Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Steve Klinko, Mar 27, 2021.

  1. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    I'm not going to rewrite the whole description of the Machine Consciousness Experiments from the website for you. If you don't want to take a look at the website then that's ok.

    From your point of view then you agree that the current Views about Consciousness are not Logical. I agree, and that is what I am complaining about.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Been there done that with ORCH OR, IIT, and Consciousness Access Hypothesis, a while back. Each of these are organizing theories of some generalized Consciousness. None of these concepts can Explain the Experience of Redness, the Experience of the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste. Maybe I have missed something. Please tell me how any of these concepts Explains the Experience of Redness, the Experience of the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, or any other Conscious Experience that you would prefer. If this is in your 97 pages then at least point me to the relevant pages.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    OK.
    Please remember that no one has claimed to know the exact mechanisms that produce experiential emotions, other than that it must be by electro/chemical excitation and the resulting patterns.
    Remember this claim : Some patterns ARE conscious, by virtue of the specific pattern arrangement. (Tegmark).

    Just as the specific pattern of an antenna is sensitive to specific wavelength frequencies, by virtue of the pattern arrangement. Some patterns are sensitive and respond to external excitation. Synchronization is another natural example.

    Quorum sensing is responsible for a deliberative hive-mind. (Bonnie Bassler)
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2021
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Seeing red stuff CREATED a red stuff experience, since there was not one already present
    Tagged that information to the just created red stuff experience
    Oh please enlighten and grant this dumb one the ability to understand the difference between
    • the Experience and
    • the Neural Correlates of the Experience

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  8. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Yes, nobody knows the Mechanisms. But there is Zero understanding of these Mechanisms.

    Researchers have been measuring Patterns of Electro/Chemical Excitation for a hundred years and nobody knows how the Conscious Experience derives from the Electro/Chemical Excitations. All anyone can truthfully say is that Patterns of Neural Activity happen and then for some unknown reason a Correlated Conscious Experience happens.

    What specific Patterns ARE conscious, by virtue of the specific Pattern Arrangement? What do you mean when you say Pattern Arrangement? Are you talking about Patterns of Firing Neurons? If so, then these are the Neural Correlates of Conscious Experience, and not Conscious Experience itself.
     
  9. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    Here is a great book that will tell you everything about it: The Quest for Consciousness by Christof Koch, or just Google Neural Correlates of Consciousness.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    That;s becayse we may have been looking in the wrong direction. Tegmark proposes that consciousness does not lie in the EM particle arrangement, but in neural pattern arrangement.

    Consciousness as a State of Matter
    Max Tegmark (MIT)
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
    No, that is where were looking, in the hope we could establish regular patterns of information processes. But that may have been wishful thinking. Kinda like looking for an extra ingredient that makes a process conscious. Now that we may have found the direction where to look, perhaps we can make some headway.

    As I asked before, why is a tuned antenna able to detect specific incoming data (wave frequencies). It is not the wave pattern which creates the information, it's the pattern of the hardware that resonates to the specific frequencies.
    It is often said that the universe is fine tuned to human life, but according to Tegmark's hypothesis it is humans (and all other life forms) which are fine tuned to the universe.

    ORCH OR is such an approach at the neural level targeting possible neural quantum functions (hence Penrose's interest), but a more recent approach by Giulio Tononi is IIT ( Integrated Information Theory) is targeting the brain's "antenna pattern", and study what pattern is fine tuned and consciously receiving incoming data.
    It's not the patterns of the particles, but the specific neural brain pattern that is conscious. The brain also has subconscious brain patterns , used for autonomous subconscious control of homeostasis.
    We cannot see our liver or our heart, but yet our brain is controlling these organs outside of conscious awareness.

    Integrated information theory (IIT)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Phi, the symbol used for integrated information
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

    I am just beginning to explore that approach and see where and why it differs from ORCH OR and what might be common denominators.

    If true this would have implications for use in AI.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Let's have look,

    Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience volume 17, pages450–461(2016)Cite this article

    Abstract
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44

    @ Steve,
    I am no scientist, I just seek understanding . That's why I seldom post the mathematics involved in any theory. My aim is to read narratives and if I understand the underlying principles and logic, I am satisfied that I understand the thrust of the science.

    I don't need to know the horsepower, to understand the principle of a combustion engine...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    So you're not serious about your "theory" then. Fair enough.
    I'm not sure how you concluded that from what I wrote. The scientific views of consciousness are extremely logical. The conclusions follow from the premises. What can be more logical than that?
    You're complaining about things while not putting forward any reasonable detail in support of anything else. Until you do you're simply blowing smoke rings in a hurricane.
    Explain your "experiment" that you think will prove your theory. Why are you so reluctant to set it out here for examination?
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Typically passing the buck

    YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

    Oh but here is a book which explains it well

    Does it not occur to yourself I am NOT interested in what any BOOK says

    I am not debating a BOOK. YOU made a claim I did understand the difference between
    • the Experience and
    • theNeural Correlates of the Experience
    not the book. Hence YOU should be able to explain to me the difference

    Care to show your knowledge of the subject?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    All Speculations are on the table. So who knows, this could be true. But the thought that Consciousness (vague term) is in the Patterns of Neural Excitations or in the Patterns of Neural Connections or in the Chemistry of Neurons is all just Speculation. There is no Evidence that any of this is true. Furthermore, if you add a little specificity to what we are trying to do by asking how can any of what you have listed and quoted Explain the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, or the Touch of a Rough Surface? You cannot directly Explain these Experiences with any of the Speculations that you list. All the Speculations that you propose are Incoherent when you think about these simple basic Conscious Experiences. Your List of Speculations all fail to even provide a Clue as to what these Conscious Experiences are.

