--- will hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > If machines become intelligent, they must feel. > Without emotion there is no reason to make a choice > and a machine that can't make choices is not > intelligent. > > _______________________________________________ <snip>
I see no absolute reason that emotion must be coupled to intelligence. I could, in fact,cite a wealth of information that indicates emotion is the perfect counter to intelligent decisions. I doubt "we" could ever really communicate in a meaningful way with such an intelligence, as our decisions would remain subjective, and the other objective. We could share science, math, medicine and a few other things, but art, music, sex, and the more subtle arts would be left out of the equation. Cosider a collective. Ants perform intelligent actions, but show little that we could allude to passion. I would almost expect an intelligence we meet from without or within "known space" to be an advanced version of ants or wasps. It is a very early development in evolution (at least here), and very successful. What are the odds that we meet such an entity? Better than average. Especially if we create it. What would thier passion be, aside from survival? The individual parts would be little different than machines. The whole could be inteligent, but would it like Rodan, or Santana? Probably not. They might see in a wavelength that precludes enjoying Monet. I, at least, cannot fathom a collective that "feels." I could be wrong, God knows I have a couple of ex-wives that say I have been wrong before... Anyway, it seems like a fun topic to kick around. If it annoys the list, let's take it off-line. ===== Warmest Regards, Doug Riddle http://www.dougriddle.com http://fossile-project.sourceforge.net/ http://www.libranet.com -- "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the Peoples' Liberty Teeth." - George Washington -- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
