From: ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon)
Subject: Re: Easlon on emotion
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 20:16:27 GMT


In article <BztxFA.DG8@casper.cs.uct.ac.za> ,
nhorne@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (N E Horne) writes:

>In <BzJKxs.1L9@iat.holonet.net> ken@iat.holonet.net (Ken Easlon) writes: 
 
>How does this: 
 
>>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. 

>lead to this: 
 
>>but any attempt at emulating consciousness is going to have to 
>>take emotions into consideration. 

First, I'll admit I'm out in the fringes of my philosophical capability on
this issue, so anything I say is subject to retraction.

When I say consciousness emulation must deal with emotions, I'm stating my
belief that what I call consciousness (usually MY consciousness) has an
intrinsic emotional component.  Even when I'm not in the grip of passion I
have attitudes and values that (I think) can best be described and modelled
in terms of emotional or affective parameters.

I see one task before me (us) of describing emotion/affect/feelings in
terms of a mathematical model that makes sense objectively and
subjectively.  

>There's a hint here of a strange breed of dualism: we being different to
>our  minds, wherefore we are *informed* about the perception that is
>carried out by  our minds. Now if this (duality) were to be, then emotions
>are akin to sieves  that filter parts of our mental perception through to
>the conscious "I". But  why then is it necessary to emulate this messenger
>when reproducing consciousness. Why not just focus on emulating the
>conscious receptor. Or perhaps have a messenger that tells all, not as
>selective as our emotional states.   

>If this apparent dualism is unintended, then your first quoted sentence
>implies  that conscious perception precedes emotional interference "...
>our emotional  state telling us what our mind is [*already*] currently
>viewing as reality ..."  whence the emotional states at play are secondary
>agents, altogether dispensable in modelling consciousness.  

When I say our emotions are telling us what our mind is viewing as
real(ity), I guess I'm talking about the range of experience our
consciousness has access to at any given moment (as in state specific
memories).

I think our perception of reality depends heavily on intuitive assessment
of probabilities.  Does a particular sensory clue mean this or that?  I
maintain that in one passionate state we might assess the probabilities one
way, in another passionate state another way.  In a reflective state we
might see the various interpretations and conclude that our past
certainties were unfounded.

If our consciousness emulator is going to be purely analytical like HAL or
Mr. Spock, then we can redesign/improve the emotional messenger.  It
depends on our purpose in carrying out the emulation.  If we are trying to
create a superior intelligence, able to leap to logical conclusions with
unmatched accuracy, then emotions might well be an unnecessary hinderance. 

If on the other hand, we are trying to model the human mind with all its
foibles and para-rational capabilities then we need to figure in the
emotions.

Emotions are essential for organisms struggling for survival, and the
survival of our lineage for several billion years has left us humans with 
a solid core of emotional reality surrounded by a shell of intellectual
capabilities.


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