Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Creativity seems like an almost impossible topic of Consciousness to deal with. But I believe that given some Logical Thinking we will be able to explore Creativity. With the Perspective of the Inter Mind Model (IMM), we can ask the question: Is Creativity a process in the Conscious Mind (CM) or is it simply Neural Activity of the right kind in the Physical Mind (PM)?

Music can be very Creative, but Music can also not be very Creative. Listening to Random Noise or Random Tones can be interesting for a short period time. However, Random Noise and Tones are not very Creative and are not really even Music. I think that Enjoyment is very important when it comes to Artistic Creations. Much Music is written, but the Music that is truly Creative and Original has a Special Essence. People Enjoy it. I think it is clear that the appreciation of that Special Essence of the Music needs to take place in a CM. Scientists can study and measure all the Neural Activity related to this, and still know nothing about the Enjoyment of the Conscious Experience of the Music. The IMM Logically compels us to understand that Music is for the CM and not for the PM.

Claims about Computers creatively writing Music are misleading. Let's explore the Creative Process for Human Music and for Computer Music. The Human composer will get Inspired by a particular line of Musical Notes while Hearing them in the CM. The Human composer might play these Notes on a Piano, Guitar, or other instrument to get a more robust Auditory Experience than what is in the Imagination of the CM. The Human composer will develop a Desire to write the Music. The Human composer is constantly Hearing the Notes at the CM level in order to write the Music. This is because the Human composer instinctively knows the Music is being composed for the Enjoyment of a CM.

Computer Music is not produced this way. Computer Music is generated by Algorithms, Rules, and Random Note generators. The Computer is not Hearing, as a Conscious Experience, any of the Music that is being generated because a Computer has no Connection to a CM. The Computer program is trying to generate Music for the Enjoyment of a CM without being able to Experience it as a CM. It cannot Hear what it is Generating. The Computer cannot Enjoy the Music and it can never Listen to the Music like a CM would be able to do. The Computer does not Desire to write Music and it does not even know that it generated Music. It's all Algorithmic and Mechanistic. It is obvious that a Computer is unable to write Music for a CM, and there is no way to Program that ability into the Computer with Software. It can only be concluded that a Computer cannot Creatively Write Music, but rather it Generates or Calculates the Music. When it is realized that a Computer is merely Calculating Music, it becomes completely understandable that there is no Creativity involved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do you think they are different?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Although this post is about Sound and Music the following Logic for the Experience of Light is applicable:
It made no Sense that the Neural Activity produced the beautiful panoramic Color Visual Experience that we all have. Where, after all, were all those Colors coming from inside the Neurons? How could Neurons Firing have a Property of Color? There was a problem here because we could not find any courses to take that would answer this latest question. Science had effectively hit a Brick Wall on this question. There was an Explanatory Gap at the Neural Light Level. It was clear that our Visual Experience was still that panoramic, Color filled, Experience that we always had. The Light was still there, being generated by the Brain in some way. But there was no Chain of Logic that could take us from Neurons Firing to the Visual Light Experience. It became an item of Faith that Science would figure out what the required Chain of Logic would be. Humanity has tried for a hundred years to figure this out. But there is nothing to show for the effort. All we know is that Neural Activity happens and then a Visual Light Experience happens. Even though we knew it was the Neurons, most technical minded people were eventually driven to ask the question: "How does this Visual Light Experience actually happen from the Neural Activity"? It became clear that new ways of Thinking about the problem needed to be developed. This is what Science is supposed to do. This is how Science progresses. But instead, a lot of Scientists are still trying to push the Visual Light Experience back into the Neurons, but the Visual Light Experience refuses to be pushed into the Neurons. The Visual Light Experience seems to be something separate from the Neurons, even though we know it is probably connected to the Neural Activity in some way. The Visual Light Experience simply hovers and is embedded in the front of our faces. We sense that it must be some kind of Conscious Experience concept that happens in some kind of Conscious Mind concept. But we cannot know that for sure. It just seems to be our best Speculation for progressing forward.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You'll excuse me if I take neither your personal incredulity, nor your argument from ignorance, as a convincing argument for your case.

Why does there need to be a property of colour in firing neurons? Do individual water molecules have a property of being a liquid?

Because the search for a property that doesn't exist at that level is nonsense. That, however, doesn't mean that there is a difference between the conscious mind and the physical mind. It might well be, as accepted by most scientists in the field, that consciousness is simply an emergent property of the physical interactions within the brain. Much like being a liquid is an emergent property of the interactions of water molecules at 20-deg C.

Sure.

You think light is generated by the brain? Or do you mean the brain generates the experience of light? Yes, the individual neurons do produce photons of light in wavelengths ranging from infra-red to violet, but that is not the "Light" that we experience.

Emergent properties have a habit of not being understood, I guess, if people only look at the properties within the individual elements, and not in the patterns of their interactions.

No, it simply became a question (one of the many) that science has not yet answered, and may not ever answer. Sure, some take it as a given (on faith) that science will one day be able to answer it, but that is up to the individual person, not science.

