The right door, or the left? I am not even sure that a survival instinct is necessary. It has to come into play at some point, but once intelligence is achieved, is it necessary or even desirable?
Does noblice oblige enter in at all? Doug --- Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tend to agree. There is no requirement that > intelligence requires > emotion. Probably the most important requisite to > intelligence is a strong > survival instinct at the species level, and an > environment where a high > level of intelligence is a determining factor in > survival. (Whether that > environment still exists is not necessarily an > important question once > intelligence has developed.) > > At 06:23 AM 5/25/2003 -0700, you wrote: > > > >--- 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 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >General mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > --- > Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Puryear Information Technology > Windows, UNIX, and IT Consulting > http://www.puryear-it.com > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net ===== 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
