Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music
- Thread starter Steve Klinko
- Start date
Sure! Here is some research for you to ignore:
Good overview article: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/
"Free Will" by Sam Harris. It is a treatise intended "to bring down the fantasy of conscious choice."
"Free Will, Fundamental Dualism, and the Centraity of Illusion" by Saul Smilansky. Smilansky discusses how "people have illusory beliefs about free will."
A lot of this came about due to a study that showed that you can, with good enough instruments, often determine what a person will do before they have consciously made the decision. In their words "cerebral initiation of a spontaneous, freely voluntary act can begin unconsciously, that is, before there is any (at least recallable) subjective awareness that a 'decision' to act has already been initiated cerebrally. This introduces certain constraints on the potentiality for conscious initiation and control of voluntary acts." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6640273/
Last edited:
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
You do know that is debunking the Libet experiment, that purported to show that we don't have free will, right?
That's the precise opposite of "recent research has shown that people have far less free will than they believe that they do." The Libet experiment supposedly did that, but this article you're citing is explicitly debunking that. Maybe you should read and comprehend something before you cite it. Or maybe just read the title: A Famous Argument Against Free Will Has Been Debunked
The operative words there are "argument against free will...debunked".
Readiness potential is exactly what your first citation is debunking. Hint, one of this paper's authors is Libet.
Sam Harris@SamHarrisOrg·Sep 12, 2019
I have always regretted mentioning the Libet work in my book "Free Will" because it was never integral to the argument. When/if it is fully debunked, the case against free will remains unchanged. Free will makes no sense even if our actions arise exactly when we feel they do.
https://twitter.com/samharrisorg/status/1172175513671987200?lang=en
That's what ignoring research looks like. If being debunked does not change your argument, why did you include it at all? Padding?I have always regretted mentioning the Libet work in my book "Free Will" because it was never integral to the argument. When/if it is fully debunked, the case against free will remains unchanged. Free will makes no sense even if our actions arise exactly when we feel they do.
https://twitter.com/samharrisorg/status/1172175513671987200?lang=en
What other science does he cite in his book?
From a review by Smilansky:
Chapter 2, on the Libet experiments, is only tangentially related to the topics of the book, yet we should be grateful to Mele for including it. Libet claims to have shown through experimental work that, roughly, decisions or pre-decisions take place in people's brains, before those people report any awareness of them. This raises the radical prospect that, instead of conscious control and free human deciding, what really goes on is unconscious and unfree; with consciousness and the sense of choosing and deciding being merely epiphenomena. Mele convincingly shows, in my opinion, that Libet has not done what he thinks he has done, and has in no way refuted the commonsense view about the viability of conscious human control, nor proved anything either way on free will. In a tour de force of careful philosophical analysis, Mele reinterprets Libet's own data in a very different way:
Nothing justifies the claim that what a subject becomes aware of at time W is a decision to flex that has already been made or an intention to flex that has already been acquired, as opposed, for example, to an urge to flex that has already arisen. (p.40)
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/free-will-and-luck/
So again, what other science does Smilansky cite?Nothing justifies the claim that what a subject becomes aware of at time W is a decision to flex that has already been made or an intention to flex that has already been acquired, as opposed, for example, to an urge to flex that has already arisen. (p.40)
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/free-will-and-luck/
You're going to need to do a whole lot better than citing whole books I'm not going to buy on your obviously uninformed word alone.
I'd have thought it would be obvious: I'd think that you'd go back and honestly assess the analysis of your argument, and thus discussion of it continues. But no, you simply say "that's not what my argument is!"
You have to play the lottery to have a chance of winning.
It is clear, but you're apparently not willing/able to discuss it honestly. And since you haven't offered a counter to that analysis, by your own reasoning that analysis stands, right? Or does that reasoning only work when you invoke it?
If you can't support your own argument in the face of reasoned criticism of it (that suggests it doesn't lead to the conclusion you think it does) then any crackpottery on show is unfortunately all from you. My "unwillingingness" (as you see it) to make my own argument is irrelevant to that.
