pluto@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Mark E. P. Plutowski) (12/06/88)
One net-poster remarked that emotions and feeling are a natural
by-product of thought.
I imagine that thought is a natural by-product of feeling and emotion.
*************What is the consensus of the rest of you?************
If you like, respond directly to me, and I will summarize and
post the results.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Plutowski INTERNET: pluto%cs@ucsd.edu
Department of Computer Science, C-014 pluto@beowulf.ucsd.edu
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093 UNIX:{...}!sdcsvax!beowulf!pluto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Plutowski INTERNET: pluto%cs@ucsd.edu
Department of Computer Science, C-014 pluto@beowulf.ucsd.edu
University of California, San Diego BITNET: pluto@ucsd.bitnet
La Jolla, California 92093 UNIX:{...}!sdcsvax!beowulf!plutosmoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (12/06/88)
In article <5626@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> pluto@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Mark E. P. Plutowski) writes: >One net-poster remarked that emotions and feeling are a natural >by-product of thought. > >I imagine that thought is a natural by-product of feeling and emotion. > > >*************What is the consensus of the rest of you?************ > I think a quotation from Marvin Minsky might be appropriate here: In this modern era of "information processing psychology" it may seem quaint to talk of mental states; it is more fashionable to speak of representations, frames, scripts, or semantic networks. But while I find it lucid enough to speak in such terms about memories of things, sentences, or even faces, it is much harder so to deal with feelings, insights, and understandings--and all the attitudes, dispositions, and ways of seeing things that go with them. . . . We usually put such issues aside, saying that one must first understand simpler things. But what if feelings and viewpoints are the simpler things? If such dispositions are the elements of which the others are composed, then we must deal with them directly. So we shall view memories as entities that predispose the mind to deal with new situations in old, remembered ways--specifically, as entities that reset the states of parts of the nervous system. Then they can cause that nervous system to be "disposed" to behave as though it remembers. This is why I put "dispositions" ahead of "propositions." Source: Minsky, M. K-Lines: A Theory of Memory. Cognitive Science 4:117-133, 1980.
sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) (12/07/88)
In article <5626@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> pluto@beowulf.UCSD.EDU writes: >One net-poster remarked that emotions and feeling are a natural >by-product of thought. I imagine that thought is a natural by-product >of feeling and emotion. Emotions and feelings are a "natural byproduct of" how our Terran bodies and minds function. Smell and internal chemicals (ie, "hormones") trigger neuronal activity which humans interpret as emotions. The limbic system seems to report many things which we interpret as "emotional feelings". Some "feelings" are also triggered by instinct or feedback. The "fingernails on blackboard" sound appears to be a primate warning cry which instinctively causes uncomfortable feelings in many humans. Feedback can cause feelings either due to memories triggering neuronal activity which are a "memory" of past feelings, or due to thoughts causing limbic-detected chemicals ("hormones") to be produced. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.
bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (12/08/88)
In article <5626@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> pluto@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (Mark E. P. Plutowski) writes: > One net-poster remarked that emotions and feeling are a natural > by-product of thought. > > I imagine that thought is a natural by-product of feeling and emotion. The cause and effect linkages operate both ways: feelings give rise to thoughts, and thoughts engender feelings. But if you go back far enough in our evolutionary past, I think you will find that feelings preceded thought, because sensory perception precedes information processing and cognition. --Barry Kort
ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew C. Plotkin) (12/09/88)
/ Emotions and feelings are a "natural byproduct of" how our Terran bodies
/ and minds function. Smell and internal chemicals (ie, "hormones")
/ trigger neuronal activity which humans interpret as emotions. The
/ limbic system seems to report many things which we interpret as
/ "emotional feelings".
/ Some "feelings" are also triggered by instinct or feedback. The
/ "fingernails on blackboard" sound appears to be a primate warning cry which
/ instinctively causes uncomfortable feelings in many humans.
I beg to differ (actually, I've already differed once, but I might as well
multiply differentiate)
I make a distinction between the feelings resulting from an emotion (which are
certainly related to internal biochemistry) and the emotions themselves.
Excitement produces a variety of sensations resulting from fast heartbeat, etc.
However, there must have been something to the "excitement" before those
sensations; something must have caused the physiological changes. There must be
something in common between failing a test, losing a possession, becoming
alienated from a friend, since they all cause similar feelings of depression.
But that common factor can only be in the mind, since there's no physical
similarity between the cases.
