Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

[Write4U]

Quorum Sensing in robotics.

Quorum Sensing (QS) is a well-studied example of collective behavior. This mechanism of cell-cell communication in bacteria utilizes secreted signal molecules to coordinate the behavior of the group. Linking signal concentration to local population density enables each single bacterium to measure population size. This ability to communicate both within and between species is critical for bacterial survival and interaction in natural habitats and has likely appeared early in evolution. Detection of a minimal threshold of signal molecules, termed autoinducers, triggers gene expression and subsequent behavior response. Using these signaling systems, bacteria synchronize particular behaviors on a population-wide scale and thus function as multicellular organisms.

QS-inspired approaches have been adopted in artificial systems, including mobile robots and wireless sensor networks, and naturally occurring genes have been harnessed in synthetic biology to implement QS at the cellular level.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/448761v1.full

 

[Write4U]

Think I will get more sense out of thisView attachment 4123
then the words in your post

Word salads can make for wonderful auditory dishes......

 

[Steve Klinko]

IMO, what you have named the Inter Mind is the neural pattern that generates the consciouss mind. It is not just the neurons (processors), or even the whole network from which consciousness emerges , it is a specific pattern of neuron arrangement which has consciousness.
The brain also has neuron patterns which are sub-conscious and only used for homeostasis, there are neural patterns for processing all the incoming sensory data. IOW, every function of the brain is processed by a specific area and neural pattern in the brain. Of course these patterns communicate and consult with each other electro-chemically This process started billions of years ago with single celled organism communicating and acting via chemical "quorum sensing" (QS)
(I await moderation on this but quorum sensing is a term used in the AI world).

So, in humans only part of the brain is actually truly conscious and self-aware, the other parts are self-referential but sub-conscious. As Anil Seth so clearly demonstrated, the brain and all its wonderful abilities is first and foremost an evolved survival mechanism.
Shakespeare came much later.

How can any kind of Pattern of Neurons or Pattern of anything produce a Conscious Experience like Redness? There is Zero Logic to this Speculation. It actually is quite Incoherent. It really is a Hope.

 

[Sarkus]

But when we find out how the Brain leads to Conscious Experience, don't you think we will have discovered a Process or Mechanism or Something?

Of course we will have discovered a process. How else do you think A leads to anything else other than through a process??

The thing we are looking for is not a Nothing, it is a Something, so we should acknowledge that.

We do. A process is still just a process, though. If neural activity leads to consciousness, as scientific understanding goes, then it is because there is a process that leads from the neural activity to consciousness. The "leads from/to" implies a process.
Yet you seem to be inserting a separate thing such that there are now 2 processes to consider... neural activity to X, and X to consciousness.
And you have no more evidence or support for your unparsimonious theory than I have gold bars under my floorboards.

Conscious Space is the place where your Conscious Experiences exist. It helps to conceptually separate the Conscious Experience from the Neurons. If you don't admit to a Conscious Space your Conscious Experiences will have no place to go, but because we cannot conceive of them as being in the Neurons, they will Float outside of the Neurons anyway. Easier just to propose a Conscious Space for them. Think about the Experiences themselves as Phenomena in and of themselves. What would you propose to do with Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste? These kinds of things must be directly dealt with. Science cannot ignore these things by saying they are just Illusions or that they are just some Emergent Phenomena. Science has for too long been saying "Nothing to See Here" when it comes to the Conscious Phenomena themselves. They always try to misdirect your thinking back to the Neurons.

You are now confusing the benefit of conceptually separating the emergent property from that which gives rise to it, with thinking that the emergent property is therefore a separate thing and not arising from that thing. That is muddled thinking on your part, I'm afraid.
That coupled with nothing but confidence in an alternative, and personal incredulity.

The experiments are trying to Prove that there is something to Conscious Space. What are you asking for?

Details of the experiment. How you are trying to prove it. How it is falsifiable. Etc. Is that too much to ask?

 

[Sarkus]

How can any kind of Pattern of Neurons or Pattern of anything produce a Conscious Experience like Redness?

We don't yet know, and may never know, the most answer to one of the most, if not the most, complex question ever.

There is Zero Logic to this Speculation. It actually is quite Incoherent. It really is a Hope.

