Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

[Dimebag]

IMO, we generally determine whether our internal representations are accurate based on consistency, and based on how well they allow us to predict future outcomes and effectively navigate and interact with the world we perceive. Furthermore, we use consensus between other people’s internal representations to help us determine whether we are perceiving accurately.

Because we understand that consistency is a hallmark of reality external to us, and the more we interrogate that external reality with a diverse set of senses and interactions, observing results for consistency, we can begin to “trust” our models. So much so, that these facts are actually not even understood as our minds develop. Instead, our minds take these internal representations AS true reality, even when it’s clear that they are wrong, or malfunctioning, for example, children’s imagination, hallucination, misperception and perceptual illusions.

When we realise that our perception is our brains “best guess” about external reality, via these instances, our belief in the naive reality of the world through perception begins to falter. But, usually there is some sense of “near enough is good enough”, a kind of pragmatic realism which we hold onto for convenience’s sake, and for practical reasons of living in the world, and interacting with others in it.

But when the view of the internal model is finally shown to be just that, and we get a glance at the behind the scenes of our own mind including our own selves which we believe are in that world, we can be understandably thrown, to the point where it seems quite clear to such a person that their view of external reality really is an internal representation, and everything gets turned inside out and upside down.

[Terrapin Station]

IMO, we generally determine whether our internal representations are accurate based on consistency, and based on how well they allow us to predict future outcomes and effectively navigate and interact with the world we perceive. Furthermore, we use consensus between other people’s internal representations to help us determine whether we are perceiving accurately.

The question would be, though, why we'd use consistency and predictability as markers there? If we can't access an external world in any manner, then what could justify a belief that if there is one, it's consistent and predictable?

And how in the world would we obtain any information whatsoever about other people? We need to be able to observe things external to us in order to know that there are other people or to get any information from or about them.

[SteveKlinko]

How would that be any different than saying, for example, "Even though all I have to go on is my dream, I'm going to assume that I have a brother who has duck feet and a duck beak and plays lead bassoon for the Rolling Stones"?

In other words, any arbitrary thing you believe your mind (whatever that would amount to, really) comes up with you're just going to assume is the case because it came up with it. Or is there something more to it? (Of course, as I keep mentioning, this makes you at least an epistemic solipsist, by the way.)

Re the other part, how is that not just making up arbitrary science fiction crap?

Are you comparing Dream Experiences to Awake Experiences? Then I don't know what you are driving at.

What I did was ask you a question.

I say that we certainly do have an understanding of what the External World is like through the Representations that we operate with.

That's nice that you say that. If only you could answer how.

How? Are you seriously asking me to solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness?

[SteveKlinko]

But I just WROTE what's analogous to that. Making observations of what real-world-not-just-imagined-or-fantasized eyes and optic nerves and so on are like and then concluding that you can't actually observe real-world-not-just-imagined-or-fantasized eyes and so on.

Who says anything about Fantasized Eyes? What are you talking about?

If we can't observe the external world, we can't observe eyes (to see how they work, etc.). It's simply mental phenomena that you have (that there are bodies, with eyes, etc.), and that might as well be a fantasy like any other.

We Detect the External world using a Mechanism that gives us enough information to discover and understand a lot of things. You are Incoherently lurching to the Extreme view that it has to be a total Fantasy if it is not Directly Realized.

[Terrapin Station]

Are you comparing Dream Experiences to Awake Experiences? Then I don't know what you are driving at.

What I did was ask you a question.

I say that we certainly do have an understanding of what the External World is like through the Representations that we operate with.

That's nice that you say that. If only you could answer how.

How? Are you seriously asking me to solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness?

??? No, not at all. I'm not asking you anything at all about a mind/body connection. I'm asking you epistemically just how you think you know something of what the external world is like via the representations that are the only thing you believe you can access.

[Terrapin Station]

We Detect the External world using a Mechanism that gives us enough information to discover and understand a lot of things.

Tell me how you believe it gives you any information.

[SteveKlinko]

We Detect the External world using a Mechanism that gives us enough information to discover and understand a lot of things.

Tell me how you believe it gives you any information.

If I look at a Square and then look at a Circle that is next to it and somebody asks me to point to the Circle I can do that. The Apparatus of my Visual Detection System, although it is Representational, has enough fidelity to give me the Information to point at the Circle.

[Terrapin Station]

We Detect the External world using a Mechanism that gives us enough information to discover and understand a lot of things.

Tell me how you believe it gives you any information.

If I look at a Square and then look at a Circle that is next to it and somebody asks me to point to the Circle I can do that. The Apparatus of my Visual Detection System, although it is Representational, has enough fidelity to give me the Information to point at the Circle.

You don't believe that you're seeing a square or a circle or a somebody who is external to you, though, do you?

[SteveKlinko]

Tell me how you believe it gives you any information.