Fingernails on a blackboard cause an uncomfortable sensation, but it's not
an emotion.
/ Feedback
/ can cause feelings either due to memories triggering neuronal activity
/ which are a "memory" of past feelings, or due to thoughts causing
/ limbic-detected chemicals ("hormones") to be produced.
I would say that those thoughts are the emotion. (All right -- I would -define-
the emotion as those thoughts.)
This all sounds somewhat testable. Does anyone know of any cases where a
human's adrenal glands or whatever were removed? If so, did the person continue
to feel excited about exciting things, regardless of lack of physiological
symptoms?
--Zmarty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) (12/10/88)
In article <2609@datapg.MN.ORG> sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) wrote: > In article <5626@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> pluto@beowulf.UCSD.EDU writes: >>One net-poster remarked that emotions and feeling are a natural >>by-product of thought. I imagine that thought is a natural by-product >>of feeling and emotion. > > Emotions and feelings are a "natural byproduct of" how our Terran bodies > and minds function....... > Some "feelings" are also triggered by instinct or feedback.... Feedback > can cause feelings either due to memories triggering neuronal activity > which are a "memory" of past feelings, or due to thoughts causing > limbic-detected chemicals ("hormones") to be produced. I think I agree basically with both. I have a concept that is probably not testable, but which I find comfortable. Maybe it's a sort of extended definition. Reason (the word ``thought'' is ambiguous) is something both computers and humans can do. But reason does not lead to decisions unless goals are defined. Goals are not rationally derivable, except from more fundamental goals. Survival is a goal. Hunger, fear, etc. are feelings that tell a human that survival is at risk. Joy, relief, etc. are feelings that tell a human that a goal is being met. Feelings clue us in to what our goals are, and then we use reason to further define those goals and decide what course of action would attain those goals. Ordinarily a human can take a course of action that will produce good feelings in the long run, without causing bad feelings in the short run, and we call that ``rational behavior.'' When a human takes a course of action that produces good feelings immediately, but bad feelings later, we say he/she is ``not behaving rationally.'' I think all our actions are driven fundamentally by our need to feel good, which is built in to help insure survival, though it sometimes fails. Reason is built into computers, in the instruction set. Goals are not. Any goals a computer might have must be programmed into it. But they would then function in pretty much the same way feelings function in humans. When you feel pain you know something is wrong; it is a feeling that says you should stop what you are doing. Ordinarily, computers are programmed to give a message to a human when something is wrong. If a computer is to handle such a situation without human intervention, it must have a hierarchy of goals. That is not to say that a computer must have feelings in the way we know we have them. I would say our feelings are a set of interrupts that we use to tell us how well our actions meet our goals. If a computer is to handle multiple interrupts without human intervention (in a way that helps it survive and do what it is supposed to do) it needs something that does for it what feelings do for us. What I just wrote doesn't look rigorously logical to me, and I don't intend to prove it. I take it as a working hypothesis. It helps me to conceptualize a world in which humans are intelligent, rats learn, and ``artificial intelligence'' is discussed. It might help someone else. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Home (201) 946-8147 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!houdi!marty1 Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.
bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) (12/12/88)
I enjoyed Marty Brilliant's model of feelings vis-a-vis goals and reasoning. I think he is on the right track. I like to draw a technical distinction between "emotions" and "feelings". To me, emotions are the names of mental states, while "feelings" refer to sensory-neural information. The two are frequently related so closely that it is hard to tell the difference. The mental state of fear is often accompanied by reduced body temperature. Shake hands with someone who is afraid and you will feel a cold limp hand. Anger is often accompanied by secretion of adrenalin, and an increase in metabolic rate. Curiosity, fascination and puzzlement are emotional states frequently experienced by scientists. Anxiety is an emotional state experienced by students and novices in a public learning situation. I distinguish the mental state of anxiety with the sensory-neural response of tightness in the stomach (butterflies). A computer will probably not experience human-like somatic stress responses to emotional states. But a learning machine will likely have emotional states corresponding to curiosity, puzzlement, frustration, satisfaction, etc. Frustration will increase until a computer abandons an unachievable goal. Satisfaction will trigger a decision to accept a solution and to install it permanently into the compiled knowledge base. To me, the above model seems logical, and it matches my own direct experience, as well as successful approaches to AI. Certainly the ambulatory robots of MIT exhibit behavior consistent with the above model. --Barry Kort