|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 11, 2017 3:58:26 GMT
2. That's because all intelligences we've observed were shaped by natural selection rather than artificial selection. Emotions are mostly the result of certain chemicals in brains, which won't be present if we're programming it artificially. Not to say we couldn't perhaps artificially replicate them in some way, but I'm not sure how that would work or what purpose it would serve. In natural selection emotions seem to be a quick short-hand in decision making, much faster than rational consideration of evidence. It strikes me that supposing that emotions are intrinsically tied to chemicals is similar to the argument that consciousness depends on wet living matter, and that inorganic thinking machines aren't capable of consciousness. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on the latter point, so I think until we can observe more advanced machine intelligence it is premature to make statements about how much a role chemicals play in emotions. Chemicals certainly affect emotional states in our brains, since chemicals play such an important role in their basic machinery, but to separate emotional states from other mental functions on the basis of chemistry seems very unfounded to me at this point. I wasn't suggesting that emotions must be tied to chemicals--I did say "(we could perhaps) artificially replicate them in some way"--merely that I don't know what the purpose of doing so would be if we're trying to devise a machine with advanced thinking/problem-solving skills. I'm pretty agnostic on the whole "consciousness" business because I think the term is so loaded that there's not even a consensus on what consciousness really is, much less whether inorganic machines would be capable of it. |
|
