as far as we know consciousness (or intentionality) is what separates human beings from beings like rocks or a stereo system (for example). Does a "learning" computer know what it's "like" to learn? Or does it just do without "experiencing" what it is doing?
Last edited by Gary Childress on Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Gary Childress »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:10 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 4:56 pm Is Creativity a process in the Conscious Mind (CM) or is it simply Neural Activity of the right kind in the Physical Mind (PM)?
Consciousness is physical. So there's no difference.
There are many very learned people who would disagree that consciousness is "physical." As far as we know consciousness cannot be seen, heard, smelled, touched, or measured with any instrument as almost every other physical quality can. they would say that you can cut open a brain and nowhere will you find a "consciousness" sitting in front of you. All you will see before you are neurons, grey matter, etc. But you can't detect another brain's experience itself.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Gary Childress »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 4:56 pm Creativity seems like an almost impossible topic of Consciousness to deal with. But I believe that given some Logical Thinking we will be able to explore Creativity. With the Perspective of the Inter Mind Model (IMM), we can ask the question: Is Creativity a process in the Conscious Mind (CM) or is it simply Neural Activity of the right kind in the Physical Mind (PM)?

Music can be very Creative, but Music can also not be very Creative. Listening to Random Noise or Random Tones can be interesting for a short period time. However, Random Noise and Tones are not very Creative and are not really even Music. I think that Enjoyment is very important when it comes to Artistic Creations. Much Music is written, but the Music that is truly Creative and Original has a Special Essence. People Enjoy it. I think it is clear that the appreciation of that Special Essence of the Music needs to take place in a CM. Scientists can study and measure all the Neural Activity related to this, and still know nothing about the Enjoyment of the Conscious Experience of the Music. The IMM Logically compels us to understand that Music is for the CM and not for the PM.

Claims about Computers creatively writing Music are misleading. Let's explore the Creative Process for Human Music and for Computer Music. The Human composer will get Inspired by a particular line of Musical Notes while Hearing them in the CM. The Human composer might play these Notes on a Piano, Guitar, or other instrument to get a more robust Auditory Experience than what is in the Imagination of the CM. The Human composer will develop a Desire to write the Music. The Human composer is constantly Hearing the Notes at the CM level in order to write the Music. This is because the Human composer instinctively knows the Music is being composed for the Enjoyment of a CM.

Computer Music is not produced this way. Computer Music is generated by Algorithms, Rules, and Random Note generators. The Computer is not Hearing, as a Conscious Experience, any of the Music that is being generated because a Computer has no Connection to a CM. The Computer program is trying to generate Music for the Enjoyment of a CM without being able to Experience it as a CM. It cannot Hear what it is Generating. The Computer cannot Enjoy the Music and it can never Listen to the Music like a CM would be able to do. The Computer does not Desire to write Music and it does not even know that it generated Music. It's all Algorithmic and Mechanistic. It is obvious that a Computer is unable to write Music for a CM, and there is no way to Program that ability into the Computer with Software. It can only be concluded that a Computer cannot Creatively Write Music, but rather it Generates or Calculates the Music. When it is realized that a Computer is merely Calculating Music, it becomes completely understandable that there is no Creativity involved.
It appears that computers can write music that rivals human composition based on whatever initial programming. I think the important question that you are getting at is whether or not computers are conscious when they do that. Right now, I think that is sort of the main difference we think of when we differentiate between a human and a purely computational device or computer--whether or not a computer is "conscious" or has conscious experience during the process of creating. Or another way of putting the problem: can creation and learning occur without consciousness associated with it? Is consciousness necessary for any kind of learning or creation to occur or can something at least like it occur among unconscious entities?
Gary Childress
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Gary Childress »

For example,

1) A mass of water falls into a hole and fills the configuration of the hole perfectly.

2) A slime mold falls into a hole and fills the configuration of the hole perfectly.

3) A human being fills the configuration of a hole perfectly with sand (and then proceeds to stand on it).

I think most of us would say that example #1 is not an example of water consciously aligning itself to the hole. #2 may be debatable, some might say a slime mold is conscious others might say not. But #3 I think we would all agree is an act of a conscious being. And yet in all of those examples, we would say that the hole was filled perfectly. #1 probably definitely didn't involve or need consciousness to happen. The last one more likely did.

