bascule Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 Yes, a computer is fast, but it is extremely limited. You have to have a special type of computer for every single task. That's not true at all. Most computers are based around the Von Neumann architecture, which is universal (i.e. Turing complete) I think, the human brain isn't as fast as computers because it has to do an incredible amount of things at the same time. The signaling rate of the brain is substantially slower than most CPUs. Neurons take on the order of 10-20ms from the time they are excited to the time when they can excite another neuron. The components of modern CPUs are able to complete all tasks in 0.25 nanoseconds, some 7 orders of magnitude faster. CPUs do an incredible number of things at the same time as well. They execute instructions in parallel at many levels: each core (some CPUs have 64 or more) is simultaneously decoding instructions while executing others (i.e. the "pipeline"). The difference is the brain is massively more parallel than any CPU ever created, by several orders of magnitude. IMO, if you somehow made the human brain to concentrate completely on one single problem, eg. solving an equation, it would do that task much faster than a computer. Your brain is doing many of these things. Your visual cortex is performing massively parallel Fourier transforms on the sensory input. You just can't think consciously about it.
Shadow Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 Thanks for your response bascule ) I know they're universal, but I meant that they have to be programmed to do even a simple task. So I guess I could have just cut all of that down to a simple sentence; computers are inferior to humans because they can't learn. Which renders my post pointless, because everyone already knows that I was wondering though, if an AI as complex as a human were ever created, would it be conscious of everything it's "brain" does?
bascule Posted December 28, 2008 Posted December 28, 2008 I know they're universal, but I meant that they have to be programmed to do even a simple task. So I guess I could have just cut all of that down to a simple sentence; computers are inferior to humans because they can't learn. NuPIC can learn I was wondering though, if an AI as complex as a human were ever created, would it be conscious of everything it's "brain" does? My guess would be it would have an "unconscious" just like us, except it would be able to "reflect" on its own software and observe what it's doing. Of course, humans are starting to look into their own brains too...
Shadow Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 Wow, thanks for that. I never even heard about NuPIC.
Sione Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) How can we speak of artificial intelligence' date=' when modern psychologists cannot even agree on a definition of human intelligence? First, provide an operational definition of human intelligence; then, one can begin to speak of artificial intelligence. [/quote'] Absolutely. We need the definition as a means to devise a TEST. As long as we can not agree on the test and how to *decide* what intelligence is or is not, it is impossible to directly and properly answer the question. For example, how many people would answer the following questions equally: - State if the following forms of life have intelligence or consciousness? a.) Fly b.) Bird c.) Shark d.) Chimp e.) 1 month old human f.) 3 years old human g.) 30 years old human in coma According to my understanding, I say all of them have both intelligence and consciousness, while only the last case seem to be unprovable. --------------------------------------------------------------- However, the OP question is about EMOTIONS rather than about intelligence, so the question should be about how to test for emotions: - By their response, can we know if the following life forms feel emotions? a.) Amoebae b.) Tree c.) Bird d.) Dog e.) Chimp f.) 1 month old human g.) 5 years old human According to my understanding, if "to feel" equals "having emotions", then yes, I say all of them 'feel emotions'. It is in the very definition of "life" to be able to respond (feel) to external factors and if that "response" leads to some benefit of the lifeform, then we can even say it was an intelligent response. In other words, if amoebae can live it's life in a way that response benefits the "purpose", then how stupid some amoebae really is? Does the "facial emotions test" work for other animals too? Does increased growth of plants stimulated by music equals "happiness"? Definition is hard and again we need a TEST. Facial expression works if there is a face... and I'm pretty sure most will agree that we can notice emotions with very young human babies long before we can say there is any intelligence or even consciousness there, right? It is as if emotions come first, while intelligence and consciousness emerge later, not as a property of a material brain, but more as an incorporeal property of memory and past experiences. Having intelligence and consciousness be more of a spiritual quality rather than material, is the point where it all turns from classical physics and turing machines to quantum mechanics and unpredictability. Ultimately then, this question becomes the one of determinism and free will. To artificially produce intelligence, consciousness or emotion we first need a complete and general definition for it, otherwise we will never agree. Until then, we can only test for special cases like chess or driving AI, and that is still far, far away from testing a happy or funny AI. Thought, I know one thing for sure. It is recursive algorithm, like fractals. The "result" always feeds into the next iteration and that is the basis for the evolution of thought process, the mechanic responsible for the persistence of memory and learning ability, while in the same time mechanics that provides flexibility and forgetfulness. Edited January 24, 2009 by Sione
Mr Skeptic Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 I think emotions are a set of self-induced alternate states of consciousness, that have predictable effects, and are a semi-predictable response.
