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: Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:30 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:02 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:31 pm

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!
haha
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
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 12:30 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:30 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:02 am

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!
haha
Ahah. was music but not written by computer.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
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 7:48 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 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?
You say you are Observing the Cube as it is in reality. But you are admitting you are seeing a 2D degradation of what the Cube actually is. This would only be true if you were actually Seeing the reflected Light. The funny thing is that your Spatiotemporal requirement assumes some sort of Vectors going out and only reporting the surfaces of the Cube that are not blocked by other objects or by the orientation of the Cube itself. This is exactly how the reflected Light works. You are using some kind of Fake Light Vectoring concept in your Naïve Realism. The only reason that there is perspective, is because of the Optics of our Eyes. Things get smaller as they are farther away because of the Optics in our Eyes. Why should things get smaller as they are farther away? This is all Optics. Perspective is all created by the Optics of our Eyes. You are not Observing Objects as they are, but rather you are Observing Objects based on the Optics of your Eyes.
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 »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 5:04 pm You say you are Observing the Cube as it is in reality.
Yes. The way that cubes are in reality is that from different spatiotemporal reference points, only certain portions of them are visible. Again, THIS IS WHAT A CUBE (and the rest of the world) IS LIKE IN REALITY.

We're necessarily always talking about some (set of) spatiotemporal reference point(s) or other, by the way. There's no "view from nowhere."
This would only be true if you were actually Seeing the reflected Light.
And yes, you're seeing reflected light. THAT'S WHAT THE WORLD IS REALLY LIKE. So that's what you see when you accurately see what the world is like.

It seems like you have in your mind some bizarro-world where there are views from nowhere and where cubes are in relative vacuums and where "seeing a cube" would somehow involve, what--a cube literally entering your body or something? I don't know what you're thinking, but it doesn't appear to at all resemble what the world is really like, where where there are cubes situated in particular ways with other things, where things interact, where properties are always from some spatiotemporal reference point or other, and so on.

Naive realists are saying that we accurately experience things as they are (ceteris paribus), not that we experience things in whatever bizarro-inaccurate misunderstanding that you might have in mind, where maybe you're thinking that things aren't situated in various ways to each other, embedded in a world where they interact, where properties are different from different spatiotemporal reference points, etc. I don't know what sort of ontological picture you have in mind, but it seems to be very weird.

I'm guessing that maybe you're confusing (your) concepts with what the concepts are about or in response to. That seems to be a very common problem with people drawn to idealist views, though it's also troubling (sociologically), as I've run into a number of people who seem to be incapable of sorting out the distinction there, despite those people seeming otherwise intelligent. It's such a fundamental distinction to be able to make, something that should be pretty natural once one reaches somewhere between, say, three and five years old. It's troubling that a lot of adults who seem otherwise reasonably bright and functional would have persistent troubles sorting that out.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by commonsense »

TS, it seems as if SK is saying that, in reality, a given cube is the same size and shape no matter where it is, but that when it is farther away from you, it looks smaller. At least that is one of the reasons (if I’ve got it right) that SK is saying that we don’t see reality.
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 »

commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:40 pm TS, it seems as if SK is saying that, in reality, a given cube is the same size and shape no matter where it is
Properties ALWAYS depend on the spatiotemporal reference point in question, and there is no way to have a point of reference that's not a spatiotemporal reference point.
but that when it is farther away from you, it looks smaller.
From some spatiotemporal reference points, it is indeed smaller than it is at other spatiotemporal reference points.

The above IS what reality is like.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 5:40 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 5:04 pm You say you are Observing the Cube as it is in reality.
Yes. The way that cubes are in reality is that from different spatiotemporal reference points, only certain portions of them are visible. Again, THIS IS WHAT A CUBE (and the rest of the world) IS LIKE IN REALITY.

We're necessarily always talking about some (set of) spatiotemporal reference point(s) or other, by the way. There's no "view from nowhere."
This would only be true if you were actually Seeing the reflected Light.
And yes, you're seeing reflected light. THAT'S WHAT THE WORLD IS REALLY LIKE. So that's what you see when you accurately see what the world is like.