The only points I'm hammering home is how you are evading, and in doing so how you are being dishonest, even while you try to deflect that failing on to me.
It's not a strawman at all. I have not ignored every argument but instead shown how they lead to the conclusion that creativity does not exist. I'm sorry that you can't either follow your own arguments or are just unwilling to accept it, but if you disagree with the analysis you have to do more than just cry foul: "Oh, it's a strawman! That's not my conclusion!" At least if you want to be taken as something even remotely resembling honest.
You mean your arguments such as: "Something that seems superficially novel, but already exists in the possible solution space, is not." And given that creativity, per you, requires something novel, and that all of existence (all that is and will be) already exists in the possible solution space of the universe.
That is you wanting there to be creativity, but your own argument removes it from the table. The conclusion you want to reach is not supported by your argument, thus your argument, while not as obviously unsupporting as "it is raining outside", is still nonetheless not supporting the conclusion you think it does.
And I have no doubt you believe your arguments lead to the conclusions you think they do. But since I have clearly pointed out the error in your reasoning, and reasoned how it does not lead to the conclusion you think it does, and since all you come back with is "it's a strawman!", I'm not sure you fully appreciate where the cognitive bias is strongest.
I have simply responded to your argument as posted by you. You can bleat on about how your argument doesn't lead to the conclusion I have reasoned it to, but simply asserting that it doesn't... well, if that's all you're going to do, it really is pointless. Because that is all you've done.
You mean completely drop the discussion of your argument, so that you no longer have to deal with the weakness in it, so that you can carry on believing that your argument leads to the conclusion you think it does?? Why on earth would I do that?
I'm having too much fun examining your arguments, and highlighting your dishonesty in trying to evade the issue. You can certainly sulk about me not making my own if you want. But that doesn't change that we've been talking about your arguments.
If and when I ever do make an argument, please do feel free to analyse it and maybe we can discuss it. Or do you just want me to say "that's a strawman you're arguing!" if I don't like your analysis?
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
A counter to what? The only valid counter to a claim that something doesn't exist is the claim that it does. You have yet to make that argument. You merely saying "you're wrong" doesn't do anything for your own, as yet unargued claim. As such, I'm fine dismissing your claim, as you haven't even tried to support it.
Says every crackpot trying to shift the burden for their own positive claim onto those merely arguing the null hypothesis (negative claim), which you clearly don't understand.
Quit projecting.
I've already shown where you even agreed that the universe does not provide people with goals (the way programmers do AI), and it follows that you have to have goals to have possible solutions. The possibility of everything that can happen in the universe subsumes the solutions to a specific goal, but the inverse is obviously not true. You're just conflating the two without justification, other than your desperation to keep your straw man alive. Again, finding a path, with a specific destination and strictly defined territory, is not novel. It's discovery, at best. Creating something new, without any predetermined goal, rules, or strictures, out of the infinite possibilities of the universe is novel. Again, only you are arguing that creativity does not exist, thereby defeating your own claim.
To demonstrate a bit of intellectual honesty instead of perpetually avoiding any support for your own claim. You know, to quit being a crackpot.
So endlessly repeating yourself is fun? Again, repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results. And thinking you're going to win some debate lottery is downright stupid. But we both know you can't help yourself. You're too much of a crackpot troll to ever argue your own claim.
Sure, I'm not directly countering your claim, but rather discussing how your argument does not support the claim you're making. If you're unable to spot the difference, and will only "discuss" direct counters to your argument rather than of your argument itself, then you have bigger issues than your mere dishonesty.
Your continued irony with your strawmen is growing stale.
Spot the difference: countering your argument with a claim of my own v discussing how your argument doesn't reach the conclusion you think it does. Your continuing evasion of the latter because it is not the former is simple dishonesty on your part.
That's because we're still discussing (your dishonesty aside) your argument, and whether it reaches the conclusion you think it does. As and when I post a claim with supporting argument, feel free to show how the argument doesn't support that claim.
Who knows, perhaps I actually agree with your claim, but that wouldn't mean I necessarily agree that your argument supports the claim you're making.
