RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Emotion is not sensory data but rather a product of it, from the machine point of view emotion is another reasoning faculty invoked from archetypal imprints adjusting to a sensory cognitive pattern (the resolution process). Emotion is the steering heuristic encapsulating the resolution domain. One may say its the seed of reason or at least the path it traces. Gus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Goertzel Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions Mike, Regarding your definition of emotion. Ialmost agree with what you say -- BUT, I think you're missing a basic point. Emotions do involve data coming into the cognitive centers, vaguely similarly to how perceptual data comes into the cognitive centers. And, as with perception, emotions involve processing that goes on in areas of the brain that are mostly opaque to the cognitive centers. But in the case of emotion, the data comes in from a broadly distributed set of physiological and kinesthetic indicators -- AND from parts of the brain that are concerned with reaction to stimuli and goal-achievement rather than just perceiving. This is qualitatively different than data feeding in from sensors Emotions are more similar to unconscious reflex actions than to sensation per se -- but they last longer and are more broadly-based than simple reflex actions... ben g -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of deering Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions Bill, I agree with you that emotions are tied to motivation of behavior in humans. Humans prefer the experience of some emotions and avoid the experience of others, and therefore generate their behavior to maximize these goals. I think this is a peculiarly biological situation and need now be replicated in AI's. I think in AI's we have the design option to base the motivation of behavior on more rational grounds. Ben, I don't know if my personal definition of emotions will be of much help as it may not be shared by a very large community. but for what it's worth, here it is. MIKE DEERING'S PERSONAL DEFINITION OF EMOTIONS: Emotions are a kind of sensory data. The sensory organ that perceives this data is the conscious mind alone. The physical reality which generates this raw data are selected concentrations of neurotransmitters in the brain. Their effects vary with different types of neurons in different locations. Some types of neurons produce more of certain kinds of neurotransmitter than other types of neurons. Those that generate the neurotransmitters are not necessarily the same as those that are more affected. They are also affected by other chemicalsproduced by glands. It's complicated. These neurochemical phenomena are by evolutionary design causally linked to environmental circumstances and divided into positive and negative type. They are used, by evolutionary design, to positively and negatively reinforce behaviors to maximize and minimize the related circumstances. Emotions are not products of cognitive processes but are rather perceptions of neurochemical states and states of activation of selected regions of the brain. Because of the complicated feedback arrangements in the generation of neurotransmitters and hormones, and the neurons role in this feedback, some limited conscious influence can be exercised in the management of emotions. Emotions can be generated artificially by the introduction of various chemicals to the brain, the direct electrical stimulation of certain neuron clusters, or direct control of environmental circumstances. Certain physical bodily sensations are closely related to emotions: pain to sadness, pleasure to happiness. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Title: Message It's true that nearly all thoughts have some physiological/primordial-brain associations, but in some cases (the ones we call "emotions") these associations are the DOMINANT part of the thought/experience, whereas in other cases they're only a minor aspect... --- Sure, but it's still all just "thoughts", which was my main point...I'll also note that these associations are highly variable across humans. Certain humans are able to have a high degree of control over the mind/body. Also, I can't really agree that these "associations are the dominant part of the thought/experience". They may be the dominant part of the experience, but the thought proceeds the experience (by a very smallincrement of time, yet discernable to the trained mind)and is therefore thecontroller. So the thought itself is the dominant factor. --Kevin It is interesting if Tibetans don't make the distinction between thought and emotion so crisply as we do. Of course, I'm sure there are many things they distinguish that we don't habitually distinguish, as well. Different cultural systems divide up the world in different ways, as we all know... That's true Ben, but tibetan minds are the same as western minds in essence. And they've got a few thousand years of culture built around the understanding of the fundamental nature of mind, so their opinion is more valid than most. --Kevin To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Title: Message I disagree that thought necessarily precedes experience.I am defining "thought" here as related to cognitive rather than purely physiological activity. I think that in many cases, physiological reactions drive cognitive activity rather than vice versa. Perhaps you are defining "thought" differently, though. -- Ben G -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of KevinSent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions It's true that nearly all thoughts have some physiological/primordial-brain associations, but in some cases (the ones we call "emotions") these associations are the DOMINANT part of the thought/experience, whereas in other cases they're only a minor aspect... --- Sure, but it's still all just "thoughts", which was my main point...I'll also note that these associations are highly variable across humans. Certain humans are able to have a high degree of control over the mind/body. Also, I can't really agree that these "associations are the dominant part of the thought/experience". They may be the dominant part of the experience, but the thought proceeds the experience (by a very smallincrement of time, yet discernable to the trained mind)and is therefore thecontroller. So the thought itself is the dominant factor. --Kevin It is interesting if Tibetans don't make the distinction between thought and emotion so crisply as we do. Of course, I'm sure there are many things they distinguish that we don't habitually distinguish, as well. Different cultural systems divide up the world in different ways, as we all know... That's true Ben, but tibetan minds are the same as western minds in essence. And they've got a few thousand years of culture built around the understanding of the fundamental nature of mind, so their opinion is more valid than most. --Kevin To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions
I just spent 10 minutes trying to figure out a definition of emotion for the purpose of AI. Here is the thought: http://www.mageo.com/home/GEORGE_71/index.html?g71p=define.html#emotion Sincerely, Jiri Jelinek --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Title: Message
It's
true that nearly all thoughts have some physiological/primordial-brain
associations, but in some cases (the ones we call "emotions") these associations
are the DOMINANT part of the thought/experience, whereas in other cases they're
only a minor aspect...