I think the question becomes, when a computer creates music, is it simply following laws of physics and logic in steps to create the music or is it following the laws of physics and logic in steps to create the music as a conscious entity?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3774
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:09 pm There are many very learned people who would disagree that consciousness is "physical."
Which is a serious problem, because among other things, the very notion of nonphysical existents is incoherent. So those "very learned" people aren't thinking very clearly in some regards.
As far as we know consciousness cannot be seen, heard, smelled, touched, or measured with any instrument as almost every other physical quality can.
Which simply tells me that you're completely unfamiliar with any recent cognitive science/neuroscience work on this end.
they would say that you can cut open a brain and nowhere will you find a "consciousness" sitting in front of you. All you will see before you are neurons, grey matter, etc. But you can't detect another brain's experience itself.
You can't yourself know-by-acquaintance the properties of their brain as their brain, which is a truism about every single thing that exists. You can't know-by-acquaintance the properties of any arbitrary thing as that thing unless you are that thing (but the only thing that you are is your own brain/body).
commonsense
Posts: 3492
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by commonsense »

I ask again, is consciousness necessary to artistically create music?

Yes, because without consciousness there is no experience of enjoyment.

However, is consciousness necessary to mechanically create music?

No, because unenjoyable music doesn’t have to be appreciated.

Is artistry necessary to create music? If the answer is ‘yes’, then the current state of computers is unable to do so.

If the answer is ‘no’, then computing machines are up to the task.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3774
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:01 pm I ask again, is consciousness necessary to artistically create music?

Yes, because without consciousness there is no experience of enjoyment.

However, is consciousness necessary to mechanically create music?

No, because unenjoyable music doesn’t have to be appreciated.

Is artistry necessary to create music? If the answer is ‘yes’, then the current state of computers is unable to do so.

If the answer is ‘no’, then computing machines are up to the task.
That's just going to hinge on whether someone defines "artistic/artistry" so that it necessarily involves consciousness/sentient phenomena. It would be more or less like asking if computers can intentionally or consciously create music.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3774
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Terrapin Station »

Gary, I don't know why you deleted your post already, but I had responded to it:
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:41 pm I beg to differ. Think what you want, however, your assertion isn't as certain as you seem to think.


The challenge could be met by anyone making the notion of nonphysical existents coherent. No one has been able to do that yet, and that's exacerbated by the fact that almost no one even bothers to try.
When talking about non-conscious objects, it certainly seems as though there is nothing to "acquaint" oneself with other than the physical properties which can be measured and observed. Consciousness cannot be measured or observed as far as anyone is aware.
Almost all properties, if not all (we don't need to add "physical," by the way, as they're all physical) are unique at particular spatiotemporal reference points. This is easy to see by looking at various properties of various things from different spatiotemporal reference points.

Well, we can never know-by-acquaintance anything else from the spatiotemporal reference point of being the thing in question. We can only know ourselves that way. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a rock or another person for this. It's a truism about properties and the relative nature of everything.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3171
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Sculptor »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:01 pm I think the 64 million dollar question, though, is whether or not a computer is "conscious."
No.
This is not a question in any way at all.
Obviously, there are machines that can "learn" but aren't they ultimately executing algorithms originally designed by a human being to be carried out? In other words, isn't the "learning" based on a kind of linear calculation originating with a more simple algorithm? "Learning" doesn't necessarily imply consciousness and as far as we know consciousness (or intentionality) is what separates human beings from beings like rocks or a stereo system (for example). Does a "learning" computer know what it's "like" to learn? Or does it just do without "experiencing" what it is doing?
A computer is like Spinoza's god. It has no needs, no desire, no volition, no plan, or motivation.
It acts to the exact letter of its parameters.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Gary Childress »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 3:52 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:09 pm There are many very learned people who would disagree that consciousness is "physical."
Which is a serious problem, because among other things, the very notion of nonphysical existents is incoherent. So those "very learned" people aren't thinking very clearly in some regards.
It depends upon what is meant by "physical." Is the color blue as perceived by a human being physical? Theoretically what we encounter is matter in motion which doesn't have the qualia of "blue." It has frequency, wavelength, etc. But our minds presumably perceive blue. Does "physical" include mental concepts? Does it include that which cannot be measured or quantified but only experienced subjectively by a conscious mind? If not, then there must be non-physical aspects to the world that we are capable of talking about.
As far as we know consciousness cannot be seen, heard, smelled, touched, or measured with any instrument as almost every other physical quality can.
Which simply tells me that you're completely unfamiliar with any recent cognitive science/neuroscience work on this end.
Really? Can you show me a single conclusive experiment that has witnessed consciousness in another organism? How can an experiment even be staged to detect that which can only be subjectively experienced?
they would say that you can cut open a brain and nowhere will you find a "consciousness" sitting in front of you. All you will see before you are neurons, grey matter, etc. But you can't detect another brain's experience itself.
You can't yourself know-by-acquaintance the properties of their brain as their brain, which is a truism about every single thing that exists. You can't know-by-acquaintance the properties of any arbitrary thing as that thing unless you are that thing (but the only thing that you are is your own brain/body).
It's possible that a rock may have properties that cannot be physically detected, I suppose. However, there doesn't seem to be evidence of it for the very fact that it isn't detectable. However, I cannot say the same about my own body. I assme you don't have direct access to my experience and I assume you have inner experience as well, which I do not have access to.
commonsense
Posts: 3492
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by commonsense »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:13 pm
commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:01 pm I ask again, is consciousness necessary to artistically create music?