Sione Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) I think emotions are a set of self-induced alternate states of consciousness, that have predictable effects, and are a semi-predictable response. I think I agree with that, thought not sure how you define 'predictable effects' that can lead to 'unpredictable response'. Can that definition address the question if these entities have emotions: a.) Fly b.) Tree c.) Chicken d.) Beef e.) Dog f.) Pork I'm afraid the border line between emotion and non emotion is blurred as much as the line between live and inanimate matter, it might even be the same line. Emotion is certainly some "state" that will impact physical reaction. The question is, can we accept that state to be fixed and material? If so, than we can substitute emotions with logical gates, but it will be deterministic, fully predictable. However emotion that is predictable is almost contradiction. Certainly one of the main characteristics of 'emotional response' is that it means opposite to 'rational response'. =============================================== Let me try some more concrete definition.... Feeling = internal/external sensation in the present, including touch, smell... Emotions = past internal state of memorized feelings (experiences) Emotions are all the experiences, intensified more or less depending on the amount of time you spend "processing" them. These 'states' are operands (filters) inside the general recursive computation that includes current feelings (sensations/perceptions) and past(emotions/experiences). The result is fed back to next iteration together with new current feelings/perceptions/sensations, and so on. Basically, I'm trying to say that emotion and feelings is not just nice music and poetry, but also when you drink hot milk and burn your tongue. It is a FEELING that you will REMEMBER and next time when you see a glass of yogurt, you will first blow at it... just because you still carry that EMOTION (sensation) of pain when you tried to drink something white. Intelligence is the one to teach later that not all what is white is hot milk. If fly can apparently differentiate what is good and bad for it, then it is not only consciousness, but it even processes it's perceptions and "emotions" in such way that we can say it cleverly dodges our attempts to catch it, and it can outsmart even the most intelligent humans, right? Luck or Intelligence? Edited January 25, 2009 by Sione
npts2020 Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Sione; I would disagree with the notion that emotional response is the opposite of rational response. Sometimes they are the same. I would say they are merely arrived at through different mechanisms ie. deliberate thought processes vs. preprogrammed response.
iNow Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 I think emotions are a set of self-induced alternate states of consciousness, that have predictable effects, and are a semi-predictable response. Can you elaborate a little on what you meant when you said "self-induced," Mr Skeptic? Did you perhaps mean "the emergent property of internally generated neurophysiological mechanisms?" I ask because we don't, for example, "self-induce" a rush of sadness when watching a movie or fear and axiety when being chased by a bear or going down in a crashing plane. When I read "self-induced," I tend to think a "consciously" or "purposefully" considered response as opposed to the more automatic (no thought required) nature of emotion, and I'm curious if you simply meant that it was "internally generated" as opposed to it being a "considered" or "reasoned" response.
