 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
AII |
| | | | | | posted 7/21/2012 05:28 |   | | | | | | | | | I read recently on the 'Intellectual Archive' the article with fresh view for necessity of emotions for AI.
I quote: "We examine here the question: Why do humans dispose of the diffusive emotional
control system? Is this a coincidence, a caprice of nature, perhaps a leftover of our genetic heritage, or a necessary aspect of any advanced intelligence, being it biological or synthetic?"
I liked this question. An I liked the answer even more... Hopefully you will like it too and will want to comment this article.
Here is it's location on the 'Intellectual Archive'
Claudius Gros. Emotional control - conditio sine qua non for advanced artificial intelligences?
www.IntellectualArchive.com/?link=item&id=520
As the IntellectualArchive.com states "The abstract of this article will be published in the July 2012 issue of "Intellectual Archive Bulletin", ISSN 1929-1329. "
| | |  Emotional control - conditio sine qua non for advanced artificial intelligences? | | | Last edited by AII @ 7/21/2012 5:35:00 AM | | |
| | |
tkorrovi |
| | | | | | posted 7/21/2012 06:08 | | | | | | | | | | What i can somewhat agree with is this: "It is hence plausible that a finite number of working principles, possibly as small as a few hundred, may be enough for a basic understanding of the human brain, with higher levels of complexity arising through self-organization". A pre-determined system which interacts with unrestricted system can influence the unrestricted system towards working in a certain way. But the pre-determined system only interacts with the unrestricted system and thus doesn't set up a fixed goal.
In my opinion there is some messing up of principles in the article. Emotions are states of the whole system. Emotions can motivate in that they may represent higher levels of harmony which one tries to achieve. But they are not the same as these "working principles", neither are they fixed goals. Goals are created as a result of self-development and due to the inherent tendency to achive a higher level harmony.
| | | Artificial Consciousness ADS-AC project | | | Last edited by tkorrovi @ 7/21/2012 6:10:00 AM | | |
| | |
Jim Bromer |
| | | | | | posted 7/23/2012 15:55 | | | | | | | | | | | |
tkorrovi wrote @ 7/21/2012 6:08:00 AM:
What i can somewhat agree with is this: "It is hence plausible that a finite number of working principles, possibly as small as a few hundred, may be enough for a basic understanding of the human brain, with higher levels of complexity arising through self-organization". A pre-determined system which interacts with unrestricted system can influence the unrestricted system towards working in a certain way. But the pre-determined system only interacts with the unrestricted system and thus doesn't set up a fixed goal.
In my opinion there is some messing up of principles in the article. Emotions are states of the whole system. Emotions can motivate in that they may represent higher levels of harmony which one tries to achieve. But they are not the same as these "working principles", neither are they fixed goals. Goals are created as a result of self-development and due to the inherent tendency to achive a higher level harmony.
| |
I just quickly skimmed the article, but their point was that emotional control of certain basic tendencies, like how much time is spent on "exploration" and "exploitation" of the environment, might be geared toward easily recognizable goals. This idea happens to be something that makes sense to me. These are not fixed goals because the success of an action may not be correctly evaluated and the distinction between actions decided on (like deciding to explore or to exploit a situation) does not mean that the action will result in actually choosing one or the other. (Vigilance, for example is a requirement of both hunting and exploring.)
Your point that emotions may be used to achieve a higher level of harmony is a great insight. The idea that a harmony of knowledge might exist or be found is new to me but it has some familiarity because the method of logic is one of a more exacting harmony. And of course I have heard ideas about a working toward an inner harmony before. The idea of a motivation towards a harmony of knowledge (or of self-directed motivations) seems like it would explain many of the mysteries of human behavior. For example, how can someone be so open minded to be able to learn a new insight that appeals to him only after he has learned it and yet be too close minded to consider a new way of thinking just because it might create some minor dissonance in his opinions at the time. A motivation toward inner harmony works to explain this.
So I think that the author has made a good point and you have made a good point. I don't see your view as being mutually exclusive from Gros'es view.
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