It is
interesting if Tibetans don't make the distinction between thought and emotion
so crisply as we do. Of course, I'm sure there are many things they
distinguish that we don't habitually distinguish, as well. Different
cultural systems divide up the world in different ways, as we all
know...
-- Ben
G
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of KevinSent:
Wednesday, February 25, 2004 6:53 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] AGI's and
emotions
I'll add one last point here..the Dalai Lama,
when talking with western intelligenicia from various disciplines at Harvard (
I think it was Harvard) was asked a question about emotions. He got a
very puzzled look on his face. It turned out that the Tibetans, due to
their study of the mind, made no distinction between ordinary thought and
emotion. So the idea of "emotion" being separate from thought was
completely foreign to HHDL..
My own experience tells me that *all* thoughts carry a
physiolocial component..there is no separation between the body and mind in
this sense. It's just that most thoughts affect on our physiology flies
under the radar of our everyday awareness...So we only really notice the major
emotions/thoughts due to this kind of numbness. But the accumulation of
physiological responses from subtle negative thinking can have a very
profoundly bad effect on us over time...I think an AGI will also need to watch
these subtle accumulations..
--Kevin
- Original Message -
From:
J.
W. Johnston
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:36
PM
Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and
emotions
Folks interested in this thread should check out the draft of Marvin
Minsky's upcoming book "The Emotion Machine". Been available at his web site
for quite some time:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/
The current draft doesn't seem to have an executive summary that lays
outthemain thesis, but in a 12/13/99 posting (http://www.generation5.org/content/1999/minsky.asp),
Minsky says:
The central idea is that emotion is not
different from thinking. Instead, each emotion is a type or arrangement of
thinking. There is no such thing as unemotional thinking, because there
always must be a selection of goals, and a selection of resources for
achieving them.
From my notesafter skimming some of the book about a year ago,
it seemed thatMinsky sees emotions as kinds of "presets" (his term -
"Selectors") that determine what mind resources and goals are active at a
given time to solve a particular "problem". [I seem to recall Antonio
Damasio also had a similar conception... and he called the emotional "set
points" PATTERNS!]
The following isfrom the draft of Chapter 1 Section
6:
Each
of our major emotional states results from switching the set of resources
in useby turning certain ones on and other ones
off. Any such
change will affect how we think, by changing our brains
activities.
In other
words, our emotional states are not separate and distinct from thoughts;
instead, each one is a different way to think.
For example, when an emotion
like Anger takes over, you
abandon some of your ways to make plans. You turn off some safety-defenses.
You replace some of your slower-acting resources with ones that tend to more
quickly reactand to do with more speed and strength. You trade empathy for
hostility, change cautiousness into aggressiveness, and give less thought to
the consequences. And then it may seem (to both you and your friends) that
youve switched to a new personality.
Good stuff! (IMHO)
J.