Sione Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) Sione; I would disagree with the notion that emotional response is the opposite of rational response. Sometimes they are the same. Yes, sometimes they are same, but that means at all other times they are not the same, and that is enough to classify it as unpredictable. Of course this goes much deeper if we are to consider what "rational" really means, what is "purpose" and "benefit", what is "good" and "bad". To keep it simple we can stick to mathematics and say that rational is 2+2=4, while emotional can be different to that. Rational = predictable (deterministic) Emotional = unpredictable (chaotic/random) - "Humans are controlled by subconsciousness, feelings and emotions almost randomly, while awareness is an illusion created by consciousness to make them feel as if they really wanted to do, and try to justify, what they just did." (Lizard-Man) I would say they are merely arrived at through different mechanisms ie. deliberate thought processes vs. preprogrammed response. preprogrammed response = emotional? preprogrammed response = instinctive? deliberate thought processes = rational? Do you mean to say emotional response is "pre-programmed" in a way that it makes it predictable? How do you differentiate "deliberate thought processes" from "preprogrammed response", what is different about them, the place they originate? the way how they form or propagate? Basically, how do you know the mechanics is different? how do you know something was deliberate, can we measure it? Edited January 25, 2009 by Sione
Mr Skeptic Posted January 25, 2009 Posted January 25, 2009 Can you elaborate a little on what you meant when you said "self-induced," Mr Skeptic? Did you perhaps mean "the emergent property of internally generated neurophysiological mechanisms?" I ask because we don't, for example, "self-induce" a rush of sadness when watching a movie or fear and axiety when being chased by a bear or going down in a crashing plane. When I read "self-induced," I tend to think a "consciously" or "purposefully" considered response as opposed to the more automatic (no thought required) nature of emotion, and I'm curious if you simply meant that it was "internally generated" as opposed to it being a "considered" or "reasoned" response. By self-induced I meant made by the organism feeling the emotion. As you said, "internally generated" would have been clearer. Usually emotions are generated unconsciously, but it is also possible to consciously induce them. It's also possible to somewhat suppress them consciously. You could say it is always generated by the organism, but not always by the consciousness. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think I agree with that, thought not sure how you define 'predictable effects' that can lead to 'unpredictable response'. You got someone mad at you. Will they A) Grin and bear it, B) Punch you in the face, C) Tell the cops that you are a pedophile, or D) Key your car, E) Wait until you forget about it and then do something nasty ? I said the response was semi-predictable. They might try to harm you in some way, but you don't know how or even if they will do it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI'm afraid the border line between emotion and non emotion is blurred as much as the line between live and inanimate matter, it might even be the same line. Emotion is certainly some "state" that will impact physical reaction. The question is, can we accept that state to be fixed and material? If so, than we can substitute emotions with logical gates, but it will be deterministic, fully predictable. Computers can generate pseudo-random numbers with perfect logic gates, or some truly random numbers in other ways. The pseudo-random numbers are fully deterministic, but I guarantee you will not be able to predict them unless you know exactly how the computer generates them. However emotion that is predictable is almost contradiction. Certainly one of the main characteristics of 'emotional response' is that it means opposite to 'rational response'. If you take game theory, you will learn that some emotions are more rational than "rational responses". For example anger might seem irrational, but it is the threat of anger that is rational (and extremely beneficial to you), and actually getting angry the rational way to maintain a threat of anger. The threat of anger prevents people from being total assholes, especially when they can't do something secretly.
npts2020 Posted January 26, 2009 Posted January 26, 2009 I generally agree with what Mr Skeptic wrote. That is why I would say that emotions are not the opposite of being rational, merely different. If you knew every detail of a person's psyche, you could predict very well how that person would react in a given situation. Humans are very complex entities, however, that is why emotions are not more predictable and don't necessarily follow what might be considered to be rational.
