Neuroscientist loses a 25-year bet on consciousness — to a philosopher

Cypress said:
Good point. Is AI ever going to produce a Michelangelo, a Beethoven, a Shakespeare, an Oskar Schindler?
Click to expand...

Given that all artists "train" by exploring and integrating the work of OTHER artists I can't really understand why anyone differentiates between how art is created. Have you ever heard the aphorism: "All art is theft"? Yeah, there's a reason for that.

I'm not a fan of AI art, but at its core it is pretty much just another artist.

At some point YOU, the observer, will never be able to tell if it was AI-generated art or made by the hand of a human. You just won't. There's no reason for you to be able to.

Right now you can tell by the occasionally issues with the system (fingers, text, etc.) but probably in about a year you won't be able to tell.

So when you DECLARE (like you like to do) that AI is "never going to produce"...well, you are simply wrong. Certainly you won't be able to tell if and when it happens.
 
Cypress said:
Good point. Is AI ever going to produce a Michelangelo, a Beethoven, a Shakespeare, an Oskar Schindler?

Some people seem to think science has come real close to explaining consciousness, but the report on this 25 year bet debunks that claim.
Click to expand...
Doubtful. I've never heard an AI expert claim that's even possible.

There's an element to consciousness that remains unexplainable.
 
ZenMode said:
Sure. I'd say very little is determined by DNA, chromosomes, etc. The majority is determined by external causes, i.e. everything we experience. We just happen to experience life with complex language, where other animals don't.
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself, Mode. If what we are is mostly determined by experience, then why can't our closest genetic cousins talk? Even in sign language because they lack our larynx?...which, of course, is genetically determined.

Yes, they can be taught some simple signs like "feed me", but can they hold a conversation on the philosophy of life? No, they can't. They lack the capacity regardless of how much experience they have.

As stated previously, even if 90% of what we are is genetically determined and based upon our experiences, there remains an elusive part that can't be explained by modern science.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Doubtful. I've never heard an AI expert claim that's even possible.

There's an element to consciousness that remains unexplainable.
Click to expand...

There's a really cool study that was featured on NPR once about what makes "great art". Turns out there is likely no real "essence" of the painting that makes it "great art" but rather that it becomes popular with a small set and then the popularity grows through group dynamics. A really cool experiment was run to see how different pieces of art "rose to the top" in a given setting. Turns out that it is all relatively arbitrary (!!!!)


Which really makes sense, right? There is no such thing as "great art", just art that the viewer loves. I can't stand Picasso. But millions love him.

Art is so subjective that it is kind of hard to imagine that an AI couldn't create great art given that great art may only be an arbitrary designation.

 
Daylight63 said:
There's a really cool study that was featured on NPR once about what makes "great art". Turns out there is likely no real "essence" of the painting that makes it "great art" but rather that it becomes popular with a small set and then the popularity grows through group dynamics. A really cool experiment was run to see how different pieces of art "rose to the top" in a given setting. Turns out that it is all relatively arbitrary (!!!!)


Which really makes sense, right? There is no such thing as "great art", just art that the viewer loves. I can't stand Picasso. But millions love him.

Art is so subjective that it is kind of hard to imagine that an AI couldn't create great art given that great art may only be an arbitrary designation.

Click to expand...
The thought that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" began in third century BC Greece and remains true.

@Cypress and I disagree about there being an absolute value to beauty.

A few weeks ago I made "beach glass" using a cement mixer with the intent of using it in concrete stepping stones and other projects. Having much more than I needed, I put it into jars with snow melt. I think it's pretty. My wife wasn't impressed.

iO0tCqmm.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The thought that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" began in third century BC Greece and remains true.

@Cypress and I disagree about there being an absolute value to beauty.

A few weeks ago I made "beach glass" using a cement mixer with the intent of using it in concrete stepping stones and other projects. Having much more than I needed, I put it into jars with snow melt. I think it's pretty. My wife wasn't impressed.

iO0tCqmm.jpg
Click to expand...

That looks HELLA COOL! Niiice!
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You contradict yourself, Mode. If what we are is mostly determined by experience, then why can't our closest genetic cousins talk? Even in sign language because they lack our larynx?...which, of course, is genetically determined.