Your continued evasion is noted. We've established / accepted that I have yet to make and support a claim in this matter. What we're still doing, and which you're continuing to run from, is discussion of your argument and whether it reaches the conclusions you think it does. I have reasoned that they don't, and, per your "rules", since you have failed to counter that reasoning beyond the fallacious appeal to fallacy ("it's a strawman!"), the reasoning stands.
As for the null hypothesis, I have shown you to be wrong in that regard already. So it is you who doesn't understand. If A obeys its ruleset that governs it, then the null hypothesis is that everythng obeys the ruleset that governs it. That is the population of things governed by rulesets. No difference between them. Deal with it.
No projection on my part.
Yet you agreed that creativity does not require goals, that me being given a goal by my boss does not preclude me from being creative. So you're still pissing in the wind with distinctions that make no difference, and unable to follow your own reasoning.
It subsumes the solutions to every goal. It is just the playfield upon which our game is played out, with the rules dictated to us, just as we dictate the rules of the game of chess or Go to an AI. You are merely, once again, appealing to complexity for the distinction. Yet I remain doubtful you have the capacity to comprehend that that is what you're doing.
No, I'm just not appealing to complexity to create the distinction, which you are doing without justification.
That is all anyone ever objectively does in this universe. Congratulations on once again relegating creativity to the non-existent.
No, it's not, per your own criteria. We have rules, we have strictures, and we also have the goals that we arrive at ourselves. Yes, this is a difference between us and AI, but if you really want to get into how we create goals for ourself, and how they ultimately come from the ruleset of the universe in which we play, we can of course go down that rabbit hole.
So once again you are simply asserting "novel" where nothing can ever be novel, and asserting creativity where there is none. Everything that is and everything will ever be is already existent within the universe - i.e. the pieces are in place such that the ruleset will bring it to be. So, per you, us coming across it is merely discovery at best.
No, again I am taking your arguments and showing how they do not lead to where you think they do, and lead instead to the non-existence of creativity.
It's not dishonest to analyse someone else's arguments, and that's what I'm doing here. It is, however, dishonest of you to try to evade such analysis, to cry foul each time, and to constantly demand that I support a claim I'm not discussing.
As said, as and when I make a claim and support it, feel free to analyse the argument. Note: you don't need to counter the claim to be able to discuss the argument. If I say that all A are B, Bob is a B, therefore Bob is an A, I'm sure you would be able to explain why the argument is fallacious. Does that mean that you have to claim that the Bob is not an A? No, of course not. It is sufficient to address the argument that is being made. But hey, if that makes me a crackpot.
Your insistence on people making their own claims and supporting them, rather than analysing other people's arguments, is simply ridiculous. And I think you know it is. If you don't want to discuss your argument any further, just have the decency to fuck off. That would be the more honest thing for you to do rather than keeping up your incessant dishonest whining.
As for winning some debate lottery - if the prize is an actual debate rather than your evasion - yeah, I'll keep playing. It's no effort on my part. And until then, I guess I'll continue to be the crackpot that simply analyses your argument, reasons why there are flaws in it with regard the conclusions you're reaching, and waits for you to be honest enough to discuss it further.
One doesn't need to make one's own claim to discuss the arguments made by another. One certainly doesn't need to make a counter claim to disagree with the arguments another person makes: they can agree with the conclusion but not the argument, for example. What one person claims or not is irrelevant to whether the arguments of another support that other person's conclusion. Until you can accept these, you're going to keep coming across as dishonest and pathetic. Up to you entirely, though.
So please do us both a favour and simply fuck off.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
How kind of you to finally admit the obvious. You know, since you couldn't manage it the last time I said the exact same thing:
And you could play the exact same crackpot games with the claim "pink unicorns don't exist", because negative claims (like AI not being creative) cannot be demonstrated. So we can only conclude you don't understand the null hypothesis and the fact that only positive claims carry the burden of proof/evidence. So whether your ceaseless quibbles about my argument are straw men or not, they are definitely red herrings, to avoid you having to support your positive claim. Definitionally crackpot.