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) You got someone mad at you. Will they A) Grin and bear it' date=' B) Punch you in the face, C) Tell the cops that you are a pedophile, or D) Key your car, E) Wait until you forget about it and then do something nasty ? I said the response was semi-predictable. They might try to harm you in some way, but you don't know how or even if they will do it. [/quote'] There is no such thing as "semi-predictable", only statistically but that is not general enough for definition. My point is not that they ARE opposite, but that they are opposite in respect of uncertainty and determinism. I do not mean to claim that they are ALWAYS opposite, nor if they can be the same most of the time. The essence of 'emotions' is it's unpredictability, while the essence of rational is the opposite, rational is predictable like 2+2=4. Computers can generate pseudo-random numbers with perfect logic gates, or some truly random numbers in other ways. The pseudo-random numbers are fully deterministic, but I guarantee you will not be able to predict them unless you know exactly how the computer generates them. I'm not sure if you're arguing against something or you're simply expanding on it. In any case, are you saying emotions are random, chaotic, predictable or something else? (I do not accept semi-predictable events, it makes as much sense as semi-random. However, I do accept pseudo-random numbers, they are fuly predictable as you said.) If you take game theory, you will learn that some emotions are more rational than "rational responses". For example anger might seem irrational, but it is the threat... Ok, we are going around this same thing. I do not mean to compare emotional <-> rational directly, but only if they are predictable or not. I only mean to compare them in this way: RATIONAL = deterministic EMOTIONAL = chaotic/random I generally agree with what Mr Skeptic wrote. That is why I would say that emotions are not the opposite of being rational' date=' merely different. [/quote'] Yes, they are different, that is my point, but how are they different, maybe, like this: RATIONAL = deterministic? EMOTIONAL = chaotic/random? To cut this short, the main question is how to test for emotions if it is something unpredictable, therefore not really definable. I could produce program that randomly complains about some pain, loud music or says it is happy about moisture in the room. If emotions are truly random then how would you test for it. The more you try to narrow the definition the more it will be describing intelligence, the more precisely you try to describe 'emotional' the more it becomes the definition of 'rational'. The key to simulating something is about defining MECHANICS of it, otherwise it is sort of "statistical simulation", less real. We can simulate good driving AI just because we can define very well what "good driving" is. Similarly, we can define what good chess move is and as long as we can define something, we can simulate it, at least as good to achieve statistical equality with reality. However, if the property is unpredictable, then we do not know the real underlying mechanics of it, we can not really know if it is truly random or it only appears chaotic, so naturally without knowing mechanics we can never simulate it. We could only produce something that appears as random as we are used to observe, statistically. That's fake. Edited January 27, 2009 by Sione
Mr Skeptic Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Sione, you seem to be a hard person to talk to because of how you react to people who disagree, but I will answer a little of what you say. The essence of 'emotions' is it's unpredictability, while the essence of rational is the opposite, rational is predictable like 2+2=4. You are completely wrong about that. The essence of emotions is predictability: you understand what gets people to feel an emotion, and how that emotion modifies their behavior. Rational people are harder to predict, because you are not smart enough and don't know them well enough. But emotion restricts behavior making it easier to predict. I'm not sure if you're arguing against something or you're simply expanding on it. In any case, are you saying emotions are random, chaotic, predictable or something else? (I do not accept semi-predictable events, it makes as much sense as semi-random. However, I do accept pseudo-random numbers, they are fuly predictable as you said.) OK then predict what the next instance of rand() on my computer will do. As far as you are concerned, it might as well be non-deterministic since you don't have the necessary information (in this case, the random seed and the specific random program being used) to make a prediction.
