|
|
Post by general313 on Nov 11, 2017 22:26:32 GMT
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. I most heartedly agree with that. If I were to place a bet though, I'd put it on inorganic machines would be capable of it. I do wonder if we'll ever understand conciousness well enough to really have any certainty that an advanced AI was conscious.
|
|