    Before you include quotes about things like Hilbert Spaces and Fourier Spaces you should have studied these things. I have studied Quantum Mechanics Theory and the math used to describe it. None of this mathematical terminology has anything to do do with Consciousness.
     
  15. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    I complain about things and I certainly do offer something else with details. Everything about Consciousness is Speculative. If you don't want to read about what my Speculations are on these topics, that's ok. Reading and comprehending my website takes a little work. You need to change your Perspective on Consciousness before you can understand what I am saying. The website tries to slowly transition your Thinking from the "It has to be in the Neurons Perspective" to the "Consciousness is Connected to Neurons Perspective". Please don't ask me to reproduce what is already written. Please read my writings and then ask questions. I would be happy to answer questions related to my writings.
     
  16. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    With your logic I should not tell someone to go read a Calculus book when they ask how Calculus works.
     
  17. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Not if you are putting yourself out there as a teacher. You should be able to explain it.
     
  18. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    If someone is going to argue about Consciousness, Mind, or the Brain they need to have at least a little background education in the topics. If I am a Calculus teacher I am not going to first teach a whole course in Algebra just for one person.
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Correct

    Teachers would have it so easy

    Seems you don't know nuffing about what you are faking being knowledgeable about

    Exactly

    I am sure other posters here other than myself, are interested

    I'll file you under thinks brain is

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    when more like

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    I'm teaching a College course. Go get your High School GED on your own time.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Where are the details? You've mentioned a theory... sorry, should that be a "framework" where you've basically said nothing other than Consciousness may or may not be in the neurons. You've also mentioned an experiment, but provided no details here.
    Put your money where your mouth is and explain this experiment, what it does, how it is supposed to prove the hypothesis it was created to address. Don't just type links to your website. You raised the matter here, so post the matter here. Or do you lack such common courtesy?
    No, not everything. We have evidence that it is at least a correlate of neural activity in the brain, and since we have a lack of evidence for anything else other than the matter in the brain it is logical to conclude that consciousness is a result of the matter and the neural activity. It's not rocket science.
    Sure, provide evidence that there is something else other than the matter and neural activity etc, and you may start to be on to something beyond what is currently the most rational explanation. But until then...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I do, and I'm waiting for you to post them on this website.
    Then break it down here into what doesn't take a bit of work, that is easy to understand. Have the decency to do that or please just fuck off with your trolling.
    No I don't. Nor does anyone else. Your writing should be understandable to those who don't have your same perspective. Otherwise you will only be preaching to those that already agree with you.
    I'm not asking you to reproduce it. What would be the point given that it's muddled, confusing, poorly written, and poorly structured.
    But I do have 3 questions:
    Question 1: Please explain it in a simplified manner that people will actually understand?
    Question 2: Please show the evidence that supports it?
    Question 3: On the matter of the experiment you claim to have set up, how do you think it proves what you think it sets out to prove?
    Or are you just going to continue to troll?
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    The scientists cited in the articles have studied QM, Hilbert and Fourier Spaces. These are the source of the various hypotheses and is more than mere speculation . These are logical derivatives of the known "hard facts" on the way to solving the "hard problem" .

    No one claims exclusive TRUTH or a TOE. Everyone is following scientific protocols, until specific areas of inquiry have been solved and set aside as contributing factors. In the end it is more than likely that the solution lies in a combination of all the individual research.

    Currently science's greatest obstacle is its fractured nature. But usually, someone comes along and puts it all together in a comprehensive whole that answers all questions. And usually the combining numbers and equations involved turn out to be relatively simple .
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
  23. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    That muddled, confusing, poorly written and structured website is my best effort so far. There's nothing else I can write that would be better than that. Every now and then I do review it and find some things to change. The last time I looked at it I said to myself, "Damn this is Pretty Good". Nothing to add or change. Take it or leave it. It's ok to leave it. But I'd rather have you read it and then ask informed questions. If you cannot understand the website, then I apologize because I have failed with you. Win some, lose some.
     
  24. Steve Klinko Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    435
    If the Scientists are saying that Hilbert Spaces and Fourier Spaces have anything to do with Consciousness then they are scamming you. I have studied these mathematical concepts with regard to Quantum Mechanics and simple Signal Processing. Reciting this kind of terminology and implying it has anything to do with Consciousness or Conscious Experience is pure Snake Oil.
     

Share This Page