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) You are completely wrong about that. The essence of emotions is predictability: you understand what gets people to feel an emotion' date=' and how that emotion modifies their behavior. Rational people are harder to predict, because you are not smart enough and don't know them well enough. But emotion restricts behavior making it easier to predict. [/quote'] Are you sure you mean what you just said? Rational does not mean "more intelligent", and Emotional does not mean "less intelligent". You argument means as much as contra argument of same form, look: - "You are completely wrong about that. The essence of emotions is NON-predictability: you DO NOT understand what gets people to feel an emotion, and how that emotion modifies their behavior." Are you not the same person who said this: - "You got someone mad at you. Will they A) Grin and bear it, B) Punch you in the face, C) Tell the cops that you are a pedophile, or D) Key your car, E) Wait until you forget about it and then do something nasty ?" ...how is that PREDICTABLE, again? OK then predict what the next instance of rand() on my computer will do. As far as you are concerned' date=' it might as well be non-deterministic since you don't have the necessary information (in this case, the random seed and the specific random program being used) to make a prediction. [/quote'] What? What is your point? Predictable does not mean ME or YOU or ANYONE in particular can guess it, but that it is _possible, having the initial state defined, to calculate ANY successive "number". Are you saying emotions based on random seed can pass the test and you accept that as "true emotions"? You mean to say emotions are predictable? Do you mean to say there is no "free will", as well? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If you knew every detail of a person's psyche' date=' you could predict very well how that person would react in a given situation. [/quote'] Can you please pay attention? When you talk about what people would do, about DECISION, then you are talking about reason and intellect, and I agree it gets more predictable the more reasonable it is. The "function of reason" has unique value, once we know the "purpose" or mathematical/logical expectation. Less rational means less predictable or unreasonable, random behavior, right? Now, tell me how much can you predict what would the same person FEEL, perceive, think, imagine, associate... what impression will that leave and in what EMOTION could all that turn into. Sometimes people get blinded with emotions and do crazy, unpredictable, sometimes even unimaginable things, that we call irrational behavior, stress induced or emotional response. Most people may act rationally and predictable most of the time, perhaps you see them in same old, accustomed situations doing the same, everyday things, but what they feel and how much they can control their emotions is the question good for crystal ball as much as for science. Unpredictable, like inventions and inspirations... like love. Emotional and Rational are two opposing forces, somewhere in between, when they merge like Yin-Yang, consciousness and appreciation for the time emerges. Who can differentiate EMOTIONAL and INSTINCTIVE? Edited January 27, 2009 by Sione Consecutive posts merged.
npts2020 Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 In general I would say that emotions are predictable. I can predict how someone I know well will react emotionally in the vast majority of situations. Predictability says nothing about the process. I can instinctively duck when a shadow is closing in on me to avoid being hit with a stray frisbee and not be emotional about it. I would not argue with you if you said instinct and emotion are arrived at by the same process but IMO they are not the same. What I am interested in discussing is the notion that rational thought and emotional thought are necessarily opposites.
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) What I am interested in discussing is the notion that rational thought and emotional thought are necessarily opposites. Why would you want to discuss that? Does it concern simulation of either? I explained many times now I do not mean to compare them directly, do not be so literal. They can not really be compared. 'Emotion', as defined, is not purpose based property, therefore without real reference. There is no such thing as "good emotion" and "bad emotion", only if you put it in the context of PURPOSE and RATIONALE. In general I would say that emotions are predictable. Yeeya! You have no idea what "predictable" means. Please use dictionary, you just keep repeating your opinion based on incomplete understanding, without any arguments and despite what has already been said. Lets try some other words: 1.) Do you say emotions are DETERMINISTIC? 2.) Do you say thoughts are DETERMINISTIC? 3.) Do you say there is no "free will"? I can predict how someone I know well will react emotionally in the vast majority of situations. Predictability says nothing about the process. What do you think we are talking about here, your mum, your intuition? Ability to guess something couple of times or even most of the time does not make it deterministic. Deterministic means to be able to calculate exact and every reaction. Determinism is just about the most important property of some system. As already explained couple of times, if the process is not deterministic then simulation can only be made statistically, that is fake. You can accept animated smiley face to 'have emotions' if you like, but that's just as fake, get it? If your AI is predictable, then it will not be able to "feel" any NEW emotions, it would lack in originality. Statistically you could fool everyone, but do you accept that as REAL? Would you have kids and spend the rest of your life with such AI? The definition for the "true emotion" must be a description of mechanics of the process, otherwise simulation will be fake. Artificial Neural Network, therefore fits my definition as a system possibly capable of producing "true emotion". The question of determinism still stays, i.e. do ANN manifest randomness and can it be compared to the determinism of the real thought process. I can predict how someone I know well will react emotionally Will you stop confusing EMOTION and REACTION? Reaction is intellectual process, you can not predict irrational behavior based solely on emotions, that is what we call CRAZY, erratic and emotional. Put emotional person and rational in the same situation and tell me who is easier to predict? I can instinctively duck when a shadow is closing in on me to avoid being hit with a stray frisbee and not be emotional about it. What? What in the world are you trying to say? I would not argue with you if you said instinct and emotion are arrived at by the same process but IMO they are not the same. Instinct and emotion are not the same, hmm. Ok, thank you, that's plenty to say. I appreciate your opinion, but what is it based on? Edited January 27, 2009 by Sione
iNow Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 What does any of this have to do with computer science?