If I look at a Square and then look at a Circle that is next to it and somebody asks me to point to the Circle I can do that. The Apparatus of my Visual Detection System, although it is Representational, has enough fidelity to give me the Information to point at the Circle.

You don't believe that you're seeing a square or a circle or a somebody who is external to you, though, do you?

The only way I know about Squares and Circles is through the Representation in my Mind. You can verify with other Senses like Touch, to Feel that it is a Square or a Circle if it was more than a drawing. So there is Validation with the different Sensory Modalities, which are also Representations. If it was a matter of life and death that I could tell the difference between Squares and Circle then I would survive. That's all we really need from our Representational Detection of the World.

[Terrapin Station]

If I look at a Square and then look at a Circle that is next to it and somebody asks me to point to the Circle I can do that. The Apparatus of my Visual Detection System, although it is Representational, has enough fidelity to give me the Information to point at the Circle.

You don't believe that you're seeing a square or a circle or a somebody who is external to you, though, do you?

The only way I know about Squares and Circles is through the Representation in my Mind. You can verify with other Senses like Touch, to Feel that it is a Square or a Circle if it was more than a drawing. So there is Validation with the different Sensory Modalities, which are also Representations. If it was a matter of life and death that I could tell the difference between Squares and Circle then I would survive. That's all we really need from our Representational Detection of the World.

You believe that what you're really verifying is mental "representations" you have, though, right?

[Dimebag]

IMO, we generally determine whether our internal representations are accurate based on consistency, and based on how well they allow us to predict future outcomes and effectively navigate and interact with the world we perceive. Furthermore, we use consensus between other people’s internal representations to help us determine whether we are perceiving accurately.

The question would be, though, why we'd use consistency and predictability as markers there? If we can't access an external world in any manner, then what could justify a belief that if there is one, it's consistent and predictable?

And how in the world would we obtain any information whatsoever about other people? We need to be able to observe things external to us in order to know that there are other people or to get any information from or about them.

“We” don’t consciously do this, our brain uses predictability to judge how real the world is. To a young mind that has no experience or training from the consistency of a world, they know no difference between dream and real worlds, because their minds have yet to learn to recognise patterns within the sensory information. Likely they have no dreams until their brains learn to predict the sensory patterns, which eventually allows brains to generate “dream” content independent of sensory input. As their brains slowly learn to predict the incoming sense data, and pick out patterns of consistency, the world gains form, concepts slowly build up, reality testing ensues, logic etc.

This is obviously a slow process, not an on off switch, and so many mental processes come online afterwards, such as theory of other minds, the ability to imagine what another person’s mental state is, what they can see, what they are thinking about, good or bad. To judge whether a person means you good or ill based on their behaviour. So many things rely on our brains ability to predict what sensory information means, and, what is likely to follow.

[Dimebag]

There seems to be some misunderstanding here.

There are two things. One is, our actual understanding of what our conscious apprehension of an external world is in reality. This is a conceptual and abstract understanding. The other thing is, the immediate implicit belief of our minds in the reality of the world external to us.

The two things can actually be different.

The reason is, our minds need us to “believe” that our sensory input is actually referring to something real external to us, that is, to be naive realists about our conscious content, so that we can act appropriately to ensure our bodily survival. To overcome this built in belief, and it is, in a sense built in, is to overcome our built in programming.

But, realisations can be had, not just conceptually, but realisations at those lower belief levels, about the unreality of that sensory information, that it is a representation, not the actual world that is being witnessed separate from the person “inside the head” as if through portals inside the skull.

Once this realisation occurs, it is as if seeing through a grand illusion. Like the veil of perception being pulled from your eyes, allowing you a glimpse of the truth.

Sadly, unless you have this glimpse, you simply have to believe me. Like the matrix, one must see it for oneself. BTW, go watch the matrix, that might help.

[Terrapin Station]

IMO, we generally determine whether our internal representations are accurate based on consistency, and based on how well they allow us to predict future outcomes and effectively navigate and interact with the world we perceive. Furthermore, we use consensus between other people’s internal representations to help us determine whether we are perceiving accurately.

The question would be, though, why we'd use consistency and predictability as markers there? If we can't access an external world in any manner, then what could justify a belief that if there is one, it's consistent and predictable?

And how in the world would we obtain any information whatsoever about other people? We need to be able to observe things external to us in order to know that there are other people or to get any information from or about them.

“We” don’t consciously do this, our brain uses predictability to judge how real the world is . . .

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).

[Dimebag]

The question would be, though, why we'd use consistency and predictability as markers there? If we can't access an external world in any manner, then what could justify a belief that if there is one, it's consistent and predictable?

And how in the world would we obtain any information whatsoever about other people? We need to be able to observe things external to us in order to know that there are other people or to get any information from or about them.

“We” don’t consciously do this, our brain uses predictability to judge how real the world is . . .

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.

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.

[Terrapin Station]

“We” don’t consciously do this, our brain uses predictability to judge how real the world is . . .

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.