W. Johnston
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ben GoertzelSent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:25
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and
emotions
Agreed --- we tend to project even abstract experiences back down
to our physical layer, and then react to them physically ... a kind of
analogy that AGI's are unlikely to pursue so avidly unless specifically
designed to do so
ben g
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf
Of Philip SuttonSent: Wednesday, February 2
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Bill, I think that emotions in humans are CORRELATED with value-judgments, but are certainly not identical to them. We can have emotions that are ambiguous in value, and we can have strong value judgments with very little emotion attached to them. -- Ben G Bill, I agree with you that emotions are tied to motivation of behavior in humans. Humans prefer the experience of some emotions and avoid the experience of others, and therefore generate their behavior to maximize these goals. I think this is a peculiarly biological situation and need now be replicated in AI's. I think in AI's we have the design option to base the motivation of behavior on more rational grounds. I would say that behavior of any intelligence must be motivated by values for distinguishing good and bad outcomes, and that emotion is essentially just a word we use for those values in humans. Of course, an AI need not express its values as humans do, through facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice. If an AI needs to communicate with humans, a way of mimicking human emotional expressions will be useful for that communication. Cheers, Bill --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Ben, I think that emotions in humans are CORRELATED with value-judgments, but are certainly not identical to them. We can have emotions that are ambiguous in value, and we can have strong value judgments with very little emotion attached to them. That is reasonable. As I said in my first post on this topic, there is variation in the way people define emotion. The quotes from Edelman and Crick show some precedence for defining emotion essentially as value, but it is also common to define emotion more in terms of expression or physiological response. Cheers, Bill --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
p.s., RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
I said: That is reasonable. As I said in my first post on this topic, there is variation in the way people define emotion. The quotes from Edelman and Crick show some precedence for defining emotion essentially as value, but it is also common to define emotion more in terms of expression or physiological Another definition of emotion may be in terms of qualia. Bill --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Ben Goertzel wrote: Emotions ARE thoughts but they differ from most thoughts in the extent to which they involve the primordial brain AND the non-neural physiology of the body as well. This non-brain-centricity means that emotions are more out of 'our' control than most thoughts, where 'our' refers to the modeling center of the brain that we associate with the feeling of 'free will.' -- Ben G I would agree with this. Emotions seem to arise from parts of the brain that your central executive has minimal control over. They can be suppressed and manipulated with effort but they are distinct from the character of thoughts originating in other parts of the brain. It's probably a mistake to characterize emotions as a unitary phenomenon though. Different emotions have different functions, and likely originate from different structures. --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
I guess we call emotions 'feelings' because we feel them - ie. we can feel the effect they trigger in our whole body, detected via our internal monitoring of physical body condition. Given this, unless AGIs are also programmed for thoughts or goal satisfactions to trigger 'physical' and/or other forms of systemic reaction, I suppose their emotions will have a lot less 'feeling' depth to them than humans and other biological species experience. That's not the entirety of the difference between emotions and other types of thoughts. A reasoning entity can detect that their thoughts are under the influence of an emotion. For example, consider being in a road rage situation, which I'm sure we can all relate to. You know full well that your reaction of anger towards someone who's unwittingly committed a minor offense to you is wildly irrational and yet you can't help but feel a flash of extreme animosity towards someone else (or maybe your steering wheel :)). The fact that you know it's an emotional reaction doesn't prevent you from feeling its effects on your thoughts, it just lets you handle it without acting on it. So any entity capable of remembering their thought processes would be able to detect the influence of an emotion (at least the human variety) on the current flow of their thoughts even without body-state markers. -Brad --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Philip Sutton wrote: I guess we call emotions 'feelings' because we *feel *them - ie. we can feel the effect they trigger in our whole body, detected via our internal monitoring of physical body condition. Given this, unless AGIs are also programmed for thoughts or goal satisfactions to trigger 'physical' and/or other forms of systemic reaction, I suppose their emotions will have a lot less 'feeling' depth to them than humans and other biological species experience. It seems to me an AI would not require emotions in order to have *motivations*. Emotions may be necessary to provide a sense of self on the level we associate with human consciousness, however, I don't see that as being of much long term practical value, and more likely to be an impediment, in a practical AI or other highly advanced intelligence. - Jef --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Mike, Regarding your definition of emotion. Ialmost agree with what you say -- BUT, I think you're missing a basic point. Emotions do involve data coming into the cognitive centers, vaguely similarly to how perceptual data comes into the cognitive centers. And, as with perception, emotions involve processing that goes on in areas of the brain that are mostly opaque to the cognitive centers. But in the case of emotion, the data comes in from a broadly distributed set of physiological and kinesthetic indicators -- AND from parts of the brain that are concerned with reaction to stimuli and goal-achievement rather than just perceiving. This is qualitatively different than data feeding in from sensors Emotions are more similar to unconscious reflex actions than to sensation per se -- but they last longer and are more broadly-based than simple reflex actions... ben g -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of deeringSent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:19 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions Bill, I agree with you that emotions are tied to motivation of behavior in humans. Humans prefer the experience of some emotions and avoid the experience of others, and therefore generate their behavior to maximize these goals. I