The logic has been explained to you already. Your continued dismissal due to personal incredulity and appeal to ignorance is just trollish behaviour on your part. And no, that's not an insult but reality.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Of course we will have discovered a process. How else do you think A leads to anything else other than through a process??
We do. A process is still just a process, though. If neural activity leads to consciousness, as scientific understanding goes, then it is because there is a process that leads from the neural activity to consciousness. The "leads from/to" implies a process.
Yet you seem to be inserting a separate thing such that there are now 2 processes to consider... neural activity to X, and X to consciousness.
And you have no more evidence or support for your unparsimonious theory than I have gold bars under my floorboards.

You are now confusing the benefit of conceptually separating the emergent property from that which gives rise to it, with thinking that the emergent property is therefore a separate thing and not arising from that thing. That is muddled thinking on your part, I'm afraid.
That coupled with nothing but confidence in an alternative, and personal incredulity.
Details of the experiment. How you are trying to prove it. How it is falsifiable. Etc. Is that too much to ask?

I cannot post links to my website anymore, by warning from a moderator. You must know my website by now. Just click on Machine Consciousness Experiment links to get your answer. There are two different Experiments.

 

[Steve Klinko]

We don't yet know, and may never know, the most answer to one of the most, if not the most, complex question ever.
The logic has been explained to you already. Your continued dismissal due to personal incredulity and appeal to ignorance is just trollish behaviour on your part. And no, that's not an insult but reality.

I have heard no Logic. All you ever say is that there will be Patterns of Neural Activity that are going to Explain the Experience of Redness. There has to be more than Patterns of Neural Activity. We already know that Patterns of Neural Activity are Correlated with Conscious Experiences. That is not an Explanation, that is merely stating a Correlation. What Scientific Principles are you invoking to Explain how Patterns of Neural Activity produce things like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste?

 

[C C]

How can any kind of Pattern of Neurons or Pattern of anything produce a Conscious Experience like Redness? There is Zero Logic to this Speculation. It actually is quite Incoherent. It really is a Hope.

Vaguely similar to how ice emerges from a crystalline structure of water molecules. You produce a red patch by orchestrating the applicable, fundamental existential properties into configurations that constitute such a manifestation.

Oh, but no such elemental precursors are attributed to matter for yielding manifestations. Well, that never stopped philosophers and scientists from appealing to procedural operations as magical conjuring spells.

 

[C C]

Duplicate reply erased here.

 

[Write4U]

How can any kind of Pattern of Neurons or Pattern of anything produce a Conscious Experience like Redness? There is Zero Logic to this Speculation. It actually is quite Incoherent. It really is a Hope.

Because you seem to conflate "experience of redness" with "physical redness". Consciousness and Conscious Experience are emergent properties.

As far as "redness" is concerned, it is definitely a pattern (frequency)
What frequency is red?

The visible spectrum

colour - wavelength - frequency
red -------- 650 --------- 4.62
orange ---- 600 --------- 5.00
yellow ---- 580 ---------- 5.16
green ----- 550 ---------- 5.45
5 more rows

https://www.britannica.com/science/color/The-visible-spectrum.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Because you seem to conflate "experience of redness" with "physical redness". Consciousness and Conscious Experience are emergent properties.

As far as "redness" is concerned, it is definitely a pattern (frequency)
What frequency is red?

The visible spectrum
https://www.britannica.com/science/color/The-visible-spectrum.

Unbelievable that you are still talking about Electromagnetics after all this time. Redness has nothing to do with Electromagnetics. Redness is a Conscious Experience inside the Mind. What is that Redness that is inside the Mind and presented to you in the front of your face when you look at something Red?

 

[Steve Klinko]

Vaguely similar to how ice emerges from a crystalline structure of water molecules. You produce a red patch by orchestrating the applicable, fundamental existential properties into configurations that constitute such a manifestation.

Oh, but no such elemental precursors are attributed to matter for yielding manifestations. Well, that never stopped philosophers and scientists from appealing to procedural operations as magical conjuring spells.

Yes, Emergence is very Magical when it comes to understanding Conscious Experience.

