Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

That's his Speculation. He has no actual Arguments to show what Emergence he is talking about. What does he mean when he says Emergent Consciousness, other than Speculating that Consciousness is somehow related to Neural Activity. If he has a Chain of Logic explaining this Emergence then I would like to hear it.

Emergence is Magical when you say something has Emerged with no Explanation of how it Emerged. If Science can show how the Experience of Redness Emerges from the Neural Activity then they will have something. But right now they literally have Nothing. Zero Explanation. It is every bit as much a Belief as any other Religious Belief where they insist that you must just have Faith. The answers will be Revealed at a later time. I became sick and tired of this Crap from Religion a long time ago, and now I am dealing with the same sort of Crap from so called Scientific Minded People. To the Physicalists: If the Experience of Redness Emerges from the Neural Activity then SHOW ME and the World how this is happening.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Watch his lecture by a credentialed physicist.

Is "wetness" a magically emergent quality of specific H2O patterns?

I agree, but that is not due to physical restrictions, it is lack of knowledge at that deep level.

Nahhh, that is just a false equivalency.

What you seek is instant gratification and that causes you to present a contradiction in your own argument. Emergent qualities are not supernatural. They are measurable natural phenomena and contrary to trying to understand and defend belief in the supernatural, they are very busy working at unraveling the physics and mathematics of natural "consciousness" emerging from nano-scale patterns (like natural "wetness" emerges from molecular patterns), by scores of dedicated competent scientists, including Nobel laureates like Penrose.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mathematically Modeling Artificial Sentient Consciousness

Abstract

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ly_Modeling_Artificial_Sentient_Consciousness

p.s. see the "microtubule" thread for more

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And now you're simply arguing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Simply put, nothing will ever convince you, because you'll just push the issue further and further into the detail, and deny the example because it is "not a true Scotsman". It's pathetic of you. Truly.
You say "nothing creative, just hard core Algorithmic Processing" - so what do you think creativity is. Define it, please, so that we know what it is that will satisfy you. If you can't define it, and I honestly suspect you will do everything you can to avoid doing so, then you obviously have no opinion on the matter worth listening to. If you define it as requiring a consciousness then you will be begging the question. If you define it in a matter that can be proven then it is a fairly irrelevant concept as defined.
So please define CREATIVITY before you waste anyone else's time. Without reference to what gives rise to it, what will satisfy you as a demonstration of creativity?

 

That's complete bullshit. And you immediately prove it by then asking what he thinks creativity is. If you don't know that much, you have no way of knowing if it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy at all, nor whether anything could convince him.

You should have led with this, instead of all the previous, vacuous color commentary.

Creativity is the production of new and valuable intangibles or physical objects. This differs from innovation, which is the implementation of creativity. So far, computers are only a tool used in implementation. People have to provide the impetus and value judgement for the output. Even if computers eventually can create the completely unexpected, they will still be a long way from being capable of independently judging its value. And if valueless, random novelty is deemed "creative", then the word loses all distinction.

 

I never said Emergent Properties in general are all Supernatural. I said Claiming that something is an Emergent Property without Explanations of any kind is Magical.

So you are saying that Wetness is an Emergent Property of Molecular Patterns of Water. And you are saying that there is no Explanation for the Wetness concept, to try to make an analogy to Consciousness Emerging from Neural Activity. First of all I think there really is no such a thing as Wetness in the first place. The Relative Humidity of the Air can be Measured. This is the amount of Water in the Air. The Moisture content of soil can be Measured. It is how much water is in the Soil. But what the heck actually is Wetness? If my fingers get Water on them we say they are Wet. My fingers will feel a Coolness from the Water but that is a Conscious Experience of Coolness issue. The Water may make may fingers feel more slippery when I rub them together. That is a Conscious Touch Experience. So if you are saying that Wetness is really a Conscious Experience then I think you have shot yourself in the foot. I think if you had to define and realize what Wetness actually is, you would have to say that it is just a bunch of Water Molecules. What is Wetness to you? Your Analogy of Water and Wetness to Neural Activity and Conscious Experience makes no sense. It is a completely Incoherent thought.