think this is a peculiarly biological situation and need now be replicated in AI's. I think in AI's we have the design option to base the motivation of behavior on more rational grounds. Ben, I don't know if my personal definition of emotions will be of much help as it may not be shared by a very large community. but for what it's worth, here it is. MIKE DEERING'S PERSONAL DEFINITION OF EMOTIONS: Emotions are a kind of sensory data. The sensory organ that perceives this data is the conscious mind alone. The physical reality which generates this raw data are selected concentrations of neurotransmitters in the brain. Their effects vary with different types of neurons in different locations. Some types of neurons produce more of certain kinds of neurotransmitter than other types of neurons. Those that generate the neurotransmitters are not necessarily the same as those that are more affected. They are also affected by other chemicalsproduced by glands. It's complicated. These neurochemical phenomena are by evolutionary design causally linked to environmental circumstances and divided into positive and negative type. They are used, by evolutionary design, to positively and negatively reinforce behaviors to maximize and minimize the related circumstances. Emotions are not products of cognitive processes but are rather perceptions of neurochemical states and states of activation of selected regions of the brain. Because of the complicated feedback arrangements in the generation of neurotransmitters and hormones, and the neurons role in this feedback, some limited conscious influence can be exercised in the management of emotions. Emotions can be generated artificially by the introduction of various chemicals to the brain, the direct electrical stimulation of certain neuron clusters, or direct control of environmental circumstances. Certain physical bodily sensations are closely related to emotions: pain to sadness, pleasure to happiness. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Agreed --- we tend to project even abstract experiences back down to our physical layer, and then react to them physically ... a kind of analogy that AGI's are unlikely to pursue so avidly unless specifically designed to do so ben g -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Philip SuttonSent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:00 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions Emotions ARE thoughts but they differ from most thoughts in the extent to which they involve the "primordial" brain AND the non-neural physiology of the body as well. I guess we call emotions 'feelings' because we feel them - ie. we can feel the effect they trigger in our whole body, detected via our internal monitoring of physical body condition. Given this, unless AGIs are also programmed for thoughts or goal satisfactions to trigger 'physical' and/or other forms of systemic reaction, I suppose their emotions will have a lot less 'feeling' depth to them than humans and other biological species experience. Cheers, Philip To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Title: Message Folks interested in this thread should check out the draft of Marvin Minsky's upcoming book "The Emotion Machine". Been available at his web site for quite some time: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/ The current draft doesn't seem to have an executive summary that lays outthemain thesis, but in a 12/13/99 posting (http://www.generation5.org/content/1999/minsky.asp), Minsky says: The central idea is that emotion is not different from thinking. Instead, each emotion is a type or arrangement of thinking. There is no such thing as unemotional thinking, because there always must be a selection of goals, and a selection of resources for achieving them. From my notesafter skimming some of the book about a year ago, it seemed thatMinsky sees emotions as kinds of "presets" (his term - "Selectors") that determine what mind resources and goals are active at a given time to solve a particular "problem". [I seem to recall Antonio Damasio also had a similar conception... and he called the emotional "set points" PATTERNS!] The following isfrom the draft of Chapter 1 Section 6: Each of our major emotional states results from switching the set of resources in useby turning certain ones on and other ones off. Any such change will affect how we think, by changing our brains activities. In other words, our emotional states are not separate and distinct from thoughts; instead, each one is a different way to think. For example, when an emotion like Anger takes over, you abandon some of your ways to make plans. You turn off some safety-defenses. You replace some of your slower-acting resources with ones that tend to more quickly reactand to do with more speed and strength. You trade empathy for hostility, change cautiousness into aggressiveness, and give less thought to the consequences. And then it may seem (to both you and your friends) that youve switched to a new personality. Good stuff! (IMHO) J. W. Johnston -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben GoertzelSent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:25 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions Agreed --- we tend to project even abstract experiences back down to our physical layer, and then react to them physically ... a kind of analogy that AGI's are unlikely to pursue so avidly unless specifically designed to do so ben g -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Philip SuttonSent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:00 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions Emotions ARE thoughts but they differ from most thoughts in the extent to which they involve the "primordial" brain AND the non-neural physiology of the body as well. I guess we call emotions 'feelings' because we feel them - ie. we can feel the effect they trigger in our whole body, detected via our internal monitoring of physical body condition. Given this, unless AGIs are also programmed for thoughts or goal satisfactions to trigger 'physical' and/or other forms of systemic reaction, I suppose their emotions will have a lot less 'feeling' depth to them than humans and other biological species experience. Cheers, Philip To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Title: Message
I'll add one last point here..the Dalai Lama,
when talking with western intelligenicia from various disciplines at Harvard ( I
think it was Harvard) was asked a question about emotions. He got a very
puzzled look on his face. It turned out that the Tibetans, due to their
study of the mind, made no distinction between ordinary thought and
emotion. So the idea of "emotion" being separate from thought was
completely foreign to HHDL..
My own experience tells me that *all* thoughts carry a
physiolocial component..there is no separation between the body and mind in this
sense. It's just that most thoughts affect on our physiology flies under
the radar of our everyday awareness...So we only really notice the major
emotions/thoughts due to this kind of numbness. But the accumulation of
physiological responses from subtle negative thinking can have a very profoundly
bad effect on us over time...I think an AGI will also need to watch these subtle
accumulations..
