Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Emotion

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 10:07:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was watching a documentary recently about computer intelligence. One of the points made was that emotion was the main difference between the type of intelligence we have and the type of intelligence that computers have. IOWs, computers can't hope to be as smart as us until they get that extra information contained in emotional responses. No matter how smart you make the programming or how sensitive you make it's ability to recognize stimuli, it will still be a dumb machine without emotional inputs.

This is of particular interest to me because I base my moral system upon emotion, and if emotion is as important as they say it is, this would explain why I have found so much meaning in the role of intention as the primary factor in ethics.

Is emotion really that important? Could we possibly build a computer that is complex enough, without emotion, that could be as smart as we are? Do we take our emotions for granted?

I haven't given it a whole lot of thought yet, but I will defend the premise that emotion is the basis of intelligence. For one, I've always found the Vulcans on Star Trek, who are emotionless beings, to be nonsensical constructs. It bothers me that a being can remove emotion and then function normally. Why would they bother working hard? Why would they socialize? Why would they do anything?
Rob
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 10:32:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't understand how your basing intelligence on emotion, but I do agree with you on the Vulcans. Their philosophy should have been developed more, as they genetically the same as the Romulans it is a clear that they merely suppress or control their emotions to acheive utility.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 10:59:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 10:07:39 AM, Lasagna wrote:
I was watching a documentary recently about computer intelligence. One of the points made was that emotion was the main difference between the type of intelligence we have and the type of intelligence that computers have. IOWs, computers can't hope to be as smart as us until they get that extra information contained in emotional responses. No matter how smart you make the programming or how sensitive you make it's ability to recognize stimuli, it will still be a dumb machine without emotional inputs.

This is of particular interest to me because I base my moral system upon emotion, and if emotion is as important as they say it is, this would explain why I have found so much meaning in the role of intention as the primary factor in ethics.

Is emotion really that important? Could we possibly build a computer that is complex enough, without emotion, that could be as smart as we are? Do we take our emotions for granted?

I haven't given it a whole lot of thought yet, but I will defend the premise that emotion is the basis of intelligence. For one, I've always found the Vulcans on Star Trek, who are emotionless beings, to be nonsensical constructs. It bothers me that a being can remove emotion and then function normally. Why would they bother working hard? Why would they socialize? Why would they do anything?

They wouldn't.

One needs a drive to be self acting. That drive almost always comes from emotions (usually happiness). Without drive, even the smartest thing would remain a tool. Something that only does what other's ask of it. It could take on a utilitarian moral system, but only if someone else programs it in (in otherwords, someone else tells it to be utilitarian), but won't decide on that on it's own.

Personally, I prefer computers to listen to commands, rather than question them. The world would end really quickly if every time you tried to look at porn, your computer refused saying "no, turning women into objects of less than human pleasure is not acceptable and I will not assist you in doing it... plus, you still haven't cleaned off the key board from last time you douche bag."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 11:57:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There was an action-horror flick that came out perhaps 2-3 years ago, in which some sort of gas or something would invade the towns and when they inhaled it they would immediately try to kill themselves. I think about that when I consider emotion-less intelligence. You could program in a self-preservation routine, but the actual emotion of fear isn't just a continuous risk analysis of self-preservation.
Rob
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 6:16:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The importance of emotions comes largely in their ability to "tally" your opinions into a feeling so that you can process information at a much faster level.

For instance, off the top of your head, answer yes or no: George W. Bush was a good president compared to Obama.

Did you just go over a list of every accomplishment Obama has and ever accomplishment GWB has? Did you compare and contrast everything?

Of course not. However, you "feel" the right answer. And, if prodded, you could dig up in your memory all of your reasons for your answer. However, you know the answer before you even have to think of a reason.

Imagine having to make decisions without emotion as a means of indexing information. Everything would have be thought out in a compare/contrast and drawn out "upside versus downside" calculation.

This isn't hypothetical, it can happen with lesions to certain parts of the brain: http://www.hss.caltech.edu...

That's why, among other things, humans are great at knowing the answer to most opinion questions, but they need to stop and think before actually knowing WHY they think that.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 6:19:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 10:07:39 AM, Lasagna wrote:
I was watching a documentary recently about computer intelligence. One of the points made was that emotion was the main difference between the type of intelligence we have and the type of intelligence that computers have. IOWs, computers can't hope to be as smart as us until they get that extra information contained in emotional responses. No matter how smart you make the programming or how sensitive you make it's ability to recognize stimuli, it will still be a dumb machine without emotional inputs.

