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
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 2:49 pm
Dimebag wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 5:12 am Your question is actually quite a deep one. Are you asking, how do we differentiate between internal, or mind generated experiences, as opposed to world generated experiences?
Yes, and I'm asking that in the context of a claim that we only experience internal phenomena.
That's all we got. All external experiences come to us vie our sensations, which are internally processed. Where does the boundary lie? How ould you characterise a heart beat ? Is a nail in the foot not a nervous signal that is a response to the p****. The nail is not just a nail, it would not feel like the same thing if it was jabbed in the eye or hand. The work is for you to translate internally, with the help of other senses.
Perception is interpretation. What part of you carries the sensation if not the mind?
Is there a context for ONLY experiencing external phenomena? I think not. In some sense phenomena are wholly internal. That is not to say that there is no external world, its just that phenomena are created within the world view.
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: Sun May 09, 2021 3:03 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 2:49 pm
Dimebag wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 5:12 am Your question is actually quite a deep one. Are you asking, how do we differentiate between internal, or mind generated experiences, as opposed to world generated experiences?
Yes, and I'm asking that in the context of a claim that we only experience internal phenomena.
That's all we got. All external experiences come to us vie our sensations, which are internally processed. Where does the boundary lie? How ould you characterise a heart beat ? Is a nail in the foot not a nervous signal that is a response to the p****. The nail is not just a nail, it would not feel like the same thing if it was jabbed in the eye or hand. The work is for you to translate internally, with the help of other senses.
Perception is interpretation. What part of you carries the sensation if not the mind?
Is there a context for ONLY experiencing external phenomena? I think not. In some sense phenomena are wholly internal. That is not to say that there is no external world, its just that phenomena are created within the world view.
If that's all we got then how do you personally avoid idealism a la solipsism?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 4:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 3:03 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 2:49 pm

Yes, and I'm asking that in the context of a claim that we only experience internal phenomena.
That's all we got. All external experiences come to us vie our sensations, which are internally processed. Where does the boundary lie? How ould you characterise a heart beat ? Is a nail in the foot not a nervous signal that is a response to the p****. The nail is not just a nail, it would not feel like the same thing if it was jabbed in the eye or hand. The work is for you to translate internally, with the help of other senses.
Perception is interpretation. What part of you carries the sensation if not the mind?
Is there a context for ONLY experiencing external phenomena? I think not. In some sense phenomena are wholly internal. That is not to say that there is no external world, its just that phenomena are created within the world view.
If that's all we got then how do you personally avoid idealism a la solipsism?
That's easy. If you can kick it, it is real.
I'd not reject the truth on the basis of adverse conseuquences. The fact is that we tend to treat out perception as information about the outside world intuitively.
But we must never forget the findings and approach of phenomenology. Husserl and Merleau-Ponty pretty much had is sorted.

If you ever get the chance to read Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, I think you will get what I am saying.
He talks at length about WW1 amputees and phantom limbs and phantom pains.
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: Sun May 09, 2021 8:20 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 4:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 3:03 pm
That's all we got. All external experiences come to us vie our sensations, which are internally processed. Where does the boundary lie? How ould you characterise a heart beat ? Is a nail in the foot not a nervous signal that is a response to the p****. The nail is not just a nail, it would not feel like the same thing if it was jabbed in the eye or hand. The work is for you to translate internally, with the help of other senses.
Perception is interpretation. What part of you carries the sensation if not the mind?
Is there a context for ONLY experiencing external phenomena? I think not. In some sense phenomena are wholly internal. That is not to say that there is no external world, its just that phenomena are created within the world view.
If that's all we got then how do you personally avoid idealism a la solipsism?
That's easy. If you can kick it, it is real.
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.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8533
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by Sculptor »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:20 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 4:19 pm

If that's all we got then how do you personally avoid idealism a la solipsism?
That's easy. If you can kick it, it is real.
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.
What else you got?
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: Sun May 09, 2021 8:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:20 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 4:19 pm

If that's all we got then how do you personally avoid idealism a la solipsism?
That's easy. If you can kick it, it is real.
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.
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: Sun May 09, 2021 10:19 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:20 pm

That's easy. If you can kick it, it is real.
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.
What else you got?
A request for how you personally get around that problem.
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 09, 2021 11:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 8:20 pm

That's easy. If you can kick it, it is real.
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.
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 May 06, 2021 2:40 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 12:52 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 10:59 pm I'm not going to run through the whole thing--you typed a lot more than you needed to, but here's the problem for the first couple things you suggest. The objections would keep going this way throughout:



On your view, what you're actually seeing is a mental image of a wall. You're not seeing anything external to you. Hence there's no way to correlate what you believe to only be a mental image of a wall with any external world. There's no way for you to even begin to tell if there's an external world, if there are really any walls, etc.



On your view, what you're actually experiencing is a mental image of impacting your face into the wall. You're not seeing/experiencing anything external to you. Hence there's no way to correlate what you believe to only be a mental image of impacting your face into the wall with any external world. There's no way for you to even begin to tell if there's an external world, if you really have a face, etc.



On your view, what you're actually sensing is a mental image of being abruptly stopped by a wall. You're not seeing anything external to you. Hence there's no way to correlate what you believe to only be a mental image of being abruptly stopped by a wall with any external world.There's no way for you to even begin to tell if there's an external world, if you really have a body to run into a wall, etc.



On your view, what you're actually experiencing is a mental image of your nose getting broken. You're not seeing anything external to you. Hence there's no way to correlate what you believe to only be a mental image of your nose being broken with any external world. There's no way for you to even begin to tell if there's an external world, if you really have a nose, etc.



On your view, what you're actually experiencing is a mental image of your splotches of blood on your shirt. You're not seeing anything external to you. Hence there's no way to correlate what you believe to only be a mental image of blood on your shirt with any external world. There's no way for you to even begin to tell if there's an external world, if you really have shirt, blood, etc.


And so on for every single claim.

Again, there is ZERO way for you to even begin to correlate anything with an external world, given what you're claiming about what perception is from a conscious perspective.
If what you are saying is that even after that story, you still would not trust your internal Representation of a Wall then it is hopeless. That was my best shot. There is nothing I can say further. We are at an Impasse.
No, what I'm saying is exactly what I said: On your view . . . there's no way for you to even begin to tell if there's an external world, if there are really any walls, etc.

Your view paints you into a corner that's impossible to even begin to get out of . . . whether you can realize this or whether you acknowledge it or not.
I really don't understand your insistence that I don't understand something, other than you are grasping at straws to justify your Naïve Realist view.
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: Mon May 10, 2021 1:02 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 2:40 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 12:52 pm
If what you are saying is that even after that story, you still would not trust your internal Representation of a Wall then it is hopeless. That was my best shot. There is nothing I can say further. We are at an Impasse.
No, what I'm saying is exactly what I said: On your view . . . there's no way for you to even begin to tell if there's an external world, if there are really any walls, etc.

Your view paints you into a corner that's impossible to even begin to get out of . . . whether you can realize this or whether you acknowledge it or not.
I really don't understand your insistence that I don't understand something, other than you are grasping at straws to justify your Naïve Realist view.
If you think you understand it, I'll ask you the same question I asked Dimebag: "Try paraphrasing the issue I'm trying to get you to focus on, so I can see if you understand it at all."

In fact, I'd almost be willing to offer you money if you'd even make an attempt to do the above, which I'd put money on you avoiding instead.

Your responses continually show that you don't at all understand the issue that I'm asking you about. But I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong in that.
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Mon May 10, 2021 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 May 06, 2021 2:42 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:00 pm Science would go to statistical methods. By showing statistically that people can avoid walking into Walls . . .
If all anyone really has access to is their own minds, are you saying that we're doing statistics about imagining that there are other people, walls, etc.? Your view posits that we can't actually observe any other people. So we'd only be able to do statistics about our own mental phenomena.
Statistically, every time you run head first into the Wall you will get a broken nose. Do you think this tells you nothing about the Wall? What don't you get about this?
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: Mon May 10, 2021 1:05 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 2:42 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:00 pm Science would go to statistical methods. By showing statistically that people can avoid walking into Walls . . .
If all anyone really has access to is their own minds, are you saying that we're doing statistics about imagining that there are other people, walls, etc.? Your view posits that we can't actually observe any other people. So we'd only be able to do statistics about our own mental phenomena.
Statistically, every time you run head first into the Wall you will get a broken nose. Do you think this tells you nothing about the Wall? What don't you get about this?
Given the view that you're only aware of/you can only really observe your own mental phenomena, on what grounds would it tell you that there's a wall rather than telling you something about the sole mind's mental phenomena?
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 4:21 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 1:00 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 11:04 pmFill this out, with just one simple thing:

"The first epistemic step regarding how science knows that we're detecting an external world is _________________." And then fill out the first step, and only the first step. I'm not going to assume that you're telling me the whole story, so you don't need to worry that I'll take it that way. You're just telling me the FIRST epistemic step. Simple.
Science would go to statistical methods. By showing statistically that people can avoid walking into Walls they will have proven that we are detecting the External World of Walls pretty good. Eventually they will discover that people will almost 100% of the time be able to avoid Walls. You do not need to See Walls as they are in a Naïve Realist way to avoid them. It isn't even logical that there can be no Detection Surrogate that will accomplish the same thing as Naïve Realism.
I'll be surprised if Terrapin Station is satisfied with that explanation. To, "go to statistical method," can hardly be the first step. Where does the statistical data come from? Even for a, "statistical method," wouldn't the first step have to be observation of people walking and walls. But if the external (perceived) walls are only questionable events in our consciousness, whatever data we gather to do our statistical analysis can be no better than the unreliable conscious perception. We'd be statistically analyzing our conscious illusions, not any external reality.

The fact is, no scientific fact can be established by statistics. "Induction," is not how science is done, though most philosophers and scientists influenced by them have been hoodwinked into believing that since Hume and Kant undercut the whole foundation of science. The only part, "induction," ever plays in science is as a means of observation and recognition of apparent relationships which suggest further research--but no scientific principle can be established only on the basis of how many times it is observed. That way leads to madness (which explains how so much bad science is put over today).

All successful science is discovering what exists, what the nature of that existence is, and the relationships between those existents. Science does not explain, "why," anything is what it is, only, "what," things are. The question of, "why," is usually wrong in science. The question of what the chemical elements are is how the entire periodic chart of the elements was developed, for example--one of the most profound of scientific certainties. It does not describe, "why," the chemical elements are what they are, only, "what," they are. "Why," comes after that--why the chemical elements behave as they do and interact as they do is answered by, "what," they are. It is the properties of the elements (what they are) that determines what they do. None of these scientific facts could ever be discovered by any statistical means.
The statistical data comes from him running head first into 10 Walls and finding out he broke his nose 10 times. He should begin to understand something about Walls that is consistent and predictable. He should understand some fundamental property of Walls. But it looks like he would still believe that the Representation, in his Mind, of the Wall is somehow not good enough to show him that there are Wall out there. You do not have to somehow See the Wall in some Naïve Realist way. Detecting the Wall is good enough. Detecting is actually the only way. Naïve Realism is called Naïve for a reason.
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: Mon May 10, 2021 1:06 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:05 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 2:42 pm
If all anyone really has access to is their own minds, are you saying that we're doing statistics about imagining that there are other people, walls, etc.? Your view posits that we can't actually observe any other people. So we'd only be able to do statistics about our own mental phenomena.
Statistically, every time you run head first into the Wall you will get a broken nose. Do you think this tells you nothing about the Wall? What don't you get about this?
Given the view that you're only aware of/you can only really observe your own mental phenomena, on what grounds would it tell you that there's a wall rather than telling you something about the sole mind's mental phenomena?
So if all you are saying is that reality could be a Simulation then ok. I always have said that if the Simulation would give me a Broken nose when I ran into a Wall then that would be a pretty good Simulation and I would not know the difference. But you are ultimately trying to justify some sort of Naïve Realism of a World that is in fact a Physical World and not a Simulation, if remember the response chain correctly.
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: Mon May 10, 2021 1:14 pm The statistical data comes from him running head first into 10 Walls and finding out he broke his nose 10 times. He should begin to understand something about Walls that is consistent and predictable. He should understand some fundamental property of Walls. But it looks like he would still believe that the Representation, in his Mind, of the Wall is somehow not good enough to show him that there are Wall out there. You do not have to somehow See the Wall in some Naïve Realist way. Detecting the Wall is good enough. Detecting is actually the only way. Naïve Realism is called Naïve for a reason.
Given your view, how would the replicability of the phenomenon possibly tell you anything about whether there's an external world? You'd be making an assumption that if it's only mental phenomena, if that's all that exists, then it can't be regular/replicable. What would be your epistemic justification for that assumption?
Post Reply