--Kevin
- Original Message -
From:
J. W.
Johnston
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 5:36
PM
Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and
emotions
Folks interested in this thread should check out the draft of Marvin
Minsky's upcoming book "The Emotion Machine". Been available at his web site
for quite some time:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/
The
current draft doesn't seem to have an executive summary that lays
outthemain thesis, but in a 12/13/99 posting (http://www.generation5.org/content/1999/minsky.asp),
Minsky says:
The central idea is that emotion is not
different from thinking. Instead, each emotion is a type or arrangement of
thinking. There is no such thing as unemotional thinking, because there always
must be a selection of goals, and a selection of resources for achieving them.
From
my notesafter skimming some of the book about a year ago, it seemed
thatMinsky sees emotions as kinds of "presets" (his term - "Selectors")
that determine what mind resources and goals are active at a given time to
solve a particular "problem". [I seem to recall Antonio Damasio also had a
similar conception... and he called the emotional "set points"
PATTERNS!]
The
following isfrom the draft of Chapter 1 Section 6:
Each
of our major emotional states results from switching the set of resources in
useby turning certain ones on and other ones off. Any such change will affect how we think, by
changing our brains activities.
In other
words, our emotional states are not separate and distinct from thoughts;
instead, each one is a different way to think.
For example, when an emotion like
Anger takes over, you abandon
some of your ways to make plans. You turn off some safety-defenses. You
replace some of your slower-acting resources with ones that tend to more
quickly reactand to do with more speed and strength. You trade empathy for
hostility, change cautiousness into aggressiveness, and give less thought to
the consequences. And then it may seem (to both you and your friends) that
youve switched to a new personality.
Good
stuff! (IMHO)
J.
W. Johnston
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ben GoertzelSent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:25
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and
emotions
Agreed --- we tend to project even abstract experiences back down to
our physical layer, and then react to them physically ... a kind of analogy
that AGI's are unlikely to pursue so avidly unless specifically designed to
do so
ben g
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Philip
SuttonSent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:00 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and
emotions
Emotions ARE thoughts but they differ from
most thoughts in the extent
to which they involve the "primordial" brain
AND the non-neural
physiology of the body as well.
I guess we
call emotions 'feelings' because we feel them - ie. we can feel the
effect they trigger in our whole body, detected via our internal
monitoring of physical body condition.
Given this,
unless AGIs are also programmed for thoughts or goal satisfactions to
trigger 'physical' and/or other forms of systemic reaction, I suppose
their emotions will have a lot less 'feeling' depth to them than humans
and other biological species experience.
Cheers,
Philip
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscript
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
The experience of "emotion," in my view, occurs when one component of a mind --which I call the "virtual multiverse modeler" and which is responsible for the feeling we call "free will" -- finds itself unable to construct models of large phenomena within the mind. This can happen for several reasons. One reasonis that -- as often happens in humans -- large phenomena within the mind are driven by "primordial" brain subsystems that are opaque to the rational, modeling mind. This will not occur in AGI's unless they're specifically designed that way. Another reason is that there are very complex, unpredictable dynamics within the cognitive mind itself -- this source of emotion could occur within an AGI as well as (and perhaps better than in) humans. So, I don't think it's useful to design AGI's specifically to have emotions -- unless one wants to build an AGI that has a specific lobe designed to experience rough emulations ofhuman emotions, with the goal of making the AGI understand humans better. However, I think that some sorts of emotions will necessarily arise in any intelligent system -- there's no way to avoid it because, given finite computational resources, there's no way to avoid a system experiencing major surprising internal events The only way to avoid emotion entirely would be to make a system entirely predictable by its own virtual multiverse modeler, but I'm pretty sure this is incompatible with general intelligence.. -- Ben G -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of deeringSent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:16 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions In your paper you take a stab at defining emotions and explaining different kinds of emotions' relationship to goals achievement and motivation of important behaviors (fight, flight, reproduction). And then you go on to say that AI's will have goals and motivations and important behaviors, so of course, AI's will have emotions. I don't exactly agree. I think AI's could have emotions if they were designed that way. I don't think this is the only way a mind can work. I doubt if it is the best way. Evolution gave feathers to birds, and feathers are certainly functional, but I don't think that is any excuse to be pasting them on the wings of an F16. Emotions are evolution's solution to a motivational problem in biological minds. I don't want my computer to stop sending my email because it is depressed about the economy. Emotions...I don't know. Maybe there are some applications where they might be useful, dealing with humans. But then the emotions could be faked. Humans do it all the time. I'm trying to think of a case where real emotions would be a functional advantage to a purpose built machine. I can't think of any. Then again, it's late, and I have to get to bed. I'll sleep on it. Mike Deering. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions
An unexpected mental event or an unplanned mental excursion does not in itself constitute an emotion. An epileptic seizure is not an emotion. Most emotions, perhaps all, are very predictable from causes. You will the lottery or the girl next door says "yes" and you are happy. Someone runs into your classic Beetle, and you are sad. You finish a major work of great value, and you feel joy. There is nothing mysterious about these emotions, no unpredictable mental dynamics. I don't consider "confusion" an emotion. I consider it a error in processing. I know I'm not telling you anything new. You surely understand all of this already. Therefore I must be missing some fundamental aspect of your thoughts on emotions. I have to admit, I've never been very good at emotions, and tend to ignore them. I feel like we must be talking past each other, but I can't imagine how we could be ambiguous about an experience as fundamental as emotion. We all have them. It's the ocean our thoughts swim in, waves taking us to and fro, and sometimes crashing us against the rocks. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
It's true that emotional reactions are often predictable on the medium scale -- yeah, I can predict that I'll get angry if you hit my wife on the head, or happy if you give me a billion dollar check However, from the point of view of the cognitive mind (in particular the decision-making part of the mind, which we associate with "free will"), emotions correspond to activity that was neither a) driven mainlyby cognitive activity, nor b) driven mainly by external events Cognition of external events may *trigger* emotional experiences, but the dynamics of the experiences themselves are controlled by the mammalian and reptilian brain, not by the cognitive brain nor by the external world This is why there is no "free will" feeling attached to these experiences, unlike the case with experiences driven more thoroughly and directly by the cognitive brain. -- Ben -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of deeringSent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:09 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions An unexpected mental event or an unplanned mental excursion does not in itself constitute an emotion. An epileptic seizure is not an emotion. Most emotions, perhaps all, are very predictable from causes. You will the lottery or the girl next door says "yes" and you are happy. Someone runs into your classic Beetle, and you are sad. You finish a major work of great value, and you feel joy. There is nothing mysterious about these emotions, no unpredictable mental dynamics. I don't consider "confusion" an emotion. I consider it a error in processing. I know I'm not telling you anything new. You surely understand all of this already. Therefore I must be missing some fundamental aspect of your thoughts on emotions. I have to admit, I've never been very good at emotions, and tend to ignore them. I feel like we must be talking past each other, but I can't imagine how we could be ambiguous about an experience as fundamental as emotion. We all have them. It's the ocean our thoughts swim in, waves taking us to and fro, and sometimes crashing us against the rocks. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions
It is true that there is a portion of the process of emotion that is not under our conscious control. There are in fact many cognitive functions underlying lots of different conscious thoughts that are not subject to our introspection or direct control, though perhaps not beyond our understanding. We necessarily have limited ability to watch our own thought processes, in order to have time to think about the important stuff, and to avoid an infinite regress. This limitation is "hardwired" in our design. The ability to selectively observe and control any cognitive function is a possible design option in an AI. The fact that there will not be time or resources to monitor every mental process, that most will be automatic, does not make it emotion. Lack of observation, and lack of control, do not mean lack of understanding. I agree that there will necessarily be automatic functions in a practical mind. I don't agree that these processes have to be characterized or shaped as emotions. I expect to see emotional AI's and non-emotional AI's. We don't know enough yet to predict which will function better. 1. highly emotional AL. (out of control) 2. moderately emotional AI. (like us, undependable) 3. slightly emotional AI. (your supposition, possibly good) 4. non-emotional AI. (my choice, including simulated emotions for human interaction) Mike Deering. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
I don't claim that all unmonitored thought processes are emotional, of course I think that the most abstract description of emotion is "mental processes outside the scope of free will, resulting in widely-distributed effects across the mind, often correlated with physiological responses" How do you define "emotions", Mike? ben -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of deeringSent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:08 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions It is true that there is a portion of the process of emotion that is not under our conscious control. There are in fact many cognitive functions underlying lots of different conscious thoughts that are not subject to our introspection or direct control, though perhaps not beyond our understanding. We necessarily have limited ability to watch our own thought processes, in order to have time to think about the important stuff, and to avoid an infinite regress. This limitation is "hardwired" in our design. The ability to selectively observe and control any cognitive function is a possible design option in an AI. The fact that there will not be time or resources to monitor every mental process, that most will be automatic, does not make it emotion. Lack of observation, and lack of control, do not mean lack of understanding. I agree that there will necessarily be automatic functions in a practical mind. I don't agree that these processes have to be characterized or shaped as emotions. I expect to see emotional AI's and non-emotional AI's. We don't know enough yet to predict which will function better. 1. highly emotional AL. (out of control) 2. moderately emotional AI. (like us, undependable) 3. slightly emotional AI. (your supposition, possibly good) 4. non-emotional AI. (my choice, including simulated emotions for human interaction) Mike Deering. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Hi all, I had read an article related to the discussion. I feel it could be of some inportance. http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/love.asp Regards, Nandakishor On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 Ben Goertzel wrote : I don't claim that all unmonitored thought processes are emotional, of course I think that the most abstract description of emotion is mental processes outside the scope of free will, resulting in widely-distributed effects across the mind, often correlated with physiological responses How do you define emotions, Mike? ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of deering Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions It is true that there is a portion of the process of emotion that is not under our conscious control. There are in fact many cognitive functions underlying lots of different conscious thoughts that are not subject to our introspection or direct control, though perhaps not beyond our understanding. We necessarily have limited ability to watch our own thought processes, in order to have time to think about the important stuff, and to avoid an infinite regress. This limitation is hardwired in our design. The ability to selectively observe and control any cognitive function is a possible design option in an AI. The fact that there will not be time or resources to monitor every mental process, that most will be automatic, does not make it emotion. Lack of observation, and lack of control, do not mean lack of understanding. I agree that there will necessarily be automatic functions in a practical mind. I don't agree that these processes have to be characterized or shaped as emotions. I expect to see emotional AI's and non-emotional AI's. We don't know enough yet to predict which will function better. 1. highly emotional AL. (out of control) 2. moderately emotional AI. (like us, undependable) 3. slightly emotional AI. (your supposition, possibly good) 4. non-emotional AI. (my choice, including simulated emotions for human interaction) Mike Deering. -- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions
In your paper you take a stab at defining emotions and explaining different kinds of emotions' relationship to goals achievement and motivation of important behaviors (fight, flight, reproduction). And then you go on to say that AI's will have goals and motivations and important behaviors, so of course, AI's will have emotions. I don't exactly agree. I think AI's could have emotions if they were designed that way. I don't think this is the only way a mind can work. I doubt if it is the best way. Evolution gave feathers to birds, and feathers are certainly functional, but I don't think that is any excuse to be pasting them on the wings of an F16. Emotions are evolution's solution to a motivational problem in biological minds. I don't want my computer to stop sending my email because it is depressed about the economy. Emotions...I don't know. Maybe there are some applications where they might be useful, dealing with humans. But then the emotions could be faked. Humans do it all the time. I'm trying to think of a case where real emotions would be a functional advantage to a purpose built machine. I can't think of any. Then again, it's late, and I have to get to bed. I'll sleep on it. Mike Deering. To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Hi Ben, Question: Will AGI's experience emotions like humans do? Answer: http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/Emotions.htm I'm wondering whether *social* organisms are likely to have a more active emotional life because inner psychological states need to be flagged physiologically to other organisms that need to be able to read their states. This will also apply across species in the case of challenge and response situations (buzz off or I'll bite you, etc.). Your point about the physiological states operating outside the mental processes (that are handled by the multiverse modeller) being likely to bring on feelings of emotion makes sense in a situation involving trans-entity communication. It would be possible for physiologically flagged emotional states (flushed face/body, raised hackles, bared teeth snarl, broad grin, aroused sexual organs, etc.) to trigger a (pre-patterned?) response in another organism on an organism-wide decentralised basis - tying in with your idea that certain responses require a degree of speed that precludes centralised processing. So my guess would be that emotions in AIs would be more common/stronger if the AIs are *social* (ie. capable of relating to any other entitites ie. other AIs or with social biological entities) and they are able to both 'read' (and perhaps 'express/flag') psychological states - through 'body language' as well as verbal language. Maybe emotions, as humans experience them, are actually a muddled (and therefore interesting!?) hybrid of inner confusion in the multiverse modelling system and also a broad patterened communication system for projecting and reading *psychological states* where the reason(s) for the state is not communicated but the existence of the state is regarded (subconsciously?/pre-programmed?) by one or both of the parties in the communication as being important. Will AIs need to be able to share *psychological states* as opposed to detailed rational data with other AIs? If AIs are to be good at communicating with humans, then chances are that the AIs will need to be able to convey some psychological states to humans since humans seem to want to be able to read this sort of information. Cheers, Philip --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Hi, You've made two comments in two posts; I'll respond to them both together 1) that sociality may be necessary for spiritual joy to emerge in a mind Response: Clearly sociality is one thing that can push a mind in the direction of appreciating its oneness with the universe but I don't see why it's the only thing that can do so I think the basic intuitive truths underlying spiritual traditions can be recognized by ANY mind that is self-aware and reflective, not just by a social mind. For instance, if a mind introspects into the way it constructs percepts, actions and objects -- the interpenetration of the perceived and constructed worlds -- then it can be led down the path of grokking the harmony between the inner and outer worlds, in a way that has nothing to do with sociality. 