"We're" not still discussing it. You are harping on it to avoid your own claim. Until you support your own, positive claim, my negative claim is the null hypothesis, and requires no argument at all. Quit lying to yourself. You're never going to support your claim. Because that's what crackpots do.
Then I require no argument to refute a claim that has not been made. Its absence is refute enough.
What you have shown is your woeful lack of comprehension of the null hypothesis and very basic scientific methodology. The null hypothesis is that there is no special relationship between any two things until demonstrated. A hasty generalization from a specific case to all cases is a fallacy, not valid logic.
Just keep telling yourself that.
No, I said that creativity is not just a goal. You're the one you claimed you being given a goal includes creativity, but you only begged the question by making the goal an explicitly creative activity. That's not a valid argument. I said, "Doing what your boss tells you is not creativity." So it seems it's you who can't follow, or remember, your own reasoning.
Hasty generalization. It's a trivial fact that the universe has no goals (or are you advocating panpsychism as well?), and thus no solutions. So applying goals and solutions to the entire universe is incoherent.
So you really believe that all art has a well-defined scope of possible expression and predefined end product? As an artist myself, I can tell you that is supremely ignorant, but if you've never been genuinely creative yourself, that explain a lot of your silly arguments here.
Please, quote my supposed "own criteria." You know, without the need for you to massage it into said criteria.
I'll take a pass on a detour through your foregone conclusions.
Then you've defeated your own claim. Granted, you have to add in the foregone conclusion that everything is purely deterministic to get there, but no one ever accused you of being terribly self-aware. Since I don't presume pure determinism, my argument obviously doesn't lead to your straw man. But I really don't expect you'll be able to pull your head out of your own motivated reasoning long enough to acknowledge that simple fact.
Only by injecting hard determinism as a hidden and unjustified assumption. Hence your straw man. Shake his hand and own him already.
Except when you erect a straw man by adding hidden assumptions the argument never included.
Yes, erecting straw men to avoid you supporting your own claim does make you a crackpot.
Yes, that's what crackpots often need to resort to. Just hoping people will shut up and leave them alone.
I have to admit, I've played long enough to win. Granted, I actually changed my tactics enough to elicit the hidden assumption driving your straw man. Now I suspect you will either clam up, deny that you added that presumption (thus compounding your straw man), or go off on a complete, off-topic detour about determinism, without ever admitting your straw man.
Oh, I have no doubt that you'd consider it a favor.
:yawn:
For the record: I don't adhere to hard determinism, I think the universe is inherently indeterministic.
Furthermore, my analysis of your argument does not require any assumption of determinism or indeterminism. Sure, it requires that one isn't of an unscientific mindset when it comes to the workings of the universe, but that's about all.
Especially if it means you will stop humiliating yourself in this thread.
Yeah, you the honest man, sir. Show your true colours, finally, sir!
So, please, tell me why you think my analysis of your argument requires hard determinism? I'm genuinely curious, as I hadn't even considered it, given there was no presumption of it, and, oh, wait... because it doesn't actually require it. Gasp! What are the chances of that! Or are you just going to drop your turd at the doorstep and leave?
And, for the record, are you agreeing within the above that, given a presumption of hard determinism, your argument does lead to the conclusion that there is no creativity?
Just for the record, so you don't roll it back when you realise that the nature of the universe (deterministic or otherwise) makes no difference to the analysis?
Please? Pretty please?
So are you going to? No, I think you'll try and double-down on the strawman you've loaded, and take your irony to new heights. Let's see shall we?
I need to no such thing. But thanks for fulfilling your ironic nature.
For the record: I don't adhere to hard determinism, I think the universe is inherently indeterministic.
Furthermore, my analysis of your argument does not require any assumption of determinism or indeterminism. Sure, it requires that one isn't of an unscientific mindset when it comes to the workings of the universe, but that's about all.
Nor do I. Go figure. Will you accept that? No, you're simply not honest enough to.
I'm guessing you don't see the raising of a strawman to counter what you see as a strawman to be in any way ironic? No, probably not. But if it helps you evade the analysis, and means you can stick your head in the sand once more, I say go for it!