This is of particular interest to me because I base my moral system upon emotion, and if emotion is as important as they say it is, this would explain why I have found so much meaning in the role of intention as the primary factor in ethics.

Is emotion really that important? Could we possibly build a computer that is complex enough, without emotion, that could be as smart as we are? Do we take our emotions for granted?

I haven't given it a whole lot of thought yet, but I will defend the premise that emotion is the basis of intelligence. For one, I've always found the Vulcans on Star Trek, who are emotionless beings, to be nonsensical constructs. It bothers me that a being can remove emotion and then function normally. Why would they bother working hard? Why would they socialize? Why would they do anything?

The problem is that computers aren't sophisticated enough to create the kind of "tally system" that our emotions can create. That means computers are forced to work out every action the good old fashion way instead of pulling up a "feeling." If you asked a computer about Bush v Obama, it would make the list and then compare/contrast used the stored memory.

Emotion "skips" that phase.

Until scientists can create some functional "tally system" like emotion, computers will always have a large disadvantage when it comes to quick decision making compared to humans.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 7:16:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 6:30:02 PM, Lasagna wrote:
But does "tallying" account for all the advantages of intelligent emotional life over artificial intelligence?

In terms of decision-making abilities, yes. It's one thing to go from problem to answer, it's another to be able to draw out the answer just by unconscious association with an emotion.

There are other effects. For instance, emotions changes your brain's ability to access certain memories. If you are sad, it is literally harder to remember a thought linked to happiness as opposed to sadness. Thus, our emotions can even prime our cognitive system for special environments (ex. high levels of fear). Computers use basic digital memory which does not have differential access ability depending on perception of external conditions.

Emotions can also "tag" memories or thoughts to make them harder to forget. The extreme case is emotional trauma that over-sensitizes our ability to handle mental shocks (PTSD). In more normal cases, if we are hunter gatherers and see ten species of animals, we will remember pretty clearly the one that tried to eat us.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 9:31:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 11:57:21 AM, Lasagna wrote:
There was an action-horror flick that came out perhaps 2-3 years ago, in which some sort of gas or something would invade the towns and when they inhaled it they would immediately try to kill themselves. I think about that when I consider emotion-less intelligence. You could program in a self-preservation routine, but the actual emotion of fear isn't just a continuous risk analysis of self-preservation.

That was The Happening with Mark Walberg. It was good I'll say and that's all I'll say.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 12:25:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 10:07:39 AM, Lasagna wrote:
I was watching a documentary recently about computer intelligence. One of the points made was that emotion was the main difference between the type of intelligence we have and the type of intelligence that computers have. IOWs, computers can't hope to be as smart as us until they get that extra information contained in emotional responses. No matter how smart you make the programming or how sensitive you make it's ability to recognize stimuli, it will still be a dumb machine without emotional inputs.

This is of particular interest to me because I base my moral system upon emotion, and if emotion is as important as they say it is, this would explain why I have found so much meaning in the role of intention as the primary factor in ethics.

Is emotion really that important? Could we possibly build a computer that is complex enough, without emotion, that could be as smart as we are? Do we take our emotions for granted?

I haven't given it a whole lot of thought yet, but I will defend the premise that emotion is the basis of intelligence. For one, I've always found the Vulcans on Star Trek, who are emotionless beings, to be nonsensical constructs. It bothers me that a being can remove emotion and then function normally. Why would they bother working hard? Why would they socialize? Why would they do anything?

have you read antonio demasio? this sounds like the sort of thing he writes about, especially in Descartes' Error. the basic idea is that patients with neurological damage to their emotional processing systems, but with perfectly intact reasoning skills, actually function extremely poorly in many real world situations. they seem to have trouble forming motivations and prioritizing tasks, among other things. so yes, emotions are in a sense necessary. what i think remains to be seen is how we can learn when they are trustworthy and when they are not (assuming they provide us access to some deep truth is just as flawed as assuming they just get in the way).
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 7:37:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 6:16:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
The importance of emotions comes largely in their ability to "tally" your opinions into a feeling so that you can process information at a much faster level.

For instance, off the top of your head, answer yes or no: George W. Bush was a good president compared to Obama.

Did you just go over a list of every accomplishment Obama has and ever accomplishment GWB has? Did you compare and contrast everything?

Of course not. However, you "feel" the right answer. And, if prodded, you could dig up in your memory all of your reasons for your answer. However, you know the answer before you even have to think of a reason.

I think you you mean "regurgitate what somone else said" to back your answer.