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 What does any of this have to do with computer science? This thread is about simulating EMOTIONS. What confused you? Do you understand how determinism is fundamental property, something you MUST know about in order to even try to simulate anything?
iNow Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) ' Do you understand how determinism is fundamental property, something you MUST know about in order to even try to simulate anything? Right. Let me try asking this another way since you missed it the first time. What does any of this have to do with computer science? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust musing about the boundaries of Artificial Intelligence, I wonder if AI programming can ever take a machine to the point that it would be able to appreciate the sounds of a waterfall, or a gently murmuring stream or be able to appreciate the works of Wagner. Or to be happy when the UK win gold medals in the Olympics. In short, can our emotions ever be felt and appreciated by a computer, and could it then make mistakes based upon emotion? Yes. If the algorithm is a close enough representation of what we do as humans, then they would be felt/appreciated, and they would likely suffer from the same drawbacks and limitations that impact humans as a result of their emotions. Edited January 27, 2009 by iNow Consecutive posts merged.
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Right. Let me try asking this another way since you missed it the first time. What does any of this have to do with computer science? Hahaaa. Your forgot to quote the answer' date=' hilarious! I already told you this, let me repeat it in bold: [b']This thread is about simulating EMOTIONS. What confused you?[/b] Now, let me ask you one more time in hope that you can articulate some answer: - Do you understand how determinism is fundamental property, something you MUST know about in order to even try to simulate anything? Do you not know what simulation has to do with computer science? Yes. If the algorithm is a close enough representation of what we do as humans' date=' then they would be felt/appreciated, and they would likely suffer from the same drawbacks and limitations that impact humans as a result of their emotions. [/quote'] If algorithm does what brain does, it will do what brain can do? Yes, that is exactly my point. Except for the "close enough", that means nothing. Without simulating mechanics of it, it is not real simulation, but statistical simulation. That was already said, the main question is if thoughts and emotions are deterministic or not. This is of most importance because it directly impacts the POSSIBILITY of such simulation and it's authenticity. Defining the determinism of simulation mechanics is the very first step in creating any simulation, in computer science. Edited January 27, 2009 by Sione
bascule Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 This discussion is silly. Emotions are noumena, and applying phraseology like "deterministic" to noumena is silly. The question is whether the content of consciousness (i.e. noumena), including things like emotions, the color red, the taste of a lollipop, the smell of a mountain flower, etc. is fundamentally rooted in a deterministic system in which they're physically manifest (i.e. your brain) In as much as emotions go, I think there is ample evidence linking certain emotional states to associated neurotransmitters. Consider someone with artificially elevated levels of serotonin, such as what occurs when someone takes the drug MDMA or takes a SSRI. They feel happier. We can deterministically alter someone's emotional state by feeding them drugs. There's nothing non-deterministic or magical about emotion. It's just chemicals.
