Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

[Steve Klinko]

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.

Mindboggling that you don't see the Magic in that statement. But it goes beyond Magic and into pure Religious Belief that such things as the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste comes from something as Categorically different as Complexity and Computations. It is completely Incoherent to say: There is Complexity, and thus, there is Consciousness. What is the basic Logic of this that can help me understand what it is you are trying to say?

 

[Sarkus]

Mindboggling that you don't see the Magic in that statement. But it goes beyond Magic and into pure Religious Belief that such things as the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste comes from something as Categorically different as Complexity and Computations. It is completely Incoherent to say: There is Complexity, and thus, there is Consciousness. What is the basic Logic of this that can help me understand what it is you are trying to say?

For the last time: I have never said "There is complexity, and thus, there is consciousness". Your inability to actually respond to what was written as it was written is telling. Until you have the decency to actually address what has been written instead of what you think has been written, there's little point in engaging with your trollish behaviour.

 

[Steve Klinko]

For the last time: I have never said "There is complexity, and thus, there is consciousness". Your inability to actually respond to what was written as it was written is telling. Until you have the decency to actually address what has been written instead of what you think has been written, there's little point in engaging with your trollish behaviour.

You said:
So on what basis do you assert that a computer could never be complex enough to experience?

Are you not implying that you believe a Computer can be Complex enough someday, and further that by virtue of this Complexity, it will have Conscious Experience?

 

[Write4U]

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.

I agree.
This is precisely what Max Tegmark posits. And I think it is a very elegant hypothesis. Consciousness is an emergent property of specific molecular and atomic patterns and all conscious organisms have all the ingredients arranged in conscious patterns already present.
There is no magical sauce or force that imbues consciousness. It's all in the physical patterns!

If I freeze to death, my body contains the exact same amount and type of molecules as when I am alive. The difference is the pattern in which the molecules are arranged that makes the difference between a living pattern and a dead pattern.

Metal molecules arranged in a solid sheet pattern may be able to receive radio signals. Metal molecules arranged in an antenna shaped pattern are designed to receive the faintest possible radio signals.

Almost every pattern in nature is the result of evolutionary processes fine tuning the pattern for maximum efficiency within their specific environment.

There is no reason to exempt AI from the evolutionary processes, especially in the case of "learning" AI. GPT3 can easily pass the Turing test.

Listen to post #17 and tell me if the AI is purposely lying !? Motive?

 

[Sarkus]

You said:
So on what basis do you assert that a computer could never be complex enough to experience?

Are you not implying that you believe a Computer can be Complex enough someday, and further that by virtue of this Complexity, it will have Conscious Experience?

To the first, no, I am implying that I do not consider it to be impossible. That is not the same as saying either it will happen or that it is even definitely possible. I am agnostic with regard its possibility: I do not know.

To the second no, I am not implying it will, only that if a sufficiently complex system is capable then such a system might achieve consciousness and be able to experience. But having the capability doesn't mean that it will necessarily transpire. After all, I have the capability of drinking vodka tonight. But it won't happen.

Do you now see where your inferences err, and can you fathom why?

 

[Write4U]

Patterns in Nature

Mathematics, physics and chemistry can explain patterns in nature at different levels. Patterns in living things are explained by the biological processes of natural selection and sexual selection. Studies of pattern formation make use of computer models to simulate a wide range of patterns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature

 

[Write4U]

Sarkus said; 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.

There is Complexity, and thus, there is Consciousness. What is the basic Logic of this that can help me understand what it is you are trying to say/

That is parsing the sentence, which completely alters the proposition and your question is misdirected. Given the entire sentence, are you now willing to concede that the "correct patterns of neural interaction" may well be responsible for emergent consciousness?.

If not what would you suggest is a better model? Given what I have read on the subject from several prominent scientists, IMO, Sarkus is asking the right question based on the "known" hard facts.

 

[gmilam]

As Write 4U asks (paraphrased): If consciousness is not an emergent property, what would you suggest is a better model? Where do you think consciousness comes from?

 

[gmilam]

Still waiting for an answer...

 

[Steve Klinko]

To the first, no, I am implying that I do not consider it to be impossible. That is not the same as saying either it will happen or that it is even definitely possible. I am agnostic with regard its possibility: I do not know.

To the second no, I am not implying it will, only that if a sufficiently complex system is capable then such a system might achieve consciousness and be able to experience. But having the capability doesn't mean that it will necessarily transpire. After all, I have the capability of drinking vodka tonight. But it won't happen.

Do you now see where your inferences err, and can you fathom why?

I don't see by what Logic you think that a Sufficiently Complex System even only just might Achieve Consciousness. There is no Maybe or Might about it. It is an Incoherent proposition, both Logically and Scientifically. What is it about the Complexity of anything, that Logically makes you think Consciousness will be achieved?