It seems like you have in your mind some bizarro-world where there are views from nowhere and where cubes are in relative vacuums and where "seeing a cube" would somehow involve, what--a cube literally entering your body or something? I don't know what you're thinking, but it doesn't appear to at all resemble what the world is really like, where where there are cubes situated in particular ways with other things, where things interact, where properties are always from some spatiotemporal reference point or other, and so on.

Naive realists are saying that we accurately experience things as they are (ceteris paribus), not that we experience things in whatever bizarro-inaccurate misunderstanding that you might have in mind, where maybe you're thinking that things aren't situated in various ways to each other, embedded in a world where they interact, where properties are different from different spatiotemporal reference points, etc. I don't know what sort of ontological picture you have in mind, but it seems to be very weird.

I'm guessing that maybe you're confusing (your) concepts with what the concepts are about or in response to. That seems to be a very common problem with people drawn to idealist views, though it's also troubling (sociologically), as I've run into a number of people who seem to be incapable of sorting out the distinction there, despite those people seeming otherwise intelligent. It's such a fundamental distinction to be able to make, something that should be pretty natural once one reaches somewhere between, say, three and five years old. It's troubling that a lot of adults who seem otherwise reasonably bright and functional would have persistent troubles sorting that out.
I believe you said that you think you See Objects as they really are, and that you are not Seeing a Representation of Objects in your Mind. If you are going to say you See Objects as they are then you will necessarily be able to See all six sides of a Box and inside the Box, in order to See the Box as it really is. You obviously don't See Objects as they really are, by your own description of the Spaciotemporal Perspective concept. There is no Perspective in how things Really Are. Things just Are. Perspective results from the way our Eyes actually work using Lenses and Light. You should not say you See things as they really are. Just admit you See Objects using reflected Light and the Lenses of your Eyes. After you understand that, then we can go to higher levels of Understanding for how the Human Visual Experience works.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:40 pm TS, it seems as if SK is saying that, in reality, a given cube is the same size and shape no matter where it is, but that when it is farther away from you, it looks smaller. At least that is one of the reasons (if I’ve got it right) that SK is saying that we don’t see reality.
Yes, but it goes Deeper than that. We don't even really See the Light. We See our Brain/Mind Representation of the Light.
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 »

SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:40 pm I believe you said that you think you See Objects as they really are, and that you are not Seeing a Representation of Objects in your Mind. If you are going to say you See Objects as they are then you will necessarily be able to See all six sides of a Box and inside the Box,
Oy vey. As I already said, the way that a cube REALLY IS from particular spatiotemporal reference points is that only some sides are visible.

"There is no perspective in how things really are" couldn't be more wrong. There are no spatiotemporal reference point-free spatiotemporal reference points. There is no "view from nowhere." The very idea of that is completely incoherent.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by commonsense »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:43 pm
Oy vey. As I already said, the way that a cube REALLY IS from particular spatiotemporal reference points is that only some sides are visible.
But that would mean that only some sides exist in reality.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:43 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:40 pm I believe you said that you think you See Objects as they really are, and that you are not Seeing a Representation of Objects in your Mind. If you are going to say you See Objects as they are then you will necessarily be able to See all six sides of a Box and inside the Box,
Oy vey. As I already said, the way that a cube REALLY IS from particular spatiotemporal reference points is that only some sides are visible.

"There is no perspective in how things really are" couldn't be more wrong. There are no spatiotemporal reference point-free spatiotemporal reference points. There is no "view from nowhere." The very idea of that is completely incoherent.
When you use the word "Visible" you are showing the Naivety of your Realism. "Visible" is a word that implicates the use of Light to See.
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 »

commonsense wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:36 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:43 pm
Oy vey. As I already said, the way that a cube REALLY IS from particular spatiotemporal reference points is that only some sides are visible.
But that would mean that only some sides exist in reality.
It means that everything is always some set of ways from some (set of) spatiotemporal reference point(s), and the ways things are are different from each different (set of) spatiotemporal reference point(s).

