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

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Tue May 11, 2021 4:38 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:18 pm
Phenomena are not outside. The world is as it is. We make the phenomena.
And you think that you "SEE" what is there? Simple as that. No, what happens is that your two eyes focus a 2D image onto the back of your eyes.
Hold on. First, you believe both that (a) there are no external phenomena, and (b) we have eyes?
This is both ridicuous and tedious.
If you can't be bothered to read what I wrote, then I'm not going to take the trouble to write it.
You wrote "Phenoma are not outside" and then you started talking about eyes. Those two things seem incompatible to me, so I need to clarify it before moving on to the rest.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:46 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:38 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:36 pm
Hold on. First, you believe both that (a) there are no external phenomena, and (b) we have eyes?
This is both ridicuous and tedious.
If you can't be bothered to read what I wrote, then I'm not going to take the trouble to write it.
You wrote "Phenoma are not outside" and then you started talking about eyes. Those two things seem incompatible to me, so I need to clarify it before moving on to the rest.
Noumena is the outside reality.
Phenomana is what you make of your perceptions.
You twisted that to " we can't observe externals".

Senses have evolved - it is obvious that what they give us to an impression, of reality. It's unlikely that eveolution has managed to gieve some sort of magical perfect sense of cold hard reality.
And the nuance, the details you dumped on.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Tue May 11, 2021 8:21 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:46 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:38 pm

This is both ridicuous and tedious.
If you can't be bothered to read what I wrote, then I'm not going to take the trouble to write it.
You wrote "Phenoma are not outside" and then you started talking about eyes. Those two things seem incompatible to me, so I need to clarify it before moving on to the rest.
Noumena is the outside reality.
Phenomana is what you make of your perceptions.
You twisted that to " we can't observe externals".

Senses have evolved - it is obvious that what they give us to an impression, of reality. It's unlikely that eveolution has managed to gieve some sort of magical perfect sense of cold hard reality.
And the nuance, the details you dumped on.
So popular synonyms for "phenomenon" include "occurrence," "event," "happening," and popular definitions include "an observable fact or event." That's the sense of "phenomena" I use. I don't agree with making a phenomena/noumena distinction a la Kant. So when I say "external phenomena," this is what I'm referring to. An occurrence, event, fact, etc. that's external to ourselves.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:21 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 4:46 pm
You wrote "Phenoma are not outside" and then you started talking about eyes. Those two things seem incompatible to me, so I need to clarify it before moving on to the rest.
Noumena is the outside reality.
Phenomana is what you make of your perceptions.
You twisted that to " we can't observe externals".

Senses have evolved - it is obvious that what they give us to an impression, of reality. It's unlikely that eveolution has managed to gieve some sort of magical perfect sense of cold hard reality.
And the nuance, the details you dumped on.
So popular synonyms for "phenomenon" include "occurrence," "event," "happening," and popular definitions include "an observable fact or event." That's the sense of "phenomena" I use. I don't agree with making a phenomena/noumena distinction a la Kant. So when I say "external phenomena," this is what I'm referring to. An occurrence, event, fact, etc. that's external to ourselves.
I'm not playing semantics with you.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Tue May 11, 2021 10:02 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:21 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:21 pm

Noumena is the outside reality.
Phenomana is what you make of your perceptions.
You twisted that to " we can't observe externals".

Senses have evolved - it is obvious that what they give us to an impression, of reality. It's unlikely that eveolution has managed to gieve some sort of magical perfect sense of cold hard reality.
And the nuance, the details you dumped on.
So popular synonyms for "phenomenon" include "occurrence," "event," "happening," and popular definitions include "an observable fact or event." That's the sense of "phenomena" I use. I don't agree with making a phenomena/noumena distinction a la Kant. So when I say "external phenomena," this is what I'm referring to. An occurrence, event, fact, etc. that's external to ourselves.
I'm not playing semantics with you.
I was just letting you know how I was using the term.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Dimebag »

Terrapin Station wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 12:23 am
Dimebag wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 11:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:37 pm

If we can only experience internal phenomena, then the experience of kicking something, and even any notion that one has a leg to kick anything with, is simply internal phenomena and one has no way to even begin to tell that it's not just a fantasy.
When you watch a really good movie you get “lost” in the movie. Our minds are the same, we get “lost in” our own perceptions. Another term is being identified with the contents of experience.