Imagine having to make decisions without emotion as a means of indexing information. Everything would have be thought out in a compare/contrast and drawn out "upside versus downside" calculation.

This isn't hypothetical, it can happen with lesions to certain parts of the brain: http://www.hss.caltech.edu...

That's why, among other things, humans are great at knowing the answer to most opinion questions, but they need to stop and think before actually knowing WHY they think that.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 9:32:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 7:37:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/13/2011 6:16:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
The importance of emotions comes largely in their ability to "tally" your opinions into a feeling so that you can process information at a much faster level.

For instance, off the top of your head, answer yes or no: George W. Bush was a good president compared to Obama.

Did you just go over a list of every accomplishment Obama has and ever accomplishment GWB has? Did you compare and contrast everything?

Of course not. However, you "feel" the right answer. And, if prodded, you could dig up in your memory all of your reasons for your answer. However, you know the answer before you even have to think of a reason.

I think you you mean "regurgitate what somone else said" to back your answer.

Imagine having to make decisions without emotion as a means of indexing information. Everything would have be thought out in a compare/contrast and drawn out "upside versus downside" calculation.

This isn't hypothetical, it can happen with lesions to certain parts of the brain: http://www.hss.caltech.edu...

That's why, among other things, humans are great at knowing the answer to most opinion questions, but they need to stop and think before actually knowing WHY they think that.

So, if someone asked you "as quickly as you can, tell me whether you think bush is a better President than Obama" then you would have no idea what the answer is until you go through a compare/contrast in your head of every accomplishment?

Emotions are a heuristic tool. They trade off efficiency for accuracy.

To be a bit more practical:

Let's say you are a hunter-gatherer and you see an animal with big teeth, a mane, and large paws. If you want, you can go over a checklist in your head of whether or not this situation warrants any special concern. However, you'll be eaten by the time you finish.

Or, you could have a horrific feeling of fear which almost automatically triggers a flight response.

The emotional reaction allows for a nearly instantaneous reaction to complex scenarios. Stopping to think everything through leads to correct answers, but also to getting eaten.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 10:49:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 12:25:54 AM, belle wrote:
At 10/12/2011 10:07:39 AM, Lasagna wrote:
I was watching a documentary recently about computer intelligence. One of the points made was that emotion was the main difference between the type of intelligence we have and the type of intelligence that computers have. IOWs, computers can't hope to be as smart as us until they get that extra information contained in emotional responses. No matter how smart you make the programming or how sensitive you make it's ability to recognize stimuli, it will still be a dumb machine without emotional inputs.

This is of particular interest to me because I base my moral system upon emotion, and if emotion is as important as they say it is, this would explain why I have found so much meaning in the role of intention as the primary factor in ethics.

Is emotion really that important? Could we possibly build a computer that is complex enough, without emotion, that could be as smart as we are? Do we take our emotions for granted?

I haven't given it a whole lot of thought yet, but I will defend the premise that emotion is the basis of intelligence. For one, I've always found the Vulcans on Star Trek, who are emotionless beings, to be nonsensical constructs. It bothers me that a being can remove emotion and then function normally. Why would they bother working hard? Why would they socialize? Why would they do anything?

have you read antonio demasio? this sounds like the sort of thing he writes about, especially in Descartes' Error. the basic idea is that patients with neurological damage to their emotional processing systems, but with perfectly intact reasoning skills, actually function extremely poorly in many real world situations. they seem to have trouble forming motivations and prioritizing tasks, among other things. so yes, emotions are in a sense necessary. what i think remains to be seen is how we can learn when they are trustworthy and when they are not (assuming they provide us access to some deep truth is just as flawed as assuming they just get in the way).

Well that's the reason I am so interested in this concept: I've already figured it out perfectly, which emotions are good and bad.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2011 10:56:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 9:32:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/18/2011 7:37:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/13/2011 6:16:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
The importance of emotions comes largely in their ability to "tally" your opinions into a feeling so that you can process information at a much faster level.

For instance, off the top of your head, answer yes or no: George W. Bush was a good president compared to Obama.

Did you just go over a list of every accomplishment Obama has and ever accomplishment GWB has? Did you compare and contrast everything?

Of course not. However, you "feel" the right answer. And, if prodded, you could dig up in your memory all of your reasons for your answer. However, you know the answer before you even have to think of a reason.

I think you you mean "regurgitate what somone else said" to back your answer.

Imagine having to make decisions without emotion as a means of indexing information. Everything would have be thought out in a compare/contrast and drawn out "upside versus downside" calculation.

This isn't hypothetical, it can happen with lesions to certain parts of the brain: http://www.hss.caltech.edu...