There's no way to "escape" that reality. That's what the world is really like. Things are really relative/relational and "embedded" in relational complexes with everything else that exists.
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 »

SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:17 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:43 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:40 pm I believe you said that you think you See Objects as they really are, and that you are not Seeing a Representation of Objects in your Mind. If you are going to say you See Objects as they are then you will necessarily be able to See all six sides of a Box and inside the Box,
Oy vey. As I already said, the way that a cube REALLY IS from particular spatiotemporal reference points is that only some sides are visible.

"There is no perspective in how things really are" couldn't be more wrong. There are no spatiotemporal reference point-free spatiotemporal reference points. There is no "view from nowhere." The very idea of that is completely incoherent.
When you use the word "Visible" you are showing the Naivety of your Realism. "Visible" is a word that implicates the use of Light to See.
"Naive" in "naive realism" is using the term in its historical/etymological senses of "natural/not artificial"/"unspoiled"/"unworked"

Obviously we see (when we're literally talking about the sense of sight) via light waves. That in no way implies that you're not seeing something as it is (ceteris paribus). It means that you're seeing it as it is via how vision works. If you're thinking something idiotic such as "you see it via the object literally entering your body" or something like that, that would be your fault.

Naive or direct realism is a stance in philosophy of perception. It's important to remember in that that we're still talking about perception. It's not as if naive realists are dispensing with perception in their stance re philosophy of perception. Perception still has to work via perceptual mechanisms, in the way that perceptual mechanisms interact with the rest of the world. The distinction between naive realism and something like representationalism is that naive realists are not saying that what we're aware of, that all we're aware of in the conscious experience of perception, is mental phenomena per se. What we're aware of is the external world. But again, this doesn't mean that we're not perceptually aware of the external world. We're still talking about perception. It's just perception of the external world versus perception (from a standpoint of what we consciously experience) of mental phenomena per se.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:55 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:17 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:43 pm

Oy vey. As I already said, the way that a cube REALLY IS from particular spatiotemporal reference points is that only some sides are visible.

"There is no perspective in how things really are" couldn't be more wrong. There are no spatiotemporal reference point-free spatiotemporal reference points. There is no "view from nowhere." The very idea of that is completely incoherent.
When you use the word "Visible" you are showing the Naivety of your Realism. "Visible" is a word that implicates the use of Light to See.
"Naive" in "naive realism" is using the term in its historical/etymological senses of "natural/not artificial"/"unspoiled"/"unworked"

Obviously we see (when we're literally talking about the sense of sight) via light waves. That in no way implies that you're not seeing something as it is (ceteris paribus). It means that you're seeing it as it is via how vision works. If you're thinking something idiotic such as "you see it via the object literally entering your body" or something like that, that would be your fault.

Naive or direct realism is a stance in philosophy of perception. It's important to remember in that that we're still talking about perception. It's not as if naive realists are dispensing with perception in their stance re philosophy of perception. Perception still has to work via perceptual mechanisms, in the way that perceptual mechanisms interact with the rest of the world. The distinction between naive realism and something like representationalism is that naive realists are not saying that what we're aware of, that all we're aware of in the conscious experience of perception, is mental phenomena per se. What we're aware of is the external world. But again, this doesn't mean that we're not perceptually aware of the external world. We're still talking about perception. It's just perception of the external world versus perception (from a standpoint of what we consciously experience) of mental phenomena per se.
Everything you Know and ever can Know is obtained through your Conscious Experiences/Perceptions. You accept that you do not Perceive the Object but that you Perceive the reflected Light from the Object. But you insist that there is something Extra than the Perception of the Light. Do I have that right? What is that Extra thing?
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 »

SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:26 pm Everything you Know and ever can Know is obtained through your Conscious Experiences/Perceptions.
Obviously. It's just that what you know isn't only something mental. Confusion between those two ideas shouldn't be that difficult to sort out.

Think of an analogy with a camera, say. Everything you photograph is obtained through a camera lens, etc. This in no way implies that what you photograph is the camera, camera lens, etc.
You accept that you do not Perceive the Object but that you Perceive the reflected Light from the Object.
Not at all. What it is to perceive an object is to perceive it via light reflected from it. That's not NOT perceiving an object. It's what perceiving an object amounts to.
Post Reply