colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (09/12/86)
Funny ... I feel much more comfortable in talk.philosophy.misc than in net.philosophy! Well, back to the discussion: > Ideas are abstract in different degree. The rudiments of intelligence > existing in an amoeba may not deserve the name of ideas; but > do its rudiments of emotion deserve names such as love? I don't believe that our emotions are necessarily less rude than an amoeba's. The amoeba just loves fewer things: plenty of food and a clean environment. As it happens, we love them too. It's a bond between us. > > ... I foresee difficulties in expressing emotion > >at 1200 baud ... > > Ever read the late net.flame? Or, for that matter, the extant groups? Of course--that's why I foresee difficulties! True, there is a lot of cruelty on the Net, and some kindness. Those aren't emotions, though. And flaming isn't a direct expression of hate or anger. It's just a calculated response. The objects do not perceive the flamers' emotions directly. The Net would be a scarier place if they did! (But maybe better for it.) > > ... What would we use AE _for?_ > > They could hug each other, and we could watch and laugh... This is getting away from the function of a computer. Just as a door operated by an electric eye is an instrument of Artificial Intelligence, a teddy bear is an instrument of Artificial Emotion. (J. J., where are you?) In fact, teddy bears have it all over computers when it comes to A.E.! Sure, computers are better with words. But that matters only for people whose emotions are triggered mainly by words. (Come to think of it, that probably includes a lot of Net users. |-) > You might say [the program] doesn't *really* feel the emotion - but the > same objection is made about its thinking. Wrongly, I believe. It manipulates symbols; that's certainly a form of thinking. (Nowadays the controversy is usually phrased in terms of consciousness rather than thinking.) And the emotions are still bogus. > Your implied objection is that emotion is not expressed in words alone > - but neither is intelligence. Remember Charles, " our noble king, > Whose word no man relies on. He never said a foolish thing, > And never did a wise one" ? That's why I brought up the electric-eye door. Of course, one can ask whether the door is acting intelligently _in its own interest!_ > The Imitation Game is crooked, but it's the only game in town... It's been pretty well torn to pieces by Keith Gunderson. It's only the philosophers who ask whether computers can think. What ordinary people desperately want to know is: 1. How can computers help us? 2. How can computers hurt us? And not in that order, either! // "I'll have to make this short; I'm double-parked." "I deduce that you are a car. How did you learn to type so well?" -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: colonel@sunybcs, csdsicher@sunyabva