Hi! I fully agree with FISHs opinion and I have developed such an "emotion synthesis system" as my Master Degree Work. The most interesting question on that topic is: Why should someone want to have an (artificial) emotional system? Whats it good for?
My answer: It makes artificial intelligent systems more convincing, BUT ONLY IF the whole system (where "emotions" can only be a part of) is capable of EXPRESSING the simulated emotions in a convincing and comprehensible way. (And it might also be usefull for (faster) decision making as mentioned above..)
So as far as real (emobodied) robotics is concerned, we have to concentrate on the ability to EXPRESS some mental states (which emotions are again only a part of) first. In our VR-Setting here in Bielefeld we therefore are dealing with a virtual character with which it is easier to express emotion via several different (communication) channels.
To get an impression of what I am talking about U might follow these links:
Actually, if we make most other large species extinct, but manage to scrape by ourselves (a few thousand surviving would be enough), the earth will in future be populated by more of our descendents than would otherwise be the case, and the extinction of our descendants will henceforth be less likely. Thus, if 'evolutionary success' is your definition of a goal choice that may be used to evaluate intelligence, a mass extinction event that we survive could be evidence of intelligence in action.
Of course, that's a poor definition of intelligence, and nor are our actions so far destructive on anything like the scale of a large asteroid, though we could do some damage if we are careless with biotechnology and make contagious, incurable, and deadly diseases.
I think this is the basic problem of ethics, which is simply that rationality does not provide an adequate list of goals for which we should strive. Consequently, our intelligence cannot logically be evaluated in terms of its outcome.
:> This list falls into a really big trap. We are defining :> intelligence and intelligent behavior by what we observe :> in our own species.
: True, but one question I'm posing is: ARE these qualities that : might be universal to (high) intelligence. Another way to put : it is: do we do these things because we are human, or because : we are intelligent?
Good point, and one that I was hinting at myself. We've defined intelligence by what we feel is intelligent behavior - This may not be universal.
[snip] :> I feel that intelligence is a sliding scale based upon the species.
: I certainly agree with sliding scale, but based on species I donno. : Are you saying that, for example, some dogs are smarter than other : dogs?
Nope, Dogs may be less intelligent than humans, and perhaps rats less so than dogs (I'm not suggesting this order, since we don't really know.) But within a species it is obvious that there is an intelligence curve that is NOT uniform (as seen on this thread...)
[snip] :> I posit that just about any animal is intelligent,...
: Even lemmings? (-:
Bah, the "lemmings" thing was something invented by Disney and isn't true at all.
:> ...just perhaps not so much as (most) humans.
: I agree completely.
:> However, we are very, very limited in our ability to create :> a proper definition because we live in a vacuum. There are no :> other intelligent species that we've learned to communicate :> with, so we have absolutely NO frame of reference. We can :> continue to try, but until we have met and communicated with :> another intelligent species our theories are no better than :> the world views of the ancient Egyptians, Norse seaman or :> Gaelic druids. We just need more data!
: Agreed (sorta), but do you realize you've just made a binary : cut? I see a continuum here, also. I think we're a *little* : better off than the ancients (consider information theory), and : I think we're not quite in a vacuum, and we HAVE communicated to : some degree with our animal friends.
Well, OK, there is a continuum, maybe. We really don't know that yet. We may indeed by only marginally better than our great ancient ancestors on this topic - We just don't know!
In comp.robotics.misc Roedy Green wrote: : On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:40:31 -0500, Programmer Dude : wrote or quoted :
:>Another way to put :>it is: do we do these things because we are human, or because :>we are intelligent?
: What do you do with your not-so-hot situation that lets you and your : offspring continue surviving? That is the only form of intelligence : that matters in the long run.
That is evolution, not intelligence. In terms of pure biomass, humans are far from the most successful genus or species on the planet!
: If your cleverness just hastens your extinction more quickly, it is : just fancy stupidity, not intelligence, no matter how impressive it : looks.
: We humans have ballooned our numbers very high without thinking about : the consequences. Even apparently benign inventions like vaccinations, : fertilizer and insecticides may play a part is creating a fragile : technological house of cards that will eventually collapse : catastrophically.