Anything you say about Wetness is perfectly understandable as the action of large amounts of Water Molecules. What is your chain of Logic that takes us from Neural Activity to something like the Experience of Redness? So Redness is made out of some actions of Neurons? What Actions? How? Just saying Redness is Neural Activity is completely Incoherent. With Water and Wetness (if there even is such a thing) it is easy to see how the multitude of Water Molecules can make your fingers feel Cooler and maybe more Slippery.

 

The usual Neural Correlates of Consciousness distraction. Lots of Buzz words while saying Consciousness every now and then. Discovering a better understanding of how Memory works is a good accomplishment. The abstract does not really even claim to reveal anything about Consciousness, but just more understanding of Mechanisms for how Memory works.

 

I certainly do say that a Conscious Mind must be involved for Creativity to happen. That is of course the point of this OP, if you had properly read it. Beauty and Likableness don't need to be Creatively produced. A Sunset can be Beautiful but nobody Creatively produced it. A panoramic view of the Grand Canyon can be Beautiful but nobody Creatively Produced it. So Sunsets and Grand Canyons, although Beautiful and Likeable, were not Creatively produced. If somebody likes Computer generated Music that does not mean the Music was Creatively Produced. Creativity, by definition to me and, is a Conscious Mind Activity. A Conscious Mind has to Create it and Experience it for it to be considered a Creative Production.

 

The assumption we start with is that we're all using a similar understanding of creativity. Otherwise discussion is as pointless as your complaint. Given the 10+ pages thus far, making such an assumption would appear reasonable, and with respect to such an assumption, what he wrote is absolutely a NTS fallacy. That I give him an out by asking him to provide the definition he is working to is because I'm being generous. But until such definition is provided, the assumption that we're all using the same remains the most reasonable, and under such his argument is a NTS fallacy.

Highlighting a fallacious argument (albeit one that is such under the working assumption per above) is hardly vacuuous.

Okay, then...

... is wrong. Or "bullshit", depending on the colour you'd prefer.
Computers are capable of producing new and valuable intangibles, such as a means of beating another player at "Go", given little more than the rules and the ability to learn. Sure, my desktop computer isn't at that level. But those at the forefront of AI very much are.

How does that limit what it is to be creative? If at work I'm given a task to do, and happen to find a way to do it that noone else has, how is that not me being creative? Other people have provided the impetus (they pay my wage) and I don't judge its value beyond achieving the goal set. I leave someone else to decide if my solution is what they're looking for, whether it is unexpected, novel, the first time it has been tried etc. Is this not me being creative, or would you say that because other people have provided the impetus, and other people provide the value judgement for the output, that I have not been creative?

Which they can... just read up on Move 37 of Game 2 in AlphaGo's match with Lee Sedol, which stunned the world of Go.

Sure, computers have to be given an end-goal, such as "win the game", but from that point on some are quite capable of producing completely unexpected strategies to achieve it. I.e. creativity.

Distinction from what? That's surely what we have the word "valuable" for, isn't it? To distinguish between an example of something with value and one without? If you want to talk about "valuable creativity" then feel free to ask for help, 'cos those goalposts can get heavy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Exactly, there are no such thing as Wet particles in nature. It is an emergent property of a bunch of Dry particles.

The rest of your descriptions of wetness are completely irrelevant. H and O particles are not wet, except as a result of a specific pattern from a mixture of H and O. When it's cold that pattern changes into a dry solid, Ice.

Nor is there such a thing as Redness in the brain . It is an emergent property of EM data trough a specific neural pattern of the eyes and brain. The brain cannot see anything at all. It creates a "controlled hallucination" against which the incoming data is compared. If the data matches the memory the brain experiences a "Bing" recognition.