 

[Michael 345]

Unbelievable that you are still talking about Electromagnetics after all this time. Redness has nothing to do with Electromagnetics. Redness is a Conscious Experience inside the Mind. What is that Redness that is inside the Mind and presented to you in the front of your face when you look at something Red?

• seen red stuff in the past
• was told that colour is red
• the experience formed a chemical / electrical pathway in my brain
• this resulted in my mind knowing about red
• the red pathway formed part of my memory
• next time I saw red
• same pathway activates
• I have a red experience

 

[Write4U]

Unbelievable that you are still talking about Electromagnetics after all this time. Redness has nothing to do with Electromagnetics. Redness is a Conscious Experience inside the Mind. What is that Redness that is inside the Mind and presented to you in the front of your face when you look at something Red?

I believe I clearly stated that redness is a "pattern" , i.e. frequency pattern. I even provided a link to the "visible spectrum".

Certain areas of the brain are able to read the frequency pattern and translate it into an experience of col0r.

However, now that you mention electromagnetics, let us have a look at how the brain analyzes data, shall we?

Are the Brain’s Electromagnetic Fields the Seat of Consciousness?

Some neuroscientists have long considered the brain’s oscillating electromagnetic fields to be interesting but merely “epiphenomenal” features of the brain—like a train whistle on a steam-powered locomotive.

Neuronal correlates of consciousness are the parts of the brain thought to be required for consciousness to occur. The idea that there are only

neuronal correlates of consciousness, and that these correlates are the patterns of synaptic firing in specific parts of the brain, is what you might call the conventional view in neuroscience.

However, if we peer deeply into the brain, in other words, what we’ll find is that electrochemical synapse firings—produced by neurons of various types—are responsible for, as Koch puts it, the feeling of life itself, consciousness
.....more

https://nautil.us/blog/are-the-brains-electromagnetic-fields-the-seat-of-consciousness#

Any more questions? I'll be happy to do some research for you. After all, I will undoubtedly learn from the experience also.

 

[Steve Klinko]

• seen red stuff in the past
• was told that colour is red
• the experience formed a chemical / electrical pathway in my brain
• this resulted in my mind knowing about red
• the red pathway formed part of my memory
• next time I saw red
• same pathway activates
• I have a red experience

When you say "the experience formed a chemical / electrical pathway in my brain" you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no Idea what the Experience of Redness is. So how can something that you completely don't understand do anything in your Brain? We are talking about the Experience here not the Neural Correlates of the Experience. Please try to understand the difference.

 

[Steve Klinko]

I believe I clearly stated that redness is a "pattern" , i.e. frequency pattern. I even provided a link to the "visible spectrum".

Certain areas of the brain are able to read the frequency pattern and translate it into an experience of col0r.

The Brain is not analyzing Frequency Patterns of the Light to determine the Color. All the Frequency Patterns that hit the Retina are funneled into three groups that correspond to the three Color receptors in the Retina. After this the Frequency Identity of the Electromagnetic Phenomena is gone forever. The Brain processes the three channels of Retinal excitation to form the millions of Colors that you can Experience. The point is that the Colors that you Experience are far removed from the Electromagnetic Phenomena. The Colors that you Experience, in a real sense, have nothing to do with the mutitude of external Electromagnetic Frequencies.

However, now that you mention electromagnetics, let us have a look at how the brain analyzes data, shall we?

Some neuroscientists have long considered the brain’s oscillating electromagnetic fields to be interesting but merely “epiphenomenal” features of the brain—like a train whistle on a steam-powered locomotive. https://nautil.us/blog/are-the-brains-electromagnetic-fields-the-seat-of-consciousness#

Any more questions? I'll be happy to do some research for you. After all, I will undoubtedly learn from the experience also.

Yes, show me how Electromagnetic Oscillations in the Brain produce the Experience of Redness, the Experience of a Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste.

 

[Write4U]

The Brain is not analyzing Frequency Patterns of the Light to determine the Color. All the Frequency Patterns that hit the Retina are funneled into three groups that correspond to the three Color receptors in the Retina. After this the Frequency Identity of the Electromagnetic Phenomena is gone forever. The Brain processes the three channels of Retinal excitation to form the millions of Colors that you can Experience. The point is that the Colors that you Experience are far removed from the Electromagnetic Phenomena. The Colors that you Experience, in a real sense, have nothing to do with the mutitude of external Electromagnetic Frequencies.

