Interesting. Evolution is a series of happy accidents. So is creativity.

You gotta back up claims like that with a source. As far as I know, nobody can prove we are not in a simulation. Meaning everything is made out of math.

I think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically.

Today's AI has taught us that everything people show us they think is unique, isn't really. Everything comes from somewhere, including the things that add up to what we call creativity.

That's actually untrue to me as a professional artist. A.I. art has shown me that cheap permutations (which have been done in art even before A.I.) can still capture the untrained eye. I don't think that's anything particularly new.

And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc).

Nice try.

Are saying that all artists that got fooled by AI art, have untrained eyes ?

If notion of "trained eyes" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.

If "No True Scotsman" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.

AI art has won multiple competitions for photography and art. Is your claim that all the judges of these competitions were "untrained eyes"?

If they couldn't tell it was AI, yes. Winning an art competition is by itself paradoxical in undermining the point of art, so I don't know how that's relevant, but it is certainly an impressively weak point.

So how would one define "trained eye" without having to defer to your personal opinion? You don't think there is any merit to the point that people chosen by the community of artists to judge art are fooled by it?

> The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically.

Note that the same can be said about the negation: show me a proof that it can't.

I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real".

He's not arguing for the general case. In this case the negation, "just" requires showing a single computation done by a brain which provably can't be simulated by a universal turing machine.

I think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that we can't simulate the whole universe, humans included. This is something that cannot be proved to be true, even if it was the truth, it is possible that you can only prove it to be false, and nobody managed to do it yet. That's why it's on you to prove it to be false. Especially since you claim that something cannot be computed with maths.

I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real". You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.

> You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.

I guess my last response was too hard for you to understand since you respond with this. Perhaps you are new to things like "reading between the lines".

You are the one who made this claim:

> That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently.

To avoid loosing more time, I'll write what you failed to understand: "That evidence does not seem to support currently" is your claim, something you can prove, shows the evidence you are talking about.

You are literally a troll.

No, you are so far up in your ivory tower, you started to use pseudo-science, and now accuse peoples of being a troll, it's easier to lie to yourself than face the reality.

You still didn't send any link to the evidence you were talking about.

Proving that we can't reliably simulate human brains only requires a single example of a signal emanating from anywhere in any brain that can not be traced to a cause via known physics.

Proving that we can reliably simulate human brains requires showing that nowhere in any human brains does such signals ever emanate. We can get close if we one day have the capacity to run a simulated brain for long enough to show it appears to function like a human, but when the counter hypothesises a violation of known physics that may well be intermittent and extremely limited, we can't realistically absolutely prove its absence.

As such, the former is tractable if such signals can occur, the latter is not, and so I think my comparison of it elsewhere to a claim of Russel's proverbial orbiting teapot is reasonable - people will always be able to claim that there is some so far unobserved difference, and given it postulates highly localised violations of known physics and this seems like an absolutely extraordinary claim, the burden must be theirs.

If we can infinitely reach things untraceable to known physics then I don't see how it could ever be proven that we could perfectly simulate human brains, but for the sake of the argument: what resolution do we care to simulate the brain at? Technically speaking, a 1990's chatbot simulates the human brain to some non-zero resolution.

My point is that to make the claim "human creativity" can be simulated surely would have the burden.

The extraordinary claim would be the claim that something that violates known physics is happening in the brain, and that claim is a necessary prerequisite for it to be impossible to replicate the processes of the brain. As such the burden is squarely on anyone suggesting they can't be replicated to show at the very minimum a plausible indication that there's unknown physics going on.

Just one measurement that doesn't fit would be enough to shift the burden. Absent that, any suggestion we can't is no more than a religious belief.

It's an assertion that rests only on the assumption that the brain adheres to known physics or if it relies on unknown physics that the computational effects of those differences can be simulated or the physical effect replicated.

It'd take a truly extraordinary find that'd upend both physics and areas of logic for that assertion to be false.

Let's try something else, because you seem to take it that "brain = physics" is a strong enough argument to believe that all of human creativity is inherently systematic.

The definition of creativity itself should include the ability to subvert a system through abstraction. AI is a system so it cannot subvert itself (or, it hasn't yet). As humans, we subvert systems in mathematics by creating higher dimensional abstraction and shattering previous understanding of the fields. Often, mathematicians achieve this with a "lightening bolt-like realization" that they do not attribute to systematic thinking.

Please reconsider whether systematizability should be so quickly assumed through napkin philosophy. If you want, prove with a topological map of the creative apparatus in the brain that it produces results in a systematic way. That would at least scratch the itch and get the conversation going somewhere interesting.

There's no "napkin philosophy" here.

What you call "systematizability" is irrelevant. Only whether or not a function can be computed matter, and if a function can be computed by a brain restricted to known physics, there is no reasonable theory under why it can compute anything which can't be computed by any universal turing machine, given the absence of even any real hypothesis for any category of functions which can't, and it'd be an absolutely extraordinary claim to suggest such a function exist.

Where you'd get a Nobel in physics if you could show unknown physics in the brain, you'd secure a Nobel in mathematics if you could come up with a class of functions the brain can compute which can't be computed by a computer, because it'd fundamentally break basic assumptions in any number of subfields of both maths and computer science.

What you describe as "subverting itself" does not require anything as drastic. It merely requires thought processes unobservable by the person in question, and processes to complex to casually understand and/or randomness. Given a large proportion of people don't even have an inner voice they can "listen to" in order to observe their thought processes other than via outputs, and we know e.g. from split-brain experiments that the conscious part of human reasoning often outright invents knowledge and observation of thought processes, we have no reliable way of analysing the extent to which thinking is "systematic", and plenty of evidence to suggest we can not trust any such notion.