Sione Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) This discussion is silly. Emotions are noumena' date=' and applying phraseology like "deterministic" to noumena is silly. [/quote'] It is not phraseology, stop insulting yourself. Silly is that you do not understand requirements to SIMULATE something, anything. de⋅ter⋅min⋅ism –noun http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deterministic 1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly. In contrast to probabilistic. 2. Describes an algorithm in which the correct next step depends only on the current state. 2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes. What part of the definition do you not understand? Once you manage to comprehend the connection between determinism and thought process, then answer this for us: 1.) Do you say emotions are not thoughts? 2.) Do you say emotions or thoughts are deterministic? 3.) Do you say there is no "free will"? The question is whether the content of consciousness (i.e. noumena)' date=' including things like emotions, the color red, the taste of a lollipop, the smell of a mountain flower, etc. is fundamentally rooted in a deterministic system in which they're physically manifest (i.e. your brain) [/quote'] You say things without any apparent meaning or point. Can you explain how is what you said related to simulation of emotion? Brain IS NOT deterministic system, even if it was you have no means to support such ridiculous statement. Neo: - This....this isn't real? Morpheus: - What _is real? How do you _define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. Quantum Mechanics is based around uncertainty principle, which is opposite of determinism. You think emotions are part of the chemistry, but you are blind to realize that chemistry is just a simplification and only macroscopic effect of subatomic interaction and electromagnetics. There's nothing non-deterministic or magical about emotion. It's just chemicals. Electromagnetic fields, my friend! Chemistry is for unsuspected younglings. Quantum Mechanics, uncertainty and all that... now, recognize your mistakes and accept the knowledge given to you here, do you accept? Edited January 28, 2009 by Sione
bascule Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 Once you manage to comprehend the connection between determinism and thought process, then answer this for us: 1.) Do you say emotions are not thoughts? 2.) Do you say emotions or thoughts are deterministic? 3.) Do you say there is no "free will"? I don't think emotions are thoughts by my definition. Emotions are more of a background mental state which influences the overall function of our thinking. Again I'll make the argument that the emotions we experience in the content of our consciousness (i.e. noumenologically) are directly related to the physical state of our brain and various levels of neurotransmitters. I'm a compatibilist of sorts and agree with the general argument put forth in his book Freedom Evolves: we have the "freedoms that matter" which stems from our ability to predict and pick from a number of potential futures. Dennett argues the underlying mechanics of this process are still deterministic, i.e. given the same mental states and being put in the same situation we will make the same choice every time. If you have a black and white view of the matter and think that any functional simulation of the brain implies determinism and that's incompatible with "free will", then I would say we don't have free will by your definition. Thoughts and emotions come entirely at the behest of electrical and chemical reactions in the brain, which can be understood using classical mechanics. You say thing without any meaning or point. Can you explain how is what you said related to simulation of emotion? As an emergent materialist, I would argue that qualia, emotion, etc. would emerge from a complete enough functional simulation of the human brain. Electromagnetic fields, my friend! Chemistry is for unsuspected younglings. Quantum Mechanics, uncertainty and all that... now, recognize your mistakes and accept the knowledge given to you here, do you accept? There is no evidence of quantum behavior in the brain. Moreover, there has been substantial research into the behavior of the brain and models constructed which rely on classical mechanics. Neurophysiologists have not discovered any brain behaviors which cannot be explained using classical mechanics.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 28, 2009 Posted January 28, 2009 Silly is that you do not understand requirements to SIMULATE something, anything. Silly is someone who thinks that by disagreeing with something in every sentence someone posts, that they have disproved whatever they said. What you are doing is just disagreeing a lot, which doesn't disprove anything. That was already said, the main question is if thoughts and emotions are deterministic or not. This is of most importance because it directly impacts the POSSIBILITY of such simulation and it's authenticity. Defining the determinism of simulation mechanics is the very first step in creating any simulation, in computer science. Let me suggest something then. If you measure the spin of an electron in an unknown state, you can measure the spin as up or down. Call the up 1 and the down 0. This is considered to be a non-deterministic result. Now, flip a coin and call heads 1 and tails 0. This is known to be a deterministic result. Finally, I shall call the flip of the coin a simulation of the measurement of the spin of the electron. Now, can you tell the difference, from looking at the 1s and 0s, which is the simulation and which is not? If you cannot, then I just gave you an example of a deterministic simulation of a non-deterministic thing. How many individual quotes do you think you will have to break this paragraph into for you to think you have given any sort of counterargument?
Recommended Posts