Not required, I'm afraid. Not asked for, not taken. Simply not required. But if it's the strawman you need to raise to give you that warm and fuzzy feeling, go for it.
Especially if it means you will stop humiliating yourself in this thread.You mean the hard determinism that I don't adhere to nor require in my analysis of your argument? That hard determinism?
If that's honestly what you think, then here, have a pat on the head, you adorable little man. One day, in the not-too-distant future, you may actually grow up.
You changed tactics by raising a strawman? Nope, that's still your old tactics. This one's a gem, though.
Oh, geez, clever you! You raise a strawman, and then load it so heavily that you feel you can ride off smugly into the sunset, having covered all the possible bases, right?
Yeah, you the honest man, sir. Show your true colours, finally, sir!So, please, tell me why you think my analysis of your argument requires hard determinism? I'm genuinely curious, as I hadn't even considered it, given there was no presumption of it, and, oh, wait... because it doesn't actually require it. Gasp! What are the chances of that! Or are you just going to drop your turd at the doorstep and leave?
And, for the record, are you agreeing within the above that, given a presumption of hard determinism, your argument does lead to the conclusion that there is no creativity?
Just for the record, so you don't roll it back when you realise that the nature of the universe (deterministic or otherwise) makes no difference to the analysis?
Please? Pretty please?
To save me from more of your strawmen, and your pathetic dishonesty? I think everyone would.
So are you going to? No, I think you'll try and double-down on the strawman you've loaded, and take your irony to new heights. Let's see shall we?
More like a scared-crow.What's a straw man?................... A scarecrow?....................
It's when you attack an argument the other person didn't make.
Unfortunately it is too often taken as a deliberate action rather than simply a misunderstanding of the other's argument (e.g. due to lack of clarity etc).
Making accusations of strawmen is generally, from years of watching threads if not partaking in them, from those on the defensive who would rather snap back than seek peaceful discourse, or by the inherently belligerent.
It is rarely raised as a "strawman" by those in genuine pleasant discourse, rather it would be couched in terms such as "ah, you seem to have mistaken/misinterpreted what I meant/said..." with no blame as to whether it was due to poor wording on one part, or failure to understand on the other.
Saying something is a "strawman" is to accuse the other of deliberately erecting a false argument to attack, and fails to acknowledge that the false argument may have been honestly reached.
Such is the way of internet discussion.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Is The Human Brain Analog Or Digital? - Forbes
IOW. the human brain makes "best guesses" of incoming data and with help of memory creates an informed guess which it then confirms by projecting its guess onto the incoming data . The brain partly creates its reality from the inside out, as well as from the outside in.
OTOH
What is GPT-3?
GPT3 is smarter that the average computer!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/09/27/is-the-human-brain-analog-or-digital/?sh=27e4d6f87106
IOW. the human brain makes "best guesses" of incoming data and with help of memory creates an informed guess which it then confirms by projecting its guess onto the incoming data . The brain partly creates its reality from the inside out, as well as from the outside in.
OTOH
What is GPT-3?
What can GPT-3 do?
https://searchenterpriseai.techtarget.com/definition/GPT-3
GPT3 is smarter that the average computer!
Last edited:
Steve Klinko
Registered Senior Member
GPT-3 sounds pretty cool, but GPT-3 does not Know it Knows anything and does not Know it did anything. There's nobody home. It's all just mindless Algorithms.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
My mind is filled with algorithms, but I don't know what I know until I am asked about something.
And then, if I don't know the answer I look it up. That's research.
GPT3 has the entire open internet as its memory and can look up about any and all subjects that are available on the net, just like people. It can read several languages . That's the difference between "binary code based" computers and "language based computers".
It's not the processing itself, it's the compilation and integration of data for complex.
Adding a metacognitive level of processing to a machine or program engaging in manipulation and recognition (analyis, sorting) of information would provide a mechanistically expressed summary of what that stratum of activity figuratively below it was doing. Enabling a kind of zombie conceptual "awareness" about possessing zombie "awareness". But accordingly, with respect to itself, it would still have no manifested confirmation of itself existing and doing anything.