That's why, among other things, humans are great at knowing the answer to most opinion questions, but they need to stop and think before actually knowing WHY they think that.

So, if someone asked you "as quickly as you can, tell me whether you think bush is a better President than Obama" then you would have no idea what the answer is until you go through a compare/contrast in your head of every accomplishment?

Emotions are a heuristic tool. They trade off efficiency for accuracy.

To be a bit more practical:

Let's say you are a hunter-gatherer and you see an animal with big teeth, a mane, and large paws. If you want, you can go over a checklist in your head of whether or not this situation warrants any special concern. However, you'll be eaten by the time you finish.

Or, you could have a horrific feeling of fear which almost automatically triggers a flight response.

The emotional reaction allows for a nearly instantaneous reaction to complex scenarios. Stopping to think everything through leads to correct answers, but also to getting eaten.

The instinct to run is indeed precisely for that reason, so you definitely have somewhat of a point. However I would say that emotion does not play into the Bush question. I don't resort to emotion when I say he sucked, I simply remember what my beliefs are about him without analyzing every reason why on the spot.

I hated Bush, and that certainly made me biased, but my hate for him was based on reason.
Rob
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 2:20:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/18/2011 10:56:37 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 10/18/2011 9:32:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/18/2011 7:37:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 10/13/2011 6:16:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
The importance of emotions comes largely in their ability to "tally" your opinions into a feeling so that you can process information at a much faster level.

For instance, off the top of your head, answer yes or no: George W. Bush was a good president compared to Obama.

Did you just go over a list of every accomplishment Obama has and ever accomplishment GWB has? Did you compare and contrast everything?

Of course not. However, you "feel" the right answer. And, if prodded, you could dig up in your memory all of your reasons for your answer. However, you know the answer before you even have to think of a reason.

I think you you mean "regurgitate what somone else said" to back your answer.

Imagine having to make decisions without emotion as a means of indexing information. Everything would have be thought out in a compare/contrast and drawn out "upside versus downside" calculation.

This isn't hypothetical, it can happen with lesions to certain parts of the brain: http://www.hss.caltech.edu...

That's why, among other things, humans are great at knowing the answer to most opinion questions, but they need to stop and think before actually knowing WHY they think that.

So, if someone asked you "as quickly as you can, tell me whether you think bush is a better President than Obama" then you would have no idea what the answer is until you go through a compare/contrast in your head of every accomplishment?

Emotions are a heuristic tool. They trade off efficiency for accuracy.

To be a bit more practical:

Let's say you are a hunter-gatherer and you see an animal with big teeth, a mane, and large paws. If you want, you can go over a checklist in your head of whether or not this situation warrants any special concern. However, you'll be eaten by the time you finish.

Or, you could have a horrific feeling of fear which almost automatically triggers a flight response.

The emotional reaction allows for a nearly instantaneous reaction to complex scenarios. Stopping to think everything through leads to correct answers, but also to getting eaten.

The instinct to run is indeed precisely for that reason, so you definitely have somewhat of a point. However I would say that emotion does not play into the Bush question. I don't resort to emotion when I say he sucked, I simply remember what my beliefs are about him without analyzing every reason why on the spot.

I hated Bush, and that certainly made me biased, but my hate for him was based on reason.

Actually, you just proved my point.

You know, instantly, that you "hate" Bush.

Did you also know instantly WHY you hated Bush? Or did you then run through a list of "patriot act, iraq, etc, etc?"

Our emotions tally up our beliefs so we can access them instantly. It isn't that you say "I feel like I hate Bush, so I hate Bush." It's that you have reasons x,y,z to dislike Bush, but instead of having to go through x,y,z EVERY time someone asks, your emotional tally (I hate Bush) gives you the answer. If you want, you can then go through x,y, z.

Emotions are (ideally) a means of deciding on a course of action without having to go through every step of reasoning. Ideally, your emotional reaction will always replicate what you would have concluded by going over a list of pros versus cons.

In reality, emotions are unstable and there are feedback effects between reasoning/memory and emotion (emotion can change your reasoning ability or memory access ability).

If you had NO emotions, consider waking up in the morning. Your thought is "should I put on shoes?" You would then list the positive reasons for putting on shoes and the negative reasons. Even then, you are unable to attach a "happy/positive" feeling to the idea of putting shoes on. Given enough convincing, you may eventually decide to put on shoes.

That's one reason people with certain brain lesions in the limbic system (emotional center) are able to perfectly reason out problems without being able to come to a decision.