: Humans are the biggest extinction event of all time, doing more damage : even than the asteroid that hit to end the age of dinosaurs. Me are : bad news for the planet, and eventually for ourselves, though because : we are stone age monkeys, we only care about our immediate time and : place and can't appreciate the big picture.
True, it is stupid to cause your own extinction, but other species have done it without any help from us before. In the end, a species is responsible only for perpetuating itself. At least we think that is the rule...
The problem here is your assumption that "intelligence" is a "yes/no" concept. Even though you use the phrase "far more", the rest of your post assumes a "yes/no" answer. As normally used, the term "intelligence" refers to more of a scale rather than a "yes/no". You might as well answer "How much do you weigh?" with a yes/no.
Also, "intelligence" as normally understood, doesn't correlate to achievements/knowledge at all.
A 10 year old hobbyist could be more intelligent that a 35 year old programmer, but the programmer could have more achievements and knowledge, even if accumulated very slowly. That still doesn't affect the definition of intelligence. The 10 year old would still be considered more intelligent.
So correlating "intelligence" with any particular achievements of humans makes no sense.
You are better off with "sentience". That word was specially coined for the purpose that seems to be driving you.
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:33:34 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote or quoted :
Surviving a mass extinction event by cleverness is indeed a sign of intelligence, but creating one that nearly takes or does take you with it, surely is not.
There has been some research in to dispute resolution. see
formatting link
but nowhere near the amount we have put into ways of directly and indirectly killing each other and other species. One of the classic stupidities happened in my part of the world with the huge pilchard fishery. It was fished to extinction. This then lead to reduced whale populations. Another was killing the sea otter almost to extinction which allowed sea urchins to eat off all the kelp which was the basis of the food coastal food chain. That one we have happily reversed.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See
On 17 Sep 2003 03:41:50 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@merseymail.com (FISH) wrote or quoted :
Humans created it. How can it help but be influenced by its creator?
People create machines for their own purposes which they had off to machines. Every program I have ever written has a human purpose. Why should higher level programs be any different?
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See
On 17 Sep 2003 07:27:53 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (cwbecker) wrote or quoted :
Communication. Imagine a conversation with a fellow human that first went to Dragon Naturally Speaking then back through a Hawking Style voice synthesizer. Note how often people in newsgroups misunderstand each other because the normal voice clues are missing.
There are all sorts of message you send with tone of voice.
-- Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming. See
Yes, and many of the more intelligent animals seem to have a sense of humor. I read recently about dolphins sneaking up on pelicans and pulling their tail feathers.
It would seem that it was. Humans aren't very fast or strong. We don't have eagle eyes or dog noses and hearing. Yet we kinda took over the world.
Personally, I would consider that a plus!
Eh? Except for truly deviant people, I've never heard such a thing. The hunters I know try to kill in the fastest possible way.
I'd have to agree with that one. Our culture seems to be at the point of actually glorifying and worshiping greed. Many people openly no longer consider it a vice.
Truly, I think we may live long enough to see cyborgs. Apparently there are already kids running around places like MIT with a lot of hardware "onboard".
Nah, this ball of rock could care less what we do to it (as George Carlin once suggested: maybe man's place is to bury as much plastic in the earth as possible before we kill ourselves off).
The *biosphere*... now that's something to be careful about. We're crapping where we sleep. :-( Most animals know better.
That sounds like a better definition of evolutionary fitness, not intelligence.
Cockroaches are probably more evolutionary fit than humans. Are they more intelligent? Perhaps you would say yes, but if so you are redefining intelligence to mean something very different than the usual (admittedly vague) meaning.
You assume that intelligence implies perfect foresight. I agree that foresight is one indicator of intelligence, be even intelligent people can make decisions that turn out to be harmful in retrospect.