2) that sociality will lead to more intense emotions than asociality Response: I don't think so. I think that emotions are largely caused by the experience of having one's mind-state controlled by internal forces way outside one's will Now, in humans, some of these responses are specifically induced by other humans or animals -- therefore some of our emotions are explicitly social in nature. But this doesn't imply that emotions are necessarily social, nor that sociality is necessarily emotional -- at least not in any obvious way that I can see I suppose you could try to construct an argument that sociality presents computational problems that can ONLY be dealt with by mental subsystems that operate in an automated way, outside of the scope of human will However, I don't at present believe this to be true... -- Ben G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Philip Sutton Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 9:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [agi] AGI's and emotions Hi Ben, Question: Will AGI's experience emotions like humans do? Answer: http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2004/Emotions.htm I'm wondering whether *social* organisms are likely to have a more active emotional life because inner psychological states need to be flagged physiologically to other organisms that need to be able to read their states. This will also apply across species in the case of challenge and response situations (buzz off or I'll bite you, etc.). Your point about the physiological states operating outside the mental processes (that are handled by the multiverse modeller) being likely to bring on feelings of emotion makes sense in a situation involving trans-entity communication. It would be possible for physiologically flagged emotional states (flushed face/body, raised hackles, bared teeth snarl, broad grin, aroused sexual organs, etc.) to trigger a (pre-patterned?) response in another organism on an organism-wide decentralised basis - tying in with your idea that certain responses require a degree of speed that precludes centralised processing. So my guess would be that emotions in AIs would be more common/stronger if the AIs are *social* (ie. capable of relating to any other entitites ie. other AIs or with social biological entities) and they are able to both 'read' (and perhaps 'express/flag') psychological states - through 'body language' as well as verbal language. Maybe emotions, as humans experience them, are actually a muddled (and therefore interesting!?) hybrid of inner confusion in the multiverse modelling system and also a broad patterened communication system for projecting and reading *psychological states* where the reason(s) for the state is not communicated but the existence of the state is regarded (subconsciously?/pre-programmed?) by one or both of the parties in the communication as being important. Will AIs need to be able to share *psychological states* as opposed to detailed rational data with other AIs? If AIs are to be good at communicating with humans, then chances are that the AIs will need to be able to convey some psychological states to humans since humans seem to want to be able to read this sort of information. Cheers, Philip --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Hi Ben, Why would an AGI be driven to achieve *general* harmony between inner and outer worlds - rather than just specific cases of congruence? Why would a desire for specific cases of congruence between the inner and outer worlds lead an AGI (that is not programmed or trained to do so) to appreciate (desire??) to want to be at one with the *universe* (when you use that term do you mean the Universe or just the outer world?)? And is a desire to seek *general* congruence between the inner and outser world via changing the world rather changing the self a good recipe for creating a megalomaniac? Cheers, Philip --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Philip Sutton Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions Hi Ben, Why would an AGI be driven to achieve *general* harmony between inner and outer worlds - rather than just specific cases of congruence? If one of its guiding principles is to seek maximum joy -- and (as I've hypothesized) the intensity of a quale is proportional to the size of the pattern to which the quale is attached -- then it will seek general harmony because this is a bigger pattern than more specialized harmony. Why would a desire for specific cases of congruence between the inner and outer worlds lead an AGI (that is not programmed or trained to do so) to appreciate (desire??) to want to be at one with the *universe* (when you use that term do you mean the Universe or just the outer world?)? The desire for inner/outer congruence is a special case of the desire for pattern-finding, as manifested in the desires for Growth and Joy that I've posited as desirable guiding principles... And is a desire to seek *general* congruence between the inner and outser world via changing the world rather changing the self a good recipe for creating a megalomaniac? This is the sort of reason why I don't posit Joy and Growth in themselves as the ideal ethic. Adding Choice ot the mix provides a principle-level motivation not to impose one's own will upon the universe without considering the wills of others as well... ben g --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Hi Ben, Adding Choice to the mix provides a principle-level motivation not to impose one's own will upon the universe without considering the wills of others as well... Whose choice - everyone or the AGI? That has to be specified in the ethic - otherwise it could be the AGI only - then the AGI would *certainly* consider the wills of others as well but only to see that they did not block the will of the AGI. A non-carefully structured goal set leading to the pursuit of choice/growth/joy could still lead to a megalomaniac, seems to me. Cheers, Philip To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions
Yes, of course a brief ethical slogan like "choice, growth and joy" is underspecified and all the terms need to be better defined, either by example or by formal elucidation, etc. I carry out some of this elucidation in the Encouraging a Positive Transcension essay that triggered this whole dialogue... ben g -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Philip SuttonSent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:57 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [agi] AGI's and emotions Hi Ben, Adding Choice to the mix provides a principle-level motivation not to impose one's own will upon the universe without considering the wills of others as well... Whose choice - everyone or the AGI? That has to be specified in the ethic - otherwise it could be the AGI only - then the AGI would *certainly* "consider the wills of others as well" but only to see that they did not block the will of the AGI. A non-carefully structured goal set leading to the pursuit of choice/growth/joy could still lead to a megalomaniac, seems to me. Cheers, Philip To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