Yes, they can be taught some simple signs like "feed me", but can they hold a conversation on the philosophy of life? No, they can't. They lack the capacity regardless of how much experience they have.

As stated previously, even if 90% of what we are is genetically determined and based upon our experiences, there remains an elusive part that can't be explained by modern science.
Click to expand...
What is it that you see as elusive that makes us more than just highly developed animals?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The thought that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" began in third century BC Greece and remains true.

@Cypress and I disagree about there being an absolute value to beauty.

A few weeks ago I made "beach glass" using a cement mixer with the intent of using it in concrete stepping stones and other projects. Having much more than I needed, I put it into jars with snow melt. I think it's pretty. My wife wasn't impressed.

iO0tCqmm.jpg
Click to expand...
Individual tastes varies, but there seems to be a broader universal appreciation for the innate value of aesthetic beauty.

Trump thinks gold-guilded toilets adds aesthetic value to his life. Trump wants his golf courses beautifully manicured.

Other people think Claude Monet paintings, sunsets, or flower gardens add aesthetic value to their lives.

But it all comes down to the innate value of aesthetic beauty.


Ps, nice Sea glass :thumbsup:
 
Cypress said:
Individual tastes varies, but there seems to be a broader universal appreciation for the innate value of aesthetic beauty.
Click to expand...

Apparently not if the study cited earlier is any indication.

Technical expertise is one thing and that CAN be objectively assessed. But art is and always will be completely subjective. There is no standard for objective beauty.
 
Daylight63 said:
Apparently not if the study cited earlier is any indication.

Technical expertise is one thing and that CAN be objectively assessed. But art is and always will be completely subjective. There is no standard for objective beauty.
Click to expand...
Are you drunk? Why do you think I said individual taste varies, but a broader appreciation for the inherent value of aesthetic beauty is universal in all functioning adults.
 
Everyone on the board has been remarking how cool Dutch Uncle's Sea Glass is, and even if we don't personally have a taste for sea glass, we just instinctively understand and can relate to how Dutch can find value the aesthetic of sea glass.
 
Cypress said:
Individual tastes varies, but there seems to be a broader universal appreciation for the innate value of aesthetic beauty.

Trump thinks gold-guilded toilets adds aesthetic value to his life. Trump wants his golf courses beautifully manicured.

Other people think Claude Monet paintings, sunsets, or flower gardens add aesthetic value to their lives.

But it all comes down to the innate value of aesthetic beauty.


Ps, nice Sea glass :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
If "universal" means among humans, I agree. Among other species not so much. :)

Thanks!
 
ZenMode said:
What is it that you see as elusive that makes us more than just highly developed animals?
Click to expand...
Creativity. Computers are great at crunching numbers. AI will replace most coders in the tech industry. What even AI experts agree upon is that AI is very unlikely to come up with new ideas.

Several animal species can use tools, but, AFAIK, those are single-use tools such as a chimp using a stick to dig out a termite out of a mound. A human can use a stick to dig with, start a fire with, poke another creature in the eye, use as a drumstick to tap out a tune and whatever else they happen to think about.

Animals react based upon their genetics and their experience. Human beings do the same, but many human beings, mainly those in the top half of the IQ Bell Curve, have something unique to the animal kingdom and that is their ability to create something on their own.

A chimp can be taught to finger paint, but go into the wild and you won't seen any chimp works of art. Why?
 
Cypress said:
Right. Among humans. In the same way that universal healthcare and universal suffrage applies just to humans.
Click to expand...
When I think of "universal" I think of the Universe and whatever intelligent critters are looking back at us whenever we look at the night sky. :)
 
Dutch Uncle said:
When I think of "universal" I think of the Universe and whatever intelligent critters are looking back at us whenever we look at the night sky. :)
Click to expand...
It's weird, but English dictionaries establish a rule in which the word universal can mean widespread or ubiquitous among humans.
 
Cypress said:
It's weird, but English dictionaries establish a rule in which the word universal can mean widespread or ubiquitous among humans.
Click to expand...
Understood. My point was to clarify that there's more to the Universe than human beings.

We used to think the Earth was the center of the Universe and anyone who disagreed was punished for it. Example: Galileo. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top