All living things alter their environment to some degree, if nothing else by metabolizing part of it. Intelligence magnifies our ability to do this. It magnifies the consequences of our actions, both positive and negative. Thus, intelligence gives is both the ability to destroy ourselves, and the foresight to choose not to . . . most of the time. :-)
It's safe to say that cockroaches will never nuke themselves into extinction. Is that because they foresaw the dangers of nuclear weapons and choose not to develop them? Nah, they're just not intelligent enough to pose a danger to themselves in the first place.
Clearly we do think about the consequences, but we cannot foresee all consequences and do not give enough weight to those long-term consequences we can foresee.
We are naturally disposed to care more about the immediate than the long-term, and more about our individual good than the collective good. These traits probably have made good evolutionary sense up to this point -- though, of course, they may eventually be disasterous. Evolution does not predict. It only selects.
To say humans are intelligent is not a moral judgment, and says nothing about whether we are "good" or "bad" for the planet. It merely says we possess certain cognitive abilities.
Sure, but isn't that just a long way of saying: Uses tools? (-: (In any event, I agree it's a good descriptor.)
[shrug] What is? We do the best we can.
No.
Yes!
It appears in most cases to not be as complex as language, but I wonder how complex the language of our distant ancestors was. I would tend to define the ability of two creatures to communicate an idea between themselves as--perhaps rudimentary--language.
Example: We have Canadian Geese around here in large numbers. They tend to flock to open fields to graze. There are always "guards" that don't graze but stand on the outskirts of the flock, facing outwards, heads high, constantly vigilant. If my dog and I approach the flock, these "guards" begin to make noise which apparently alerts the rest of the flock. If we get too close, the noise increases and the flock takes wing.
This seems *clearly* to be communication. Is it language? Or at least the beginnings of language? I think it may well be.
There are often clear "pack leaders" who are often "voted out" of office by younger, stronger members. There also seem to be rules of behavior among packs. Could these be rudimentary gov and law?
That's what *I'm* asking! (-:
I would actually think that a third concept: of learning. And many animals can learn from their own previous experiences. Even animals that don't appear all THAT intelligent in other regards.
That's not quite true. Parent animals pass on knowledge to offspring by example, but that's not *building* on previous work, nor is it learning from previous experience. I'm mean how, for example, scientists take and *extend* a previous scientist's work. Remember the quote about standing on the shoulders of giants? That's what I have in mind.
Very much so.
You cat is (probably) not as intelligent as humans.
SOME humans do this, certainly. Others are smarter.
I can't recall the details, but there have been cases where a tribe of chimps learned a new and useful skill (for some reason, washing their food in the river rings a bell). The skill was monitored as it (very slowly) spread to other tribes in the region. The chimps involved were adults, so this suggests they can learn new skills.
The question of whether there is deliberate *teaching* is open, tho.
Probably the latter, but don't we teach our kids much the same way when they are young? How many kids really *understand* multiplication when they are first taught the multiplication tables?
Just so.
Agreed. That's one reason I selected them.
Are you familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? Basically, they are: * Survival (food, water, shelter) * Security (safety--in numbers, from danger) * Belonging (group identification) * Love (caring and being cared for) * Self-Esteem (achievement and status) * Self-Expression (control and creation) * Intellectual (need to use that brain!) * Spiritual ("oneness" with the universe) * Self-Actualization (fulfilling one's full potential)
This fits into many of the categories above!
Possibly a concern about survival and security?
Definitely #2 (in Maslow's list)--the reverse side of not having security!
Maslow suggests we are *driven* to use that intellect. A gifted person may actually suffer mental illness if they are not able to meet their intellectual needs.
Understood. However, the question is what achievements/knowledge might be the *byproducts* of intelligence. The question is, what indicators might we use to decide intelligence in non-humans.
Of course. One would *expect* that considering the older one is almost four times older and has had far more productive years.
Sentience simply means "self-aware" and is insufficient for the purpose (and, trust me, you have no clue what drives me :-). All it does is move the question to: what is "self-aware"?
The way the question is phrased is as a list of empirical activities. The flaw is twofold.
The list can at any time be extended with new human activities as they appear.
Any member of the list can be simulated by a computer insofar as it can be meaningfully described.
But we would still, it seems, be left with the feeling of "more."