Now there is also the sense of consistency and immersion. Imagine you have a sore back. Pain is inherently attention grabbing. Because it signals damage to the supporting organism, it cannot be ignored unless it falls below a certain threshold, or other stimuli are distracting enough. When there is pain, awareness will be preoccupied with relieving this pain, which may involve moving one’s bodily position to a point which relieves some pain, or maybe taking pain killers, applying some kind of topical ointment, etc.

Other such stimuli are, hunger, fear, sexual lust, to name a few. Because these all have important survival and reproductive value they have been imbued with strong attention grabbing capacity, as well as strong identification capacity.
Maybe we could try it this way: try paraphrasing the issue I'm trying to get you to focus on, so I can see if you understand it at all.
You don’t understand how, if everything we perceive, both that which seems internal (thoughts, feelings), and that which seems external (the world, other people, creatures) is actually an experience occurring “inside” our own minds, how could we even begin to imagine that anything is external to us. If everything is actually inside us, how can anything ever not just seem like we are watching some inner tv screen?

How did I do there?

Now my response to this is, firstly, when we are born, we have no conception of inner and outer. All there is, is experience. There is no distinction between an inside, nor is there even a knowing of any boundary between inside and outside (a self). All there is, are experiences. All there is is hunger, all there is is wanting, all there is is the need for connection with the mother. All there is is curiosity about this world which appears right here. No understanding that I am apart from the experience of the world. And actually, there really IS no separation between you and the world. But, there is also no “knowing” of these, due to there being no one to know.

This separation which occurs, a kind of sorting of experience, develops as the sense of a self develops. As the sense of a self develops, as the name becomes adopted and owned as a label referring to this unknowable “I”, a “vortex” starts to form around this self, which is really just nothing but a concept. With this sense of self, also develops “knowing”, of the world, of the self, and this all attaches to this created self, who becomes the “knower”. The vortex is the collection of all thoughts, predispositions, self referenced beliefs, likes, dislikes, self labels, etc. another name for this might be the ego, not so much in the Freudian sense as distinct from superego and Id. Once this “self vortex” forms, it creates an artificial boundary in experience, between “me” or this organism, I.e. the knower, and the experience of the world, or the known.

This division is necessary for our species, because, we are social beings, and in order to have survived to this point, we needed a sense of self, which could feel guilt, regret, could learn from its mistakes, had an understanding of itself, but could also use knowledge in relation to this idea of itself to survive. Without this division, there would be no motive power behind these feelings, because they inherently refer to this self, and consequently, if this self were to be seen through, those feelings would also lose their pull, and furthermore no useful knowledge would exist. This artificial self is actually an extremely important aspect of our species survival. But it also comes with a cost. It creates that division between itself and the experience of the world, which is artificial, because as mentioned, these internal representations are actually occurring within the being. And actually, as viewed from the point of “no self” or outside the artificial construct of the self/other boundary, all is self.

I’m not sure if that clears ANYTHING up for you, but maybe if you try understand how this self might be a construct, that the artificial distinction between self and other/world might be able to be seen as illusory, when it’s understood that ALL is occurring AS EXPERIENCE. If that can be understood, at least conceptually, you might be able to see how there can be a distinction between inner and outer. The distinction itself is also constructed, but it is so pervasive, that to see through it is essentially enlightenment. Don’t expect to experience this without truly going down this path with a sense of trust and, dare I say, faith.