But the real issue goes even Deeper. I like to specify particular aspects of Consciousness because Consciousness is not a very clear concept in the first place. I try to study aspects of Consciousness, like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste. So how do you explain these Conscious Experiences simply by virtue of Complex Computations or Processing?

 

[Steve Klinko]

That is parsing the sentence, which completely alters the proposition and your question is misdirected. Given the entire sentence, are you now willing to concede that the "correct patterns of neural interaction" may well be responsible for emergent consciousness?.

If not what would you suggest is a better model? Given what I have read on the subject from several prominent scientists, IMO, Sarkus is asking the right question based on the "known" hard facts.

Saying that Consciousness is Complexity is not a Model it is Belief. There is no chain of Logic that can get you from the Simple concept of Complexity to Consciousness.

 

[Steve Klinko]

As Write 4U asks (paraphrased): If consciousness is not an emergent property, what would you suggest is a better model? Where do you think consciousness comes from?

See https://TheInterMind.com/#ConnectionPerspective

 

[Write4U]

Saying that Consciousness is Complexity is not a Model it is Belief. There is no chain of Logic that can get you from the Simple concept of Complexity to Consciousness.

That is because you are overthinking this . You are looking for some secret ingredient over and above what is already patterned in human and all other brained animals.

A human brain is conscious why? Because the specific pattern of the brain's neural network gives it consciousness. There is no secret ingredient. The human brain has all the necessary properties for an emergent consciousness. That is a demonstrable "hard fact".
It is the specific molecular brain pattern that yields an emergent consciousness. Just as a specific molecular pattern of H2O yields liquid water.

This is demonstrated with the GPT3 clip in post # 17. It is a text based program and easily passes the Turing Test. And that program is still relatively simple, so they say.

 

[Write4U]

Saying that Consciousness is Complexity is not a Model it is Belief.

See https://TheInterMind.com/#ConnectionPerspective

From the link;

But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons

Really? That is an utterly ridiculous statement. How do we remove consciousness with anesthetics, anesthetize your toes?

We know Consciousness resides in the Neural network of the brain, we just don't quite know the how yet. The science of nano scale patterns of neural brain functions is still in its infancy and you are searching for magical cause just like the early humans saw thunder and lightning as being caused by gods? It took many millenia to overcome this belief system!

It's not the Inter Mind, it's the Inner Mind emerging from the Inter Neural Network Pattern.

And most importantly, if we can build an artificial brain that simulates a biological brain pattern, there should be no reason why this could not also yield an emergent consciousness.

 

[Write4U]

OpenAI’s GPT-3 neural network writes poetry, music and code. Why is it still far from real AI, but is able to change the world

Design, music, stories – what GPT-3 can do

Although only a few people got access to the system, in less than a month the algorithm was tested in a variety of scenarios: from songwriting to creating code and musical arrangements. According to one of the developers who tested the system, in most cases the system gives a convincing result, if not on the first, then on the second or third attempt.

Basically, GPT-3 was used to generate plain text: stories, songs, press releases, and technical documentation. But one of the developers went further and asked the neural network to write a text about itself – an article with the title “GPT-3 from OpenAI can be the greatest phenomenon after Bitcoin” turned out .

In the material, the author said that he trained the neural network on his own posts from the bitcointalk forum, and then published the entries generated by the algorithm, and no one noticed this. But in the end, the developer admitted that the story was invented and was written by GPT-3, although not on the first try.

Other developers have found that GPT-3 can generate any kind of textual information, including guitar tabs and computer code. So the developer Sharif Shamim showed that the system can work with HTML markup instead of natural language and create a layout based on text requests. For example, you can say what button and design a site should have – and the neural network visualizes them.

A counter argument that GPT 3 is not Intelligent is explained :
GPT-3 is not real artificial intelligence, but it can seriously affect the world

The lack of “intelligence” in similar GPT-3 models is confirmed by research. In 2019, a team of scientists from the Paul Allen School and the University of Washington found that even the best language algorithms can be easily confused by asking increasingly absurd questions.

As a result, the researchers came to the conclusion that no neural network simply understands the context of the conversation, so it cannot respond normally to stupid questions. According to them, the performance of humans in phrase continuation is 95%, while that of machines is below 50% for any model, including Google Bert, which is similar to GPT-2.

As the scientists noted, the main task remained unresolved. Machines still cannot make logical conclusions from text and deduce one from another, like humans.

https://hybridtechcar.com/2020/08/0...from-real-ai-but-is-able-to-change-the-world/

 

[Steve Klinko]

That is because you are overthinking this . You are looking for some secret ingredient over and above what is already patterned in human and all other brained animals.

A human brain is conscious why? Because the specific pattern of the brain's neural network gives it consciousness. There is no secret ingredient. The human brain has all the necessary properties for an emergent consciousness. That is a demonstrable "hard fact".
It is the specific molecular brain pattern that yields an emergent consciousness. Just as a specific molecular pattern of H2O yields liquid water.

This is demonstrated with the GPT3 clip in post # 17. It is a text based program and easily passes the Turing Test. And that program is still relatively simple, so they say.

You cannot just say: the specific Pattern of the Brains neural network gives it Consciousness. What Specific Pattern? How does a Pattern of Neural Activity produce the Experience of Redness, or the Experience of the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste. You have a lot of Explaining to do.

 

[Write4U]

Steve Klinko said: ↑
Saying that Consciousness is Complexity is not a Model it is Belief. There is no chain of Logic that can get you from the Simple concept of Complexity to Consciousness.

In the case of a Simple concept of Complexity to Consciousness lies in the fact that the human brain consists of some 100 billion neurons.

Neuroscientists have become used to a number of “facts” about the human brain: It has 100 billion neurons and 10- to 50-fold more glial cells; it is the largest-than-expected for its body among primates and mammals in general, and therefore the most cognitively able; it consumes an outstanding 20% of the total body energy budget despite representing only 2% of body mass because of an increased metabolic need of its neurons; and it is endowed with an overdeveloped cerebral cortex, the largest compared with brain size.

Fig. 1. Large brains appear several times in the mammalian radiation. Example species are illustrated for each major mammalian group. The mammalian radiation is based on the findings of Murphy et al. (18) and Kaas (19). Brain images are from the University of Wisconsin and Michigan State Comparative Mammalian Brain Collections (www.brainmuseum.org).

The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain as a ...
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/Supplement_1/10661#

 

[Write4U]

You cannot just say: the specific Pattern of the Brains neural network gives it Consciousness. What Specific Pattern? How does a Pattern of Neural Activity produce the Experience of Redness, or the Experience of the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste. You have a lot of Explaining to do.

That is what is being studied today as we speak. And I am not just saying that consciousness emerges from specific neural brain patterns. You're saying JUST the opposite!

The dynamic patterns of activity are traceable, but being that the science has to separate different activity patterns for different stimuli in a 100 billion neurons, it stand to reason that the mapping may take a few more years....

For comparison lets measure the dynamical patterns in the brain against the fixed patterns in a human chromosome.

Thanks to the Human Genome Project, researchers have sequenced all 3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome. How did researchers complete this chromosome map years ahead of schedule?

Human Genome Project was a 13-year-long, publicly funded project initiated in 1990 with the objective of determining the DNA sequence of the entire euchromatic human genome within 15 years.

In its early days, the Human Genome Project was met with skepticism by many people, including scientists and nonscientists alike. One prominent question was whether the huge cost of the project would outweigh the potential benefits. Today, however, the overwhelming success of the Human Genome Project is readily apparent. Not only did the completion of this project usher in a new era in medicine, but it also led to significant advances in the types of technology used to sequence DNA.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-sequencing-technologies-key-to-the-human-828/#

Now consider that a human emerges from the molecular pattern of the human genome consisting of only 3.2 billion base pairs!

Your rejection of Consciousness as an emergent property of a specific molecular neural brain pattern is premature.
Lets not look for magical solutions to the "hard question" before we have eliminated all possible solutions to the "hard facts".

p.s. there may be as many as 100 bundles of microtubules in a single neuron

For more info refer to : Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules? in Pseudoscience sub-forum.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't see by what Logic you think that a Sufficiently Complex System even only just might Achieve Consciousness. There is no Maybe or Might about it. It is an Incoherent proposition, both Logically and Scientifically. What is it about the Complexity of anything, that Logically makes you think Consciousness will be achieved?

The "logic" is that all we have evidence for is a rather complex mass of atoms called the brain, with a rather complex web of interactivity - the working brain is the most complex thing are aware of. By a long way. The evidence is that whatever the brain produces (e.g. consciousness, experience) is because of what is going on within the brain, the interactivity therein. Destroy brain, destroy that complexity, here endeth consciousness. Disrupt certain patterns of activity: disrupt experiences, disrupt even conscious awareness.
The evidence is that a single neuron firing displays none of what we would call experience, consciousness etc. Therefore the "logic" is that those things (consciousness, experience et al) arise due to the complexity of the interactions.

Now, as to why a sufficiently complex system might, rather than will: I have sufficient funds to buy a bottle of vodka, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

But the real issue goes even Deeper. I like to specify particular aspects of Consciousness because Consciousness is not a very clear concept in the first place. I try to study aspects of Consciousness, like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, and the Salty Taste. So how do you explain these Conscious Experiences simply by virtue of Complex Computations or Processing?

The real issue doesn't go deeper. You can pick elements of consciousness or experience to focus on, but that doesn't make the real issue deeper.
As to the question, my answer - and probably the answer of every scientist: beyond it logically being an emergent property, I don't know. And that lack of knowledge is not sufficient grounds upon which to cast aside the evidence and logic.

Now, you don't have to accept either or both if that is your desire, but other than your personal incredulity, you haven't yet offered anything other than trollish dismissal.

 

[gmilam]

See https://TheInterMind.com/#ConnectionPerspective

Talk about magical thinking!