Yes, because without consciousness there is no experience of enjoyment.

However, is consciousness necessary to mechanically create music?

No, because unenjoyable music doesn’t have to be appreciated.

Is artistry necessary to create music? If the answer is ‘yes’, then the current state of computers is unable to do so.

If the answer is ‘no’, then computing machines are up to the task.
That's just going to hinge on whether someone defines "artistic/artistry" so that it necessarily involves consciousness/sentient phenomena. It would be more or less like asking if computers can intentionally or consciously create music.
Yes. That should be the crux.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Gary Childress »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:59 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:01 pm I think the 64 million dollar question, though, is whether or not a computer is "conscious."
No.
This is not a question in any way at all.
Obviously, there are machines that can "learn" but aren't they ultimately executing algorithms originally designed by a human being to be carried out? In other words, isn't the "learning" based on a kind of linear calculation originating with a more simple algorithm? "Learning" doesn't necessarily imply consciousness and as far as we know consciousness (or intentionality) is what separates human beings from beings like rocks or a stereo system (for example). Does a "learning" computer know what it's "like" to learn? Or does it just do without "experiencing" what it is doing?
A computer is like Spinoza's god. It has no needs, no desire, no volition, no plan, or motivation.
It acts to the exact letter of its parameters.
Well, many people much more thoughtful than I am have spent a lot of time trying to figure out what consciousness is and what has it and what doesn't. As far as I know, the jury is still relatively out on whether some of the more advanced computers that are capable of learning can attain or have attained consciousness. Generally, my suspicion is that you are right and that they have not. Of course, I can't prove it for the most part.
Skepdick
Posts: 8002
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Skepdick »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:01 pm I think the 64 million dollar question, though, is whether or not a computer is "conscious."
It's not even a 2 cent question. It's a question Philosophers keep asking in attempt to stay relevant.
If I don't know what consciousness is (and I don't) how could possibly claim that I am "conscious"?

It's just confusion over how we use language. It's a trick that confuses your brain into thinking the question is meaningful.

You are perfectly aware that the question "Am I rumfless?" is meaningless because you don't know what being rumfless entails.

So why doesn't your brain come to the same realisation when you ask the question "Am I conscious?"
How could you possibly answer that question if you don't know what consciousness entails?
Gary Childress
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Gary Childress »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:54 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:01 pm I think the 64 million dollar question, though, is whether or not a computer is "conscious."
It's not even a 2 cent question. It's a question Philosophers keep asking in attempt to stay relevant.
If I don't know what consciousness is (and I don't) how could possibly claim that I am "conscious"?

It's just confusion over how we use language. It's a trick that confuses your brain into thinking the question is meaningful.

You are perfectly aware that the question "Am I rumfless?" is meaningless because you don't know what being rumfless entails.

So why doesn't your brain come to the same realisation when you ask the question "Am I conscious?"
How could you possibly answer that question if you don't know what consciousness entails?
I know what consciousness is though, so it's not the same as "rumfless." It's not a non-sensical question.
Skepdick
Posts: 8002
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Skepdick »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:35 pm I know what consciousness is though, so it's not the same as "rumfless." It's not a non-sensical question.
You do? Great! I don't.

Tell me what it is. Because it's a non-sensical question to me.
Post Reply