Strange that you reject the concept of neural patterns producing conscious experience and then proceed to paint a neural pattern, albeit claiming that it must be removed from and therefore only indirectly is caused by the EM data as received by the retina. OK, we are in agreement on that.
The secret lies somewhere in incoming data patterns matching data patterns stored in memory. (Anil Seth)

Yes, show me how Electromagnetic Oscillations in the Brain produce the Experience of Redness, the Experience of a Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste.

OK, this will take me some time to research what is known about this. I have never claimed that I have the answer, only the location and my personal view excluding some magical sauce from an external intelligence.
And I will not get into in-depth mathematics of Chemical or EM patterns and functions. This will be my best guess based on hard facts, not a solution to the hard problem. This the direction of research Tegmark proposes.

Lets start with what we do know. We know we are conscious, we know consciousness happens in the brain, we know that we have all the required properties for being conscious , we know that we can process a range of data from external natural phenomena, via our senses.
I call that a very good start. A fact that has been recognized by many scientists.

Personally I see only one main candidate that must be critically involved in the data processing and the eventual experiential results, by its very abundance and roles it plays in information distribution, the microtubule. It has to be a major contributor to sensory awareness and data proccessing.

In the mean time I recommend you research the three current main (related) concepts. ORCH OR, IIT, Consciousness Access Hypothesis.
You may want to peruse some of the 97 pages I have devoted on the "hard fact" of MT. It can be found in Pseudoscience sub-forum.

 

[Write4U]

Of course we are now way off topic!

Let's return to the question if computers can be creative without being conscious.

 

[C C]

Unbelievable that you are still talking about Electromagnetics after all this time. Redness has nothing to do with Electromagnetics. Redness is a Conscious Experience inside the Mind. What is that Redness that is inside the Mind and presented to you in the front of your face when you look at something Red?

Before scientific investigation arguably appropriated them, that was the original context for color names and adjectives, anyway: Perceptual experiences transpiring in the brain's depiction of an external world, as opposed to the naive realist's belief that he/she was directly in non-mediated contact with mental-independent objects literally possessing those qualitative properties.

 

[Sarkus]

I cannot post links to my website anymore, by warning from a moderator. You must know my website by now. Just click on Machine Consciousness Experiment links to get your answer. There are two different Experiments.

I'm not asking you to post links, I'm asking you to explain the experiment you think proves this "Conscious Space" you hypothesise to exist. Set it out for us. Explain what you use, how it works, how it supposedly proves what you think it does etc. Can you do that, or not? If not, then stop wasting our time. If you can, then I look forward to examining what it is you put forward. But I am not going to trawl through your website. You need to explain it here.

I have heard no Logic.

Then I must assume you have a selective (i.e. trollish) inability to read responses in this thread (e.g. post 42). Seriously, reread this thread and you will see some of the "logic" that you have asked for. Dismissing what has been posted by continued "I have heard no logic" does nothing but build weight of evidence of your trollish behaviour.

All you ever say is that there will be Patterns of Neural Activity that are going to Explain the Experience of Redness. There has to be more than Patterns of Neural Activity. We already know that Patterns of Neural Activity are Correlated with Conscious Experiences. That is not an Explanation, that is merely stating a Correlation. What Scientific Principles are you invoking to Explain how Patterns of Neural Activity produce things like the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, or the Salty Taste?

Logic doesn't need to invoke scientific principles to be valid logic. It simply needs for the conclusion to follow from the premises. You can dispute the premises, of course, that is your prerogrative. Logic doesn't provide mechanisms, or reasons, or even truth (the conclusion of valid logic can be false if one or more of the premises are false).
e.g.
All elephants are balloons.
Nelly is an elephant.
Therefore Nelly is a balloon.
This is a valid syllogism, but where is there any mechanism? The conclusion follows the premises, but there is no explanation, no mechanism, no proof beyond the validity of the logic.
I suggest you therefore stop asking for logic when (a) you've been provided with some, and (b) it won't anyway give you what you seek.