I have demonstrated that there are people who cannot see Red. To them Red appears as Green. If you have watched some of the videos, you can see the astonishment and emotion when they wear special glasses which block the overlapping frequencies in order to achieve greater separation between the two colors and they can finally see a red rose instead of a green rose.

After all this, you still don't understand that cognition is achieved from data stored in memory?

And what have you demonstrated? You keep insisting that emergent properties don't exist but fail to demonstrate how we do experience them except as a speculation of an emergent "magical" property. Why magical and what does that even mean?

Well, is this Magic natural physics or supernatural Magic? It is up to you to explain your Magical property of the experience of redness, instead of demanding that science prove something which they are just beginning to explore and admit they don't have full understanding which patterns in the brain generate the experience of redness.

Perhaps to you it is.
You keep rejecting the concept of emergent qualities arising from patterns of parts which do not possess these qualities individually.

Everything in the universe is an emergent phenomenon of three fundamental values arranged in specific patterns.

 

Sure, but you still haven't provided a definition, beyond it being an activity of the conscious mind. Are you able to provide a definition of creativity without reference to that which gives rise to it?

For example: you are in front of a computer screen and microphone and are told you can communicate with someone in the next room (that you can't see). The person's responses will be on the screen. How would you test whether the person in the other room is able to be creative or not?
Or would it require physical interaction? If so, what are you actually looking for to be able to assess whether someone is being creative or not?

If you can't this, if you can't provide details of how we recognise creativity, then your notion of creativity is surely as useless as any other process you can't describe beyond "it requires consciousness".

 

No, it's your presumption of a fallacy that is pointlessly unjustified. Even assuming you agree on the term creativity, nothing he said there is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, unless you have unilaterally already decided what you claim is genuine AI (a true Scotsman), without reaching any consensus on that term. If so, you need to agree on where the threshold of AI creativity lies. Unless, of course, you're just already conflating or equivocating the two terms. In which case, you would be begging the question, as any attainment of AI would then equate to attainment of creativity, without any independent parameters to determine the latter.

Only if your working assumption is about AI and not creativity.

That is not a novel product. It is just a using a much more complex tool than an abacus. It's not "learning", its extrapolating over many iterations. It a method of doing some predetermined goal, not a product in itself.

Improving existing things or processes is definitionally innovation. It's not producing new, valuable objects. It's just finding better methods to achieve existing, valuable objects. There is no value judgement required for innovation, as the end product is the value, not the process itself. The innovation may save time or money, but neither is a novel object. The novel object is what the process produces, and processes are not improved without preexisting products. Don't get me wrong, innovation is valuable, but only because it serves other, preexisting novel objects. Producing a widget faster and cheaper doesn't help you invent new widgets. Problem solving is not creativity.

Just an improved method to achieve a preexisting product, i.e. a win. Surprise alone does not novelty make. Otherwise, being scared by a rare snake would be a creative, valuable object.

The win is the novel object, which you're feeding it as the impetus. It is only innovating a strategy to achieve that preexisting product. You had to judge "a win" as valuable and set it to the task.

Distinct from "unexpected", "surprise", etc.. Again, finding a $100 bill is a valuable surprise, but very far from being any sort of creative endeavor.
By all means, do give some examples of valueless creativity. Seems such a goal would be inherently without impetus, as value is simply what makes something worthwhile.

 

It was entirely justified. Hence the justification given. Accept it or don't, I couldn't care less.

It's nothing to do with what one thinks genuine AI is, but all to do with what creativity is. AI just happens, in my view, to be something that, on occasion, has shown creativity. So thanks for the red-herring, but no thanks.

No, just need to understand what creativity is and how it is recognised, irrespective of that which gives rise to it.

I do find it funny how you blather on about irrelevancies, as if you think you're making a point worth listening to.

No, for the last time, it is about creativity, hopefully irrespective of that which gives rise to it. Sure, his definition of creativity is that it requires consciousness, which he has subsequently clarified, and which I disagree with.

