From: ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon)
Subject: Re: The Easlon Test
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 05:08:15 GMT



In article <BzJ1o3.Iw5@iat.holonet.net>, I wrote:

>In my philosophical moments, consciousness reigns supreme...within the
>realm of my subjective consciousness I create a little subset called
>objective reality.

>It's hard to be extremely egocentric when in a state of terror, or even 
>when being prudently cautious.

This brings up the topic of emotions.  In different emotional states, we
have different ideas about what is really real.  The emotional extremes of
smug overconfidence and abject terror are not the only possibilities.  

One could say that we see different aspects of reality in different
emotional states, but I think that particular line of reasoning is flawed
when differing emotions lead to contradictory conclusions about reality.

I think it's more a case of our emotional state telling us what our mind is
currently viewing as reality, and this is subject to change with mood.

Emotional considerations may seem like so much psycho babble to hard nosed
programmers, but any attempt at emulating consciousness is going to have to
take emotions into consideration.

A first pass at digital modeling of emotions would involve the concept of
potential fields (see article <BzHnKs.8Bs@iat.holonet.net> subject: The
Complexity Required for intelligence).

Generally an emotional state will involve the potential for interaction
with another entity.  Thus we must consider not only the potential for
change of our own position, but the change of position of the other entity
as well.  The probability of coming into contact with the entity at any
given location at a particular time in can be calculated from the
probability of our being at that time and place, and the entity's
probability of same.

We can alter the shape of our own probability field by changing plans, and
to a lessor extent we can alter the entity's probability field by engaging
in pre-contact communication.

The prime consideration when selecting plans is a combination of what kind
of interaction we are prepared to engage in, and how we identify the
entity.  

If the entity is identified as weak foe, and we feel like a driving it off,
we select plans that will enhance the probability of contact.

If the entity is identified as strong foe, and we don't feel like a fight,
we select plans that will diminish the probability of contact.

If the entity is identified as friend, and we feel sociable, we select
plans that will enhance the probability of contact.

If the entity is identified as food, and we feel hungry, we select plans
that will enhance the probability of contact.

And so on.

Even though there are a number of primal types of interaction that
evolution has prepared us for, a key determinant in all of them is whether
we're seeking the encounter or avoiding it.


When it comes to describing the interaction of our fields of potential
contact, we can use some of the same visual aids we get from physics.  Are
we and the entity particles that attract or repel.

Another key concept here is what I call go juice and stop juice.  If we
come upon an opportunity to engage in an activity that is long overdue,
plans for activating the activity are reenforced by a complex blend of
neurotransmitters and hormones that result in intensified thinking about
the possibility, and increased physical preparation.  Go juice.

If the activity would be more taxing than rewarding, the chemical mix takes
on the nature of stop juice.  Thoughts about the activity tend to become
extinguished, the body slows down.

Another digitizable concept?  Another step toward emulating consciousness?
You be the judge.

--
Ken Easlon                | "...somebody spoke and I went into a dream..."
ken@holonet.net           |    -Paul McCartney
Pleasantly Unaffiliated   |