What does philosophy mean to you?

Nope, meaning is not an inherent function of emotionalism.

0 Replies

Then is emotion a function of meanings (conscious and unconscious)?

I think Turing's artificial intelligence is no more than the expression of human intelligence.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Then is emotion a function of meanings (conscious and unconscious)?

Emotion is an organic Terran precursor to higher brain functionality such as required by mathematics.

JLNobody wrote:

I think Turing's artificial intelligence is no more than the expression of human intelligence.

It's far from a given that AI need be a direct expression of human intelligence.

0 Replies

Granted emotion (actually emotions are also culturally constituted categories of feelings) is a "precursor" to "higher" brain--I prefer LATER--functionality, it is not "replaced" by thinking.

Do you think it possible that AI could have evolved without human intelligence?

0 Replies

So if you can "feel" things that are not actually present, should we ever trust our feelings?

0 Replies

existential potential wrote:

So if you can "feel" things that are not actually present, should we ever trust our feelings?

It really doesn't matter, because that's the individual's reality. As for "trusting our feelings," I believe we all learn through trial and error.

I used to think my gut feeling about individual's honesty was pretty accurate until I started to perform financial audits. Those I felt were honest turned out to be dishonest, and those I felt were dishonest turned out to be honest. It didn't take me very long to learn that my "feelings" were not always accurate.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Granted emotion (actually emotions are also culturally constituted categories of feelings) is a "precursor" to "higher" brain--I prefer LATER--functionality, it is not "replaced" by thinking.

I say higher for a few reasons:

1) The cerebral cortex (evolutionarily speaking) is the latest edition to the organic mammalian brain.

2) Note the following:

Quote:

While the physiological changes associated with emotions are triggered by the brain, they are carried out by the endocrine and autonomic nervous systems. In response to fear or anger, for example, the brain signals the pituitary gland to release a hormone called ACTH, which in turn causes the adrenal glands to secrete cortisol, another hormone that triggers what is known as the fight-or-flight response, a combination of physical changes that prepare the body for action in dangerous situations. The heart beats faster, respiration is more rapid, the liver releases glucose into the bloodstream to supply added energy, fuels are mobilized from the body's stored fat, and the body generally goes into a state of high arousal. The pupils dilate, perspiration increases while secretion of saliva and mucous decreases, hairs on the body become erect, causing "goose pimples," and the digestive system slows down as blood is diverted to the brain and skeletal muscles. These changes are carried out with the aid of the sympathetic nervous system, one of two divisions of the autonomic nervous system. When the crisis is over, the parasympathetic nervous system, which conserves the body's energy and resources, returns things to their normal state.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0001/ai_2699000113

3) Dogs have emotions, but not higher logic skills due to a lack of the higher functionalities as found in more developed mammalian cortex's.

JLNobody wrote:

Do you think it possible that AI could have evolved without human intelligence?

It would be a misnomer to say "AI could have evolved". Why? Because evolution is by definition a natural occurrence, whereas AI by definition (if not in actuality) is an artificial causation. However this strict definition of AI does not take into account self-guided learning machines.

In a more direct answer to your question, there is no inherent reason why AI must have a human at the helm initially. I am not even convinced that the initializer of AI need be self-aware!

0 Replies

EP, you ask: "So if you can "feel" things that are not actually present, should we ever trust our feelings?"

We cannot, of course, "trust our feelings" as research instruments, but the value of feelings is central to the very "point" of living, like color for art.

Two apologies: (1) referring to the evolution of AI without noting my metaphorical purpose, and (2) naming Chumly Agrote.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Agreed. My point, I think, is that feelings are, existentially, more basic than logic, or even thought in general.
Quote:

More basic to what? To the good life, or to a true picture of the world?

0 Replies

Agrote, JLNobody stated that feelings are more basic than logic, and thought in general.

0 Replies

Feeling lies beneah everything.
While motive may be rooted in logic, motivaton cannot be so. Motivation is an emotional driveforce.

0 Replies

existential potential wrote:

Agrote, JLNobody stated that feelings are more basic than logic, and thought in general.

I know. I'm asking what he means by "basic".

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Feeling lies beneah everything.
While motive may be rooted in logic, motivaton cannot be so. Motivation is an emotional driveforce.

Do you have an argument for this claim?

Don't you think belief by itself can motivate? For example, if I believe that I ought to do something, then I will be motivated to do it, regardless of the state of my emotions. That motivation might be left unfulfilled if it is overriden by a stronger motivation, but the motivation will still be present regardless of whether any particular emotion is present. Motivations and emotions are separable.

Can't motivation be a rational driving force, at least in some cases?

0 Replies

I think JLN means that feelings is the basis of our actions or thought process and supersedes logic.

0 Replies

agrote

Hm...
The way I see it, the emotional is the motivation to apply the rational in the first place.

0 Replies

Thanks, EP, Cyracuz and C.I., for understanding my effort.
I THINK I understand Agrote's point, but I feel he underplays organic drives in favor of cultural understandings. There are lots of "rules" that I feel I OUGHT to follow--and for the most part I do. But when they conflict with a desire, feeling or drive that is sufficiently strong, I will sometimes do what I want instead of what I ought to do.
Now, when I do what I think I SHOULD do, even at the sacrifice of a desired goal, it is usually to avoid getting caught (as in public shamBoth refer to negative emotional drives. But there is also the positive emotional drive to do "good" because it feels good.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I THINK I understand Agrote's point, but I feel he underplays organic drives in favor of cultural understandings. There are lots of "rules" that I feel I OUGHT to follow--and for the most part I do. But when they conflict with a desire, feeling or drive that is sufficiently strong, I will sometimes do what I want instead of what I