So Kasparov, Karpov, Fischer et al from the realm of Chess aren't in any way creative in the way they play their games? They haven't set the goal to win. Their brain is simply working out a method of doing some predetermined goal, right? Therefore no creativity? Just so I understand your point of view here: players of games are not creative, is that what you're saying?

And you're wrong about the "learning". AI such as AlphaGo Zero do learn. That is what they are very good at doing. Certainly not general learning but highly focussed. They were not told anything other than the rules to various games (e.g. chess, Go etc). They then played games against themself, and through that they absolutely learnt how to play, with nerual nets and the software mimicking the way our own squishy brains learn (e.g. pathway reinforcement). But maybe you have a definition of "learning" that, similar to SK's definition of "creativity", requires consciousness?

I'm sure you agree that creativity and innovation are not mutually exclusive. Innovation requires creativity, but just because one innovates does not mean they haven't also created what becomes the innovation. Even if the ultimate end goal is the same, it doesn't mean that all improvements are simply innovation in the absence of creativity. There is the creation of the new method, that hasn't been considered before. The innovation is in recognising it as superior and implementing it. And such AI as AlphaGo Zero do both the creation of new combinations and the recognition of it as superior, all within the framework of the rules of a game.

And when the better methods are themselves valuable objects? To other chess players, to itself, or Go players, the moves that AlphaGo (and subsequent versions) come up with are absolutely valuable. And AlphaGo Zero created them and then implemented them. Creation, resulting in innovation.
Now, one could argue that it is not AlphaGo Zero creating, but their programmers doing the creating through the tool of AlphaGo Zero... but since they didn't tell AlphaGo Zero anything other than the rules, and merely gave it the ability to play games against itself, for it to learn, and that it came up with strategies that no human player had yet considered as viable... I see that as a tough argument to make. But feel free. Could be interesting.

Problem solving per se is not creativity, but it can and does quite often involve creativity.
If someone asks me to solve 2+2 = ? then sure, no creativity.
If someone asks you to prove Fermat's last theorem (before anyone had actually proven it) then are you honestly saying that there would be zero creativity involved in finding the solution?

I also think we have different definitions of what it means to be innovative. I accepted your earlier definition of creativity including "valuable", but to me innovation also requires value judgement... judgement that it is better than what was already there, where creativity is in the arriving at it. And there would be value judgement in that as well.
I.e. Creativity is in coming up, without being told, with ways of getting from A to B - judged simply on whether they would get you from A to B. Innovation is in comparing the solution to what is already in play, and if judged to be superior then implementing it. The creative one doesn't need to be the one providing itself with the fact that getting to B is the value, but can simply use that as the value judgement it applies, as the impetus for creating.

AI like AlphaGo Zero can do both. They are not told all the myriad ways to get from A to B. They are simply told "you need to get from A to B", and the tools (rules) they can use. They can now come up with solutions. They create the solutions where none previously existed within them. They then assess those solutions and implement a new one if it is deemed by it to be superior than the one currently in play. Creativity and innovation. Both.

Don't be so fatuous.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Where did I say, or even suggest, that surprise alone makes something novel? It is what caused the surprise that you should focus on, and you know that. It is the move and the strategy that the AI came up with that stunned everyone, that was seen as creative and innovative.

The win is not necessarily the novel object, but I agree that it is certainly the impetus. The novel object in the case of AlphaGo Zero playing Go would be the strategy employed that noone had identified before, and in implementing it. It is also creating it because it never existed within its system at the outset. It knew the aim (to win) and the rules. That was it. So what is creativity if it is not the putting together of what is available in ways not done before, to arrive at a solution?