I occasionally wonder if many engineers, scientists, and philosophers are actually subliminal pan-phenomenalists or pan-experientialists (arguably more precise terms than panpsychists). As that seems to be the only way to make sense out of some of their "solutions" -- like the above, of supplying a metacognitive stratum similarly entailing nothing more than yet further (deficient) component interactions.
Which is to say, these thinkers may behaviorally be taking for granted that rudimentary experiences are ubiquitous across the universe in the repulsions and attractions of matter (i.e., no need to explain manifestation if it is fundamental and globally available). Yet that instinctive belief suggested by their behavior is not articulated by them -- it is not formally expressed by language so that they can be directly or verbally aware of it. As a result, they will usually deny that they are pan-phenomenalists.
A crude analogy would be an atheist attending church every Sunday, who denies that they are religious (at least in a gods context). The individual is unable to construe their behavior as corresponding to even a superficial appearance of adhering to theism. The body action or its product output is there supporting such as the case in tacit mode, but language or description wise they have not turned their instinctive behavior into explicit knowledge or into an explicit realization about themselves.
This is a supplementary direction to "trying to figure out what's going on with these people" that I occasionally entertain in addition to your view expressed in the other thread that some of them might be philosophical zombies or partial PZs, or whatever.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Actually it does. A GPT3 unit knows it exists. That is the remarkable aspect. It can read that it exists.
Apparently if you can "learn" that things exist and you learn that you exist, the established fact is that you exist.
And when you know that you exist according to known and acknowledged parameters, you can claim that you exist without contradiction.
If you ask a GPT3 unit if it exists, it will answer in the affirmative and that answer will be indisputably true.
You cannot argue that it does not know it exists, when it tells you that it knows it exists. Tricky stuff!!!
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I would like a GPT3 as a friend.!
Better still. CFI should commission a GPT3 moderator. It would be awesome to watch a GPT3 moderate content and context.
No offense to any current moderators. I have no complaints. But would any of our current moderators like to see what differences, if any, would develop and /or resolved?
Better still. CFI should commission a GPT3 moderator. It would be awesome to watch a GPT3 moderate content and context.
No offense to any current moderators. I have no complaints. But would any of our current moderators like to see what differences, if any, would develop and /or resolved?
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This is getting more and more fascinating.
And the developers say they have not yet reached any ceilings other than space requirement.
It shows the awesome power of the human brain with 259 trillion synapses in a 3 lb lump of biomolecules.
How much energy does the brain require?
https://www.brainfacts.org/brain-an...019/how-much-energy-does-the-brain-use-020119
And the developers say they have not yet reached any ceilings other than space requirement.
It shows the awesome power of the human brain with 259 trillion synapses in a 3 lb lump of biomolecules.
How much energy does the brain require?
...... more
https://www.brainfacts.org/brain-an...019/how-much-energy-does-the-brain-use-020119
But you admit to being a panpsychist in either some direct or roundabout sense, so even the OS narrator of a computer reading for a blind person would be experiencing something during that process (from your belief standpoint).
My intro rolled into what strictly pertained to those who instead seem to be tacit, implicit, or passive pan-experientialists -- who lack explicit awareness that they are such.
It is their proposals which might hint that a covert thought orientation like that is afoot, if there is scarcely a way to make sense out of their recommendations minus that hypothesis. The latter being of benefit for the sanity of a baffled listener, with respect to offering a remedy for the confusion ("Oh, so that's why they feel that _X_ would work -- they are a panpsychist, but don't know it."). Rather than intended as an enlightenment for the aforementioned. Who there is probably little hope for with respect to ever explicitly apprehending their subliminal belief or closet identity (if truly applicable).
Alternatively, they might really be philosophical zombies who lack manifested content to their thoughts and perceptions (thereby they could never grasp what certain terms mean minus reference to yet more words). But I wouldn't want to venture into that potential unicorn territory other than facetiously or sarcastically. Thus, my preference for the possibility that they might be implicit pan-phenomenalists (who would consequently deny they are such if the personal revelation remained suppressed).
Last edited: