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

SteveKlinko
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by SteveKlinko »

commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:16 pm Not to play at semantics, but possibly to move the discussion along, a better word than “representation” might be “simulation”—in a simulation of the external environment there must be an external environment to be simulated.

I expect pushback on this from both sides. Nonetheless it puts the question of whether there’s an external world into a neatly wrapped package.
I don't think the Visual Representation is a Simulation. I think a Simulation presupposes that there is no External World, so that the Simulation itself is Creating the Representation. The Representation is how we Detect that External World because there is no such thing as Seeing the External World. We are so embedded in our Visual Representations that it's easy to make the Mistake that the Representation is some kind of Direct Seeing. For people that believe there is some sort of Direct Seeing, I only ask how this is possible using any Chain of Logic.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 799
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 20, 2021 2:25 pm To put it simply, the real problem here is that people studying things like perception reached conclusions about how it works that suggested that we're often not seeing the external world as we assume we are, and then that was carried to an extreme of saying, "We only experience a representation period," BUT, somehow that line of reasoning completely overlooked the problem that if we only experience a "representation," then we have no way of claiming that we studied perceptual systems to reach the conclusions we reached in the first place.

It's like traveling from New York to Boston and then concluding that it's impossible to do so. There's obviously a problem with the theory in that case.
What is analogous to what in your analogy? Traveling from city to city is analogous to what with the Representation reality of Visual Experience?
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by commonsense »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:08 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:06 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:51 pm Let me put it this way. We are definitely Seeing our Brain/Mind internal Representation of the External World. The purpose of this Representation is to Detect the External World so we can operate in it. And so yes, we Observe and Study that Representation of the External World. The only things we can know about the External World is gotten by Observing that Representation. We can invent Instruments that enhance our abilities to Observe, such as Microscopes, Telescopes, Infrared Cameras, etc.. But whatever we Visually Observe will be filtered into an Internal Representation. There will probably be a down side to this Detection Mechanism. But you seem to take the possibility of a down side of this to an extreme by thinking that there is no Representation that will let us discover things and understand the External World. Is that what you are saying?
That doesn't look like anything I said, so no, it's probably not what I'm saying.

I know that the above is your view. I'm very familiar with that view, so you do not need to keep relaying what the view is.

What I'm doing is posing a challenge to that view. This is a challenge that you're going to need to think about, all on your own, because you're not going to find an answer to what I'm asking you in the view itself or in any of the usual commentary about the view. So you need to spend time thinking about this and come up with an answer on your own.

So asking in the context of the above: if the view is that you can ONLY see (or sense in general; it wouldn't be limited to vision, obviously) an internal "representation" of the "external world" (in quotation marks because that's how it should be stated given what the view is positing), then on what grounds would you be positing that there even is an external world that you're experiencing a representation of at all? What would plausibly epistemically justify that, given that the view is that you can only experience something "internal"? (We can later deal with what "internal" versus "external" would even amount to on this view.)
We are assuming there is an External World based on our Internal representation that shows us that there is an External World. Now if you are talking about the Speculation that the World is a Simulation then that is a different topic, but ...

From the Inter Mind Website:
Even if Reality is a Simulation we obviously still have Conscious Experiences of that Reality. So there is probably still a Conscious Mind (CM) doing the Experiencing in Conscious Space (CSp). There is probably still an Inter Mind (IM) but it would now connect the CM to the Simulation instead of to a Physical Mind (PM). There are two basic types of Simulations that we can talk about. One type is a Simulation that just runs with us being helpless observers having no ability to affect things that are happening in the Simulation. This means that all our desires, strivings, and actions are just something we experience, but we really can't do anything about anything. The Simulation makes us think we have desires and strivings and that we can do things. In this type of Simulation the CM would have no Volitional connections back to the Simulation and would only have connections from the Simulation to the IM and then to the CM. In the other type the CM can, through Volitional connections through the IM and to the Simulation, affect things in the Simulation similar to how the CM can, through the IM, affect things in Physical Space (PSp). The Simulation will make us believe we are actually in PSp, but there would be no difference for us if we were in an Actual Physical Universe or a Simulated Physical Universe. The take away from this is that it doesn't matter if the IM is connected to a PM or to a Simulation.
I actually agree, Steve. Thanks
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by commonsense »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:17 pm
commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:16 pm Not to play at semantics, but possibly to move the discussion along, a better word than “representation” might be “simulation”—in a simulation of the external environment there must be an external environment to be simulated.

I expect pushback on this from both sides. Nonetheless it puts the question of whether there’s an external world into a neatly wrapped package.
I don't think the Visual Representation is a Simulation. I think a Simulation presupposes that there is no External World, so that the Simulation itself is Creating the Representation. The Representation is how we Detect that External World because there is no such thing as Seeing the External World. We are so embedded in our Visual Representations that it's easy to make the Mistake that the Representation is some kind of Direct Seeing. For people that believe there is some sort of Direct Seeing, I only ask how this is possible using any Chain of Logic.
I get it now. Thanks.
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 20, 2021 3:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:19 pm
commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:16 pm Not to play at semantics, but possibly to move the discussion along, a better word than “representation” might be “simulation”—in a simulation of the external environment there must be an external environment to be simulated.

I expect pushback on this from both sides. Nonetheless it puts the question of whether there’s an external world into a neatly wrapped package.
That would just be the same thing. What would be the grounds for classifying something as a "simulation" or for positing an external thing that's simulated, IF the premise is that we can only experience the "simulation"?

In other words, that's just changing the terms we're using, but not the ideas and the problems with them (given certain claims made in context).
I disagree with you there, and here’s why. A simulation cannot be a simulation unless there is a real thing to simulate, an external environment in this case. A representation can exist even when it references the internal alone.

But if you view simulations and representations the same, then so be it.
I'm not disagreeing with "a simulation cannot be a simulation unless there is a real thing to simulate"--that's wrapped up with the conventional concept of the term, and I'm not disagreeing with "A representation can exist even when it references the internal alone."

What I'm asking is what the epistemic grounds would be for considering something a simulation when we're proposing that we can ONLY access the "simulation". That needs to be answered, not agreed with or disagreed with--it's not a statement, it's a question. And it needs to be answered with the epistemic grounds in 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 »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:08 pm We are assuming there is an External World based on our Internal representation that shows us that there is an External World. Now if you are talking about the Speculation that the World is a Simulation then that is a different topic, but ...
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?
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 20, 2021 4:24 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:25 pm To put it simply, the real problem here is that people studying things like perception reached conclusions about how it works that suggested that we're often not seeing the external world as we assume we are, and then that was carried to an extreme of saying, "We only experience a representation period," BUT, somehow that line of reasoning completely overlooked the problem that if we only experience a "representation," then we have no way of claiming that we studied perceptual systems to reach the conclusions we reached in the first place.

It's like traveling from New York to Boston and then concluding that it's impossible to do so. There's obviously a problem with the theory in that case.
What is analogous to what in your analogy? Traveling from city to city is analogous to what with the Representation reality of Visual Experience?
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.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 799
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 20, 2021 5:21 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:08 pm We are assuming there is an External World based on our Internal representation that shows us that there is an External World. Now if you are talking about the Speculation that the World is a Simulation then that is a different topic, but ...
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.

I say that we certainly do have an understanding of what the External World is like through the Representations that we operate with. No Solipsism with that. You are the one who says we can't.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 799
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 20, 2021 5:23 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:24 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:25 pm To put it simply, the real problem here is that people studying things like perception reached conclusions about how it works that suggested that we're often not seeing the external world as we assume we are, and then that was carried to an extreme of saying, "We only experience a representation period," BUT, somehow that line of reasoning completely overlooked the problem that if we only experience a "representation," then we have no way of claiming that we studied perceptual systems to reach the conclusions we reached in the first place.

It's like traveling from New York to Boston and then concluding that it's impossible to do so. There's obviously a problem with the theory in that case.
What is analogous to what in your analogy? Traveling from city to city is analogous to what with the Representation reality of Visual Experience?
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?
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by commonsense »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:14 pm
commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:19 pm

That would just be the same thing. What would be the grounds for classifying something as a "simulation" or for positing an external thing that's simulated, IF the premise is that we can only experience the "simulation"?

In other words, that's just changing the terms we're using, but not the ideas and the problems with them (given certain claims made in context).
I disagree with you there, and here’s why. A simulation cannot be a simulation unless there is a real thing to simulate, an external environment in this case. A representation can exist even when it references the internal alone.

But if you view simulations and representations the same, then so be it.
I'm not disagreeing with "a simulation cannot be a simulation unless there is a real thing to simulate"--that's wrapped up with the conventional concept of the term, and I'm not disagreeing with "A representation can exist even when it references the internal alone."

What I'm asking is what the epistemic grounds would be for considering something a simulation when we're proposing that we can ONLY access the "simulation". That needs to be answered, not agreed with or disagreed with--it's not a statement, it's a question. And it needs to be answered with the epistemic grounds in question.
I thought you answered that when you indicated that if we know of a simulation only, then it is our reality.
Last edited by commonsense on Tue Apr 20, 2021 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 20, 2021 6:03 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:21 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:08 pm We are assuming there is an External World based on our Internal representation that shows us that there is an External World. Now if you are talking about the Speculation that the World is a Simulation then that is a different topic, but ...
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.
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 20, 2021 6:04 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:23 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:24 pm
What is analogous to what in your analogy? Traveling from city to city is analogous to what with the Representation reality of Visual Experience?
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.
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 20, 2021 6:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:14 pm
commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:15 pm

I disagree with you there, and here’s why. A simulation cannot be a simulation unless there is a real thing to simulate, an external environment in this case. A representation can exist even when it references the internal alone.

But if you view simulations and representations the same, then so be it.
I'm not disagreeing with "a simulation cannot be a simulation unless there is a real thing to simulate"--that's wrapped up with the conventional concept of the term, and I'm not disagreeing with "A representation can exist even when it references the internal alone."

What I'm asking is what the epistemic grounds would be for considering something a simulation when we're proposing that we can ONLY access the "simulation". That needs to be answered, not agreed with or disagreed with--it's not a statement, it's a question. And it needs to be answered with the epistemic grounds in question.
I thought you answered that when you indicated that if we know of a simulation only, then it is our reality.
No, I'm asking anyone who would posit that we're in a simulation and we can only experience the simulation to epistemically justify how they could know this (or at least to support why they'd believe such a thing over alternatives). It's not something I'd posit. I'm just querying about it because it seems like a curious claim to me.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Post by commonsense »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:22 pm
commonsense wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:14 pm
I'm not disagreeing with "a simulation cannot be a simulation unless there is a real thing to simulate"--that's wrapped up with the conventional concept of the term, and I'm not disagreeing with "A representation can exist even when it references the internal alone."

What I'm asking is what the epistemic grounds would be for considering something a simulation when we're proposing that we can ONLY access the "simulation". That needs to be answered, not agreed with or disagreed with--it's not a statement, it's a question. And it needs to be answered with the epistemic grounds in question.
I thought you answered that when you indicated that if we know of a simulation only, then it is our reality.
No, I'm asking anyone who would posit that we're in a simulation and we can only experience the simulation to epistemically justify how they could know this (or at least to support why they'd believe such a thing over alternatives). It's not something I'd posit. I'm just querying about it because it seems like a curious claim to me.
Yes, exactly. There is no way it could be justified how someone could know that their world is a simulation. This is what I understood you to be implying. You asked a question, and carrying the query further can only lead one to conclude that since no one can know a simulation to be a simulation, it must be our reality. It was generous of you to ask, but I suspect you already knew that no one can justify on epistemic grounds any other conclusion.
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 20, 2021 10:27 pm
Yes, exactly. There is no way it could be justified how someone could know that their world is a simulation. This is what I understood you to be implying.
I wouldn't say that's necessarily the case, but at least I can't figure out how someone would epistemically justify that. But maybe someone can think of something that I can't. Hence why I'm asking such questions.
Post Reply