In the end, you should take my words and mull over them, but also, do your OWN research if you are truly interested. AND, very importantly, observe your OWN experience. Start to observe your self, your thoughts, reactions, etc. Once you stop looking through these things as your self, and start looking “AT” them, as objects to experience, you can begin to do so with the world, and notice that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the “place” that all of these objects of experience are occurring, they all occur “within” you. But, if they all occur “within” you, then, there is no distinction between inner and outer, Therefore, they don’t really occur “within” you, but rather, “you” are literally “made of experience”.

Good luck, it’s not going to make sense at first, it’s certainly a hard pill to swallow, and you will probably just spit it out. But, this is not new information, it is ancient information, and actually, to view it as information is wrong as well and won’t help, it must be swallowed and become part of you.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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 May 14, 2021 11:18 pm
You don’t understand how, if everything we perceive, both that which seems internal (thoughts, feelings), and that which seems external (the world, other people, creatures) is actually an experience occurring “inside” our own minds, how could we even begin to imagine that anything is external to us. If everything is actually inside us, how can anything ever not just seem like we are watching some inner tv screen?

How did I do there?
Not very well, unfortunately.

I'm not saying that I don't understand how we could even begin to imagine anything. And I'm not saying anything about how things seem.

I'm saying something about epistemic grounds/epistemic justification.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by henry quirk »

If everything is actually inside us

That's the thing: everything isn't actually inside us.

We're permeable, in specific ways, to the world. We naturally apprehend the world and conduct it inside ourselves. We don't experience the world: we respond and react to it.

We aren't enraptured by some inner tv screen: we're in the (very real) world, navigating it, touching it.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Dimebag »

henry quirk wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 1:35 am If everything is actually inside us

That's the thing: everything isn't actually inside us.

We're permeable, in specific ways, to the world. We naturally apprehend the world and conduct it inside ourselves. We don't experience the world: we respond and react to it.

We aren't enraptured by some inner tv screen: we're in the (very real) world, navigating it, touching it.
That is the case, but what is also the case is, the experience of the world is in us. There are two, distinct things. The world which we are in, which includes our bodies, then there is our experience of the world, and our inner mental world. The first instance, the actual world which we are in, is only known by the referent, the experience OF the world, which is separate from the actual world, but which is a faithful representation of some slice of that world, which is functional to us.

One should not confuse the former with the latter. We can begin to form some understanding of the former through science, where we remove our subjective apprehension, and abstract out principles which can describe how that representation changes in relation to other things. That is, we build a model of the world. This is the closest we can get to the world outside of our senses, but it is still an impoverished, human centric view of the noumena.

Can you ever imagine, for example, a human made robot, which doesn’t have a representation of the world inside it? Could a robot somehow take that external world inside itself WITHOUT creating an INTERNAL representation, within the robot’s own robotic mind? There is no feasible way for a control system (brain) to conduct itself in the world (that which you refer to as entering into us), without RECREATING that world INSIDE ITSElF as a representation of that outer world. It is a representation, because it is a model, an inner reconstruction of the things outside, are recreated inside, so they can be acted upon.

I suggest you do some research on AI and the difficulties AI researchers have had attempting to create essentially artificial minds which can perceive the world. It’s not as simple as having an aperture in which light can enter a lens, strike a retina, and hey presto, the world is captured. Just because you don’t understand how we perceive the world, doesn’t mean it’s as simple as opening the blinds and allowing the light in. How do we see objects? We must recognise them first, and to do that, your brain needs to detect patterns, that is, consistency within the visual signal, such that it understands where one object ends and another begins. It is essentially modelling the signal, trying to understand what the sensory signal is referring to.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Sat May 15, 2021 4:26 am
That is the case, but what is also the case is, the experience of the world is in us. There are two, distinct things. The world which we are in, which includes our bodies, then there is our experience of the world, and our inner mental world. The first instance, the actual world which we are in, is only known by the referent, the experience OF the world, which is separate from the actual world,
No one is saying that experience isn't internal. If that's anyone's understanding of what any realists are saying, then they're very confused about what's being said.

The dispute is rather about what we're experiencing; in other words, what the experience is of. Are we experiencing, are we aware of the external world, or are we only experiencing, are we only aware of something that our own mind is doing?

The distinction is very similar to the use/mention distinction.

It's just like no one would be disagreeing that "The cat is on the mat" is a sentence, is comprised of text, that it has six words, that they're all two and three-letter words, and so on. But there would be a disagreement if someone were to claim that the sentence is only about or of a sentence, that it is about text, that it is about two and three-letter words, and so on rather than being about a cat's relationship to a mat.

Or no one is disagreeing that a particular painting of a cow is done on canvas, with pigments suspended in oil, etc. But there would be a disagreement if someone were to claim that the painting is only of canvas, oil paints, etc. rather than being of a cow.

In just the same way no one is disagreeing that experience is something our internal processes do, that it's a mental phenomenon, etc. The disagreement is over what the experience is of, and not just semantically, but ontologically. It's not just of internal processes, mental phenomena, etc.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by henry quirk »

That is the case, but what is also the case is, the experience of the world is in us. There are two, distinct things. The world which we are in, which includes our bodies, then there is our experience of the world, and our inner mental world. The first instance, the actual world which we are in, is only known by the referent, the experience OF the world, which is separate from the actual world, but which is a faithful representation of some slice of that world, which is functional to us.

The world exists. I'm in the world. I apprehend the world. I respond and react to the world. I develop or adopt symbols to name the world. Thru those symbols I develop or adopt beliefs and opinions about the world.

There is no model or representation of the world in my head.


we build a model of the world.

No. We apprehend the world as it is, not perfectly or in its entirety, but as it is.


Can you ever imagine, for example, a human made robot, which doesn’t have a representation of the world inside it? Could a robot somehow take that external world inside itself WITHOUT creating an INTERNAL representation, within the robot’s own robotic mind? There is no feasible way for a control system (brain) to conduct itself in the world (that which you refer to as entering into us), without RECREATING that world INSIDE ITSElF as a representation of that outer world. It is a representation, because it is a model, an inner reconstruction of the things outside, are recreated inside, so they can be acted upon.

Current automation, no matter how advanced, is utterly incapable of apprehension, self-consciousness, or even consciousness. Eventually, we may create sentience/sapience (in some way outside the normal way we do it now): when we do, it'll be a person that can apprehend the world and conduct it within itself. It won't need models or representations becuz, like us, it will directly apprehend the world and respond and react to the world. It will, like us, develop or adopt beliefs and opinions about the world.


I suggest you do some research on AI and the difficulties AI researchers have had attempting to create essentially artificial minds which can perceive the world. It’s not as simple as having an aperture in which light can enter a lens, strike a retina, and hey presto, the world is captured.

Of course it's not that simple. I, for example, am significantly more than an optical system or an olfactory system or an auditory system or a tactile system or a nervous system. I'm a whole, a person. I self-direct. I don't passively receive data. I actively, with intention, apprehend the world.


Just because you don’t understand how we perceive the world, doesn’t mean it’s as simple as opening the blinds and allowing the light in.

I do understand, and, I never said it was simple only direct.


It is essentially modelling the signal, trying to understand what the sensory signal is referring to.

No. I apprehend. There's no modeling.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Dimebag »

henry quirk wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 3:04 pm The world exists. I'm in the world. I apprehend the world. I respond and react to the world. I develop or adopt symbols to name the world. Thru those symbols I develop or adopt beliefs and opinions about the world.

There is no model or representation of the world in my head....



....
No. We apprehend the world as it is, not perfectly or in its entirety, but as it is.
Yes, yes, and yes. And we agreed prior that we see the world through our perceptions, which are representations. They aren’t perfect, yes I agree, and yes they are impoverished to some extent, we don’t have 100% perception of all there is to know about the world. But, you think we see the world “as it is”. Maybe you can expand in this a little. You see, I find this point hard to accept, because sometimes, we clearly DON’T see the world as it is, but rather, as our perception can best determine it is.

When our perception has imperfect information about an object, it will “guess” about what that object is, and present it to us AS that guess. Furthermore, sometimes, perception can malfunction, such that its guesses are completely wrong, such as when under the influence of a hallucinogen, or for instance, if a person has psychosis. These are cases which suggest our perception of the world is built, and objects we see are our minds “best guess” of what is out there. Most of the time, it’s guess is very accurate, when the system is functioning correctly and with enough information, and if it has been “trained” correctly via past experience. But if these conditions aren’t met, the world is not perceived correctly, compared to other more reliable sources of what is there.

How does your view that we see the world as it is account for cases where we don’t see the world as it is? Why would we not see the world as it is, unless what we see is a “guess” of what is actually there in the world?
henry quirk wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 3:04 pm Current automation, no matter how advanced, is utterly incapable of apprehension, self-consciousness, or even consciousness. Eventually, we may create sentience/sapience (in some way outside the normal way we do it now): when we do, it'll be a person that can apprehend the world and conduct it within itself. It won't need models or representations becuz, like us, it will directly apprehend the world and respond and react to the world. It will, like us, develop or adopt beliefs and opinions about the world.
When I say “model” in reference to perception, I am referring to the way perception “builds” the world from features, and then uses that constructed experience to stand in for the thing outside itself it represents. Could you expand a little more on what you mean by apprehend. There seems to be a lot of explanatory power placed into that one word.

I can see that, you dislike the idea of a “surrogate” stand in for the world out there. What then, is your understanding of what perception is? You have agreed that our experience happens via perception, and that this is something inside us. But you want to claim this is still “direct”. How is it NOT an impression, i.e. INdirect? When you say we see things directly, I hear from you that we see things “as they are”, how else could we see, other than as our perception is? To say we see as it is, is only to say that our perceptions are the way they are. You want to say, they somehow “match” the things in the world.

I would rather say, they are a (usually) accurate impression, representation, etc of some small slice of the world, they are close enough to interact with the world, to live and be immersed in that perceptual surrogate world without calling it into question.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Sun May 16, 2021 2:37 am
Yes, yes, and yes. And we agreed prior that we see the world through our perceptions, which are representations. They aren’t perfect, yes I agree, and yes they are impoverished to some extent, we don’t have 100% perception of all there is to know about the world. But, you think we see the world “as it is”. Maybe you can expand in this a little. You see, I find this point hard to accept, because sometimes, we clearly DON’T see the world as it is, but rather, as our perception can best determine it is.
As an epistemic issue, the only way to know that you're getting something wrong perceptually is to know what's right instead. But you can't know that unless you can get things right perceptually.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by henry quirk »

we agreed prior that we see the world through our perceptions, which are representations.

No, we don't agree. I'm a direct realist. There are no representations; there's direct apprehension.

To be clear...

Direct Realism

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of or intervention of [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmo, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person as he's in the world is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Dimebag »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 2:27 pm we agreed prior that we see the world through our perceptions, which are representations.

No, we don't agree. I'm a direct realist. There are no representations; there's direct apprehension.

To be clear...

Direct Realism

The world exists, exists independent of us, and is apprehended by us as it is (*not in its entirety but as it is). We **apprehend it directly, without the aid of or intervention of [insert hypothetical whatsis] and without constructing a model or representation of the world somewhere in our heads.

*If you take into account perspective (where the observer stands in relation to the observed); intervening, inconstant, possible, distortions (water instead of atmo, for example); and the inherent limits of the observer himself; then what is seen is as it is.

**Direct realism, of course, is not just about sight. Hearing, taste, smell, touch: the entire interface of a person as he's in the world is the concern of the direct realist. That's why I define it as I do. Apprehension covers it all, the whole of a person's direct contact with the world.
The problem I have with direct realism, among others is, it presumes an inner homunculus, an “inner eye” which detects these stimulus. So you are essentially just retreating inside your skull if you postulate such an explanation. Furthermore, it doesn’t gel with current understanding of how perception works.
Post Reply