Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

[Steve Klinko]

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.
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.
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.

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.

 

[Steve Klinko]

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)
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.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

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)

 

[Michael 345]

seen red stuff in the past

Seeing red stuff CREATED a red stuff experience, since there was not one already present

was told that colour is red

Tagged that information to the just created red stuff experience

We are talking about the Experience here not the Neural Correlates of the Experience. Please try to understand the difference.

Oh please enlighten and grant this dumb one the ability to understand the difference between

• the Experience and
• the Neural Correlates of the Experience

 

[Steve Klinko]

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)

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.

 

[Steve Klinko]

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

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

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)

We examine the hypothesis that consciousness can be understood as a state of matter, "perceptronium", with distinctive information processing abilities. We explore five basic principles that may distinguish conscious matter from other physical systems such as solids, liquids and gases: the information, integration, independence, dynamics and utility principles.

If such principles can identify conscious entities, then they can help solve the quantum factorization problem: why do conscious observers like us perceive the particular Hilbert space factorization corresponding to classical space (rather than Fourier space, say), and more generally, why do we perceive the world around us as a dynamic hierarchy of objects that are strongly integrated and relatively independent? Tensor factorization of matrices is found to play a central role, and our technical results include a theorem about Hamiltonian separability (defined using Hilbert-Schmidt superoperators) being maximized in the energy eigenbasis.

Our approach generalizes Giulio Tononi's integrated information framework for neural-network-based consciousness to arbitrary quantum systems, and we find interesting links to error-correcting codes, condensed matter criticality, and the Quantum Darwinism program, as well as an interesting connection between the emergence of consciousness and the emergence of time.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

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.

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)

Phi, the symbol used for integrated information

attempts to explain what consciousness is and why it might be associated with certain physical systems. Given any such system, the theory predicts whether that system is conscious, to what degree it is conscious, and what particular experience it is having (see Central identity). According to IIT, a system's consciousness is determined by its causal properties and is therefore an intrinsic, fundamental property of any physical system

IIT was proposed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi in 2004. The latest version of the theory, labeled IIT 3.0, was published in 2014.

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.

 

[Write4U]

Let's have look,

Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate

• Giulio Tononi,
• Melanie Boly,
• Marcello Massimini &
• Christof Koch

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

Abstract

In this Opinion article, we discuss how integrated information theory accounts for several aspects of the relationship between consciousness and the brain. Integrated information theory starts from the essential properties of phenomenal experience, from which it derives the requirements for the physical substrate of consciousness. It argues that the physical substrate of consciousness must be a maximum of intrinsic cause–effect power and provides a means to determine, in principle, the quality and quantity of experience. The theory leads to some counterintuitive predictions and can be used to develop new tools for assessing consciousness in non-communicative patients.

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...

 

[Sarkus]

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.

So you're not serious about your "theory" then. Fair enough.

From your point of view then you agree that the current Views about Consciousness are not Logical.

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?

I agree, and that is what I am complaining about.

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?

 

[Michael 345]

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.

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?

 

[Steve Klinko]

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)

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.

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.

 

[Steve Klinko]

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?

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.

 

[Steve Klinko]

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?

With your logic I should not tell someone to go read a Calculus book when they ask how Calculus works.

 

[gmilam]

With your logic I should not tell someone to go read a Calculus book when they ask how Calculus works.

Not if you are putting yourself out there as a teacher. You should be able to explain it.

 

[Steve Klinko]

Not if you are putting yourself out there as a teacher. You should be able to explain it.

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.

 

[Michael 345]

With your logic I should not tell someone to go read a Calculus book when they ask how Calculus works.

Correct

Teachers would have it so easy

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

Not if you are putting yourself out there as a teacher. You should be able to explain it.

Exactly

teacher

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

I'll file you under thinks brain is


when more like

 

[Steve Klinko]

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
View attachment 4152

when more like
View attachment 4153

I'm teaching a College course. Go get your High School GED on your own time.

 

[Sarkus]

I complain about things and I certainly do offer something else with details.

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?

Everything about Consciousness is Speculative.

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...

If you don't want to read about what my Speculations are on these topics, that's ok.

I do, and I'm waiting for you to post them on this website.

Reading and comprehending my website takes a little work.

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.

You need to change your Perspective on Consciousness before you can understand what I am saying.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Write4U]

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.

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 .

 

[Steve Klinko]

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...
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?

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.

 

[Steve Klinko]

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 .

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.