Humanity has tried for hundreds of years to do many things. The notion of human flight existed with Homer, around 700-800 BC (Daedalus & Icarus) yet flight was not achieved until the early 20th century. But heck, I guess if you want to call it a day after only a relatively short time looking at a far more complex question, that's your perogative.

So why claim/believe that it is anything more than an as yet unknown process/patterns by the neurons? If A always occurs before B, isn't the logical conclusion that A causes B, even if the process by which A leads to B is not yet understood?

No, it doesn't seem to be our best speculation. It might be useful to separate the emergent property from whatever gives rise to it, and explore matters/properties that only exist at the level of the emergent property, but that is different from believing them separate things.

Let me ask you this: do you think a sufficiently complex computer could ever be creative, despite it only ever being a heap of electronics?

 

There does not need to be a property of Color. But there could be. However, I am just trying to Highlight the fact that something like Redness is conceptually not understandable through any Physical Property that we know about Neurons. The analogy with Water is completely Incoherent. A collection of Water molecules can be considered to be a Liquid. True. But Liquid Water is indeed just a Collection of Water Molecules. This is easy to understand. Further, it is easy to understand how properties of individual Water Molecules act to manifest in the Properties of Liquid Water. A Collection of Neurons can form into a Visual Cortex. We can easily understand that the Visual Cortex is made out of a Collection of Neurons. But it is not Coherent to say that this Collection of Neurons in the Visual Cortex (simply by virtue of it being a Collection) then Logically produces the Redness Experience in a Conscious Mind. Your Analogy is worse than Apples and Oranges it is rather more like Apples and Bowling Balls.

The Brain generates the Experience of Light, the Light Qualia, or the Conscious Light as I like to say.

Another Incoherent Analogy. Human Flight is a very Physical thing to do and can be easily understood as far as the thing itself that you want to do. But with the Conscious Experience of Redness, and any other Conscious Experience, the Thing itself is completely unexplained. The Phenomena of Conscious Experiences are not part of any category of Phenomena known to Science, or else Science would have had a lot to say about it by now.

I Speculate because that is all we can do when it comes to Conscious Experience. You Speculate that it is Neural Activity. Also a good Speculation, but this seems to be going nowhere. I encourage everyone to Think outside the Box when it comes to Consciousness.

If A causes B but you have no idea what B is, then the logic falls apart on the face of it. Not only is the Process not understood but the thing being caused is completely not understood. The goal of Science should be to understand what B is first. Then maybe it will be Coherent to study how A causes B.

A complex Computer will not be able to write Music because it can not Experience it. Maybe if we give it a Connection to the Conscious Experience of Music, then it can be Creative with Music. You may not be familiar with my website about this topic and many other topics: http://TheInterMind.com

 

I agree.
Same : GPT3 AI will not be able to write any text because it can not experience it.

You can make the computer mimic existing work created by humans, but the computer can not "invent" by himself from scratch, anything that would be surely appreciated by humans.
It is not a human, so it has not the same feeling as a human (or not feeling at all, but the result will be the same).

Invention is not random and it is not copy, it is a bit from both.
But to know if the random new thing is not too far from the copy, so to be appreciated, only a human can determine it.

 

Exactly.

 

Same : GPT3 AI will not be able to write any text because it can not experience it.

You can make the computer mimic existing work created by humans, but the computer can not "invent" by himself from scratch, anything that would be surely appreciated by humans.
It is not a human, so it has not the same feeling as a human (or not feeling at all, but the result will be the same).

Invention is not random and it is not copy, it is a bit from both.
But to know if the random new thing is not too far from the copy, so to be appreciated, only a human can determine it.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Humans are able to write because they have learned language and have imagination true. But all artists need to go to school to learn techniques of their craft. Thus when they produce a new work of art, they are using the skills and knowledge of what they have previously learned and observed. Not even a human artist can draw a cathedral without ever having see a cathedral.
Learning is not problematic to a GPT3 . It has access to the internet and anything it needs it can learn. Obviously it excels at "realism", but it also is able to create original composites of different objects and that IS creative.

Watch this GPT3 art created from mere linguistic descriptions.


and

 

Why your fixation with individual neurons? It is a red-herring looking for a property of the whole in the individual elements that make up the whole.

No, it's coherent, you just don't agree with it.

No, it is not "just" a collection. To state that it is "just a collection" is to ignore the properties that water has that individual molecules don't have. Being a liquid (and all the things that water is capable of) is an emergent property of the collection, properties that the individual molecules don't have. That is the point of the analogy. But if you want to ignore that...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So your issue is not one of the analogy being incoherent, but that you can't understand how the emergent property of experience arises from neurons. That's fair, but the analogy isn't one of understanding how it arises, only in suggesting that it is an emergent property. The issue of complexity doesn't make the analogy incoherent, nor inaccurate for purposes intended.

It's not "simply by virtue of it being a collection". Again you dismiss simply due to not accepting the complexity and what that is capable of. And it is within that complexity that the answers lie - or at least as science is investigating. You don't understand how one can lead to the other... that's fine, noone yet does... but that doesn't mean that one doesn't lead to the other.

There is no accounting for your inability to comprehend.

So you accept that the physical brain, the neurons et al, produce the experience of light?

Once again the analogy is coherent, and it is merely you seeking false precision from it that makes you want to dismiss it. The purpose of the analogy is that it takes time - some considerable time - to achieve scientific understanding of things that it sets it sights on. With flight it took quite a while, and flight - as you yourself have stated - is "easily understood" (relatively speaking). Yet you seem to expect the same from probably the most complex thing we are aware of in our universe.

Science has gotten quite far, identifying the seat of consciousness, for example. But again, you seem to expecting an answer to the most complex of matters in far less time than it took to understand the physics of flight. Your notion that "this seems to be going nowhere" is to misunderstand the complexity of the problem, or at worst to understand it and to expect far too much due a personal agenda that favours the unscientific.

We do know what B is. It is the experience of things. That is sufficient in the first instance for the logic to be valid. Again you are looking for false precision so as to be able to dismiss what you don't like.

You are begging the question, I'm afraid: you are asserting out of the box that a complex computer can not experience. Try not to do that, and you may start to get somewhere.

So on what basis do you assert that a computer could never be complex enough to experience? Other than your confidence in your personal incredulity. And your ignorance, of course. But don't worry about the ignorance - noone yet knows how it emerges as a property of the interactions within the brain. But that doesn't mean that it's not the result of those interactions, or that it is the result of something else.

 

It is a Mindboggling Incoherent premise that just because something is Complex that it is Conscious. You are inserting Magical properties into a mechanistic thing like Computer Architecture and Software Complexity. Further, you are Hoping beyond all Hope that this is what Consciousness is, without providing any chain of Logic that takes you from Simplicity to Complexity, that shows how Complexity leads to something like the Conscious Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste, as examples.

 

Luckily, nobody has said that.

 

Here's what was said:

You are begging the question, I'm afraid: you are asserting out of the box that a complex computer can not experience. Try not to do that, and you may start to get somewhere.
So on what basis do you assert that a computer could never be complex enough to experience?

What do you think this says about what they think with regard to Complexity and Consciousness?

 

As a programmer, I think it is fairly safe to say that a computer cannot "experience" anything.

On the other hand, no one has really defined what consciousness is. So it would be a bit arrogant of me to unequivocally state that it can't happen.

On the other other hand, an astrolabe is incredibly complex, and no one would state it is conscious.

 

Is some feedback mechanism a pre requisite?

Apparently horses can recognize themselves in mirrors and even "preen themselves" ( in the news today or yesterday)

 

Hard to say. I've never seen a dog that appears to recognize themselves in the mirror... but I don't know anyone who would argue that a dog isn't conscious.

 

Is it not you who is assigning magical properties to consciousness.? There is nothing magical about consciousness. Almost all living things have degrees of consciousness. We just haven't quite figured it out yet. But it isn't magical.

Isn't the universe a self-referential object?

Self-reference

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The ancient symbol Ouroboros, a dragon that continually consumes itself, denotes self-reference.[1]

IMO, self reference is the foundation of consciousness.

I think , therefore I am.

p.s. Isn't the Krebs cycle a self referential chemical process. Isn't mitosis (cell division) a self-referential process?

 

You want to hear a computer program refer to itself as a consciousness?

Try this GPT3 interview.

 

Is the universe an "object"?

Maybe an "object" must be finite to be so described.

In what sense might "the universe" ( something we can only experience directly as aspects of a greater part)
refer to itself?

I do like the observation that we are the universe looking at itself ,but doubt whether this can be taken too literally.

 

As gmilam pointed out to you, that's not what I said. It's not even close to what I said. Do you understand that that saying A might arise from B does not mean, nor imply, that if you have B then you have A? If so, go back and re-read what I wrote.

How? Is it inserting magical properties into H2O molecules that gives rise to the property of being a liquid? I get that you don't agree with me, but you're going to have to put something forward other than your confidence in ignorance.

You show the brain to contain something more than just the matter, the cells, the atoms, and the activity thereof, including the neurons etc. Show that there is something else. Then you may be on to something. But until then, if all you have is a vast bag of spanners moving in complex patterns, and you pull out a hammer, then logic and parsimony dictate that we should assume the hammer was created from the bag of spanners, even if we don't understand how. Asserting that there is somehow something else at work would be to add magic. And I'm not the onedoing that.

It says they think that a sufficiently complex computer, that generates the correct patterns of interactions, might be able to achieve what we understand to be consciousness, all without the need for anything magical.

 

When I saw this proposition originally what came to mind is Newton's third law:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

To me that sounds like a definition of self-referential actions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Perhaps the universe as an unbounded object might be exempt from that Law, but it is one of the Laws of Nature within the universe, no?