Sure, it is given the "win" as the target, just as improving a process might be the target at work. But that doesn't preclude the solutions arrived at being creative, being the result of creativity (e.g. the solution being something noone else had considered before). Sure, the recognising it as superior to the existing one at the time, and then implementing it, is the innovation. But it is more often than not a matter of creativity followed by innovation. Both. Not one or the other.
And given that noone has told the AI any pre-existing strategies, that it has come up with all the strategies it employs by itself, how is that not creating? It's not that it built on existing strategies by previous Go (or Chess) players fed into it in some brute-force approach that earlier computers may have done. It learnt from scratch. Genuinely learnt. Simply by playing against itself, and reinforcing neural pathways that were successful, etc.

Okay - so the idea that the infinite monkeys mashing typewriters wouldn't be creative even if they came up with the complete works of shakespeare. Got it. And I don't disagree.

 

I didn't say anything about Wet particles. We were talking about the term Wetness, that you brought up. But Redness is a thing that exists in your Conscious Mind as an Experience. It is Incoherent to talk about Neural Activity and Experience in a Conscious Mind, as an analogy with Water Molecules and Wetness. Wetness does not exist as a thing in itself but Redness certainly does. It seems like you are unable or unwilling to think about your own Conscious Experiences. They are your Conscious Experiences that exist in your Conscious Mind. It came to my attention a couple of years ago that some people may not actually have Conscious Experiences, but rather they seem to be more attuned to what their Neurons are doing in some way that I cannot understand. You don't seem to be able to recognize the existence of something like Redness as a thing in itself. The actual Existence of Redness always seems to elude you. You might not actually have ever Experienced Redness, in which case I can understand why you are always trying to push the recognition of Redness into the Neurons because that is how it seems to you.

You have further convinced me that you are a person without a Conscious Experience of Color. People without a Conscious Experience of Redness will always Scream and Holler that Redness is just some Magical thing, understandably, because they have never Experienced it. Because you have probably never Experienced Redness it does not mean that other people don't Experience Redness as a Conscious Experience that is a very real Phenomenon in the Universe of Mind.

 

Likableness of something is not directly related to Creativity. To be Creative there must be a Conscious Experience of the Product by the Creator of the Product. Other than that, it is not Creative. You may not like this requirement of Conscious Experience, but you asked me and I told you. Stop asking the same question. Reject or Accept my answer.

 

Try breathing liquid water. You'll drown, whereas you breathe H and O particles all the time. In fact they keep you alive when inhaled as a specific pattern. Riddle me that?

The point is not whether wetness is physical and redness is imaginary. The point is they are emergent properties from specific patterns which acquire qualities over and above that of their constituent parts. Like "consciousness" may well be an emergent quality of specific neural networks in the brain. This is the current scientific holding.

 

??? I'm sure you may think this is a response to something I've posted, but you're going to have explain it... where have I mentioned "likableness", for example?

I do reject your definition, and you still haven't answered my question, which is why I keep asking it: are you able to provide a definition of creativity without reference to that which gives rise to it?

Why do you think it requires conscious experience of the product by the creator to be creative? What is it about the process of creativity that requires it? Or is conscious experience just an arbitrary requirement to help you feel more comfortable about yourself?
If you want to be able to assert, as you do, that creativity requires conscious experience, you must think you know what the process is, right? Otherwise why the insistence on the need for conscious experience? So what is that process? Where does conscious experience fit into it such that it would not be possible without it?

 

I thought we were talking about the concept of Wetness. Now you want to talk about Bulk quantities of Water. Your argument is truly Incoherent.

Your argument that "Consciousness Emerges from Neurons" is like "Wetness Emerges from Water" is also completely Incoherent. I can completely understand that when something is Wet or has Wetness, that it just has a bunch of Water on it. It makes no Logical sense then to say that when something has Consciousness it has a bunch of Neurons on it. What the heck are you talking about?

 

If you reject my definition then there is no argument anymore. The definition is the whole basis of the OP. Good, go in peace.

 

I'm sorry, but apparently you fail to understand that "bulk quantity" is a pattern.

Again, your making an incorrect assumption. I did not say wetness comes from water. I said wetness (water) is an emergent property of a collection of dry H2O molecules arranged in a specific pattern. Don't make false statements. That is not honest discussion.