The feeling of more results from the fact that at no time would computers be conscious in the sense of empathic consciousness which breaks down a boundary between two consciousnesses or connects spiritually with others or with what it chooses to call "god."
Of course, if the scientific philosopher rejects this as a meaningful possibility, then computers are "intelligent." I was privileged at Princeton to take a class with the cybernetic philosopher Gil Harman who at the time showed by construction that all sorts of artifacts can be constructed for activities including scientific and other forms of "creativity." As an unprovable but unrefuted thesis, we can say that if a sufficiently "thick" description of an activity can be formed, programming language technology now enables us to code it (or have a hapless graduate student do the job) in such a way that the set "problems people can solve but computers cannot" is empty.
But only in a Logical Positivist's nightmare, constructed world, of people solving problems in cubicles, is this exhaustive of what people DO. People not only solve problems, they (perhaps more importantly) create problems, play games with infants and eat pizza.
The fact is, the Modernist philosophers upon which the scientific world-view was shakily constructed needed a G-d, needed a World Spirit, as a sort of glue to hold the Cartesian cogito, the single reality of Spinoza, and the transcendental unity of apperception of Kant, together. In our terms, their reality was analog, consisting of a continuum in time, and not digital.
Consider for example that Kant showed that while we are aware of phenomena, we are "aware that we are aware" WITHOUT consciously focusing on the awareness, itself. He was not saying that the content of awareness, is awareness: when I have the thought "gee, I am being aware of something" this pushes out the thought of something WITHOUT, in Kant's "transcendental unity of apperception" making us "unaware" that "awareness exists."
Whereas a digital "thought", the execution of code, is NEVER aware in this way. Professor Harman could of course construct a Lisp program which simulated a sort of switch, between the artifact's gazing at a painting through a digital camera, to a metareflection on the gazing, without us having to define what the artifact would think.
When the operating system allocates memory for the program it is unaware of the program's goals.
But a LISP program cannot simulate the middle term of awareness that occurs when I am both conscious of something outside me and "aware", in an INSEPERABLE way, that I exist, and am having an awareness.
The discomfort engineers sometimes feel with art is the excessive on the job focus, where they are paid, in our business of software development, for cultivating industrial strength awareness of, and focus upon the problems of their craft, and in an environment where any kind of meta-awareness is coded as soldiering, and goofing off (discussions of how better to pay attention or to avoid bugs are restricted, in many cases, to the break room.)
Thus in the museum on his day off, the engineer is uncertain as to whether he should "just look" at Picasso, or "look at me look at this bozo's art work" because the forced industrial ontology denies on the job a necessary unity in which we not only switch focus but also are aware, at all times, that we are doing so. The Philistinism of the Net as regards art is the consequence.
The late, hero computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra was unusual in academia because he attained more than one practical result, which ordinary programmers, can actually use: the structured programming thesis of 1968 and his later work on the semaphore come to mind.
He also was acerbic about these discussions of "whether computers think" and found them positively correlated with what was to him an inability to actually program, in the sense both of creating a workable algorithm and expressing it in a notation, and a preference for vapor ware in the form of 4GL languages and "software engineering", or outdated paradigms like C.
Dijkstra's most important aphorism in this regard was "the question of whether computers can think is like the question as to whether submarines can swim." Educated in a European and Kantian tradition, Dijkstra did not have what may be ultimately an American instinct to own slaves by reducing consciousness to dehumanized labor and problem solving, because Kant was the first philosopher to note the unbreakability of wanting-to-be-a-subject and choosing-to-be-an-instrument-mostly-for-money.
While AI generates useful tools, and I have programmed a near expert system and been paid for doing so, which I think is useful in part because it discovered that not all low income people are deadbeats, as a philosophy AI is jejune.
There is nothing that I can describe which CANNOT be programmed in Lisp, in Prolog, in Visual Basic .Net or even C. But in performing the job, the computer of necessity fails to join a great chain of being constituted not only in a transcendental unity of apperception, but also connection with a pre-existing social, human reality of which computers will never be a part except as our tools.
Finally, Chris, I congratulate you for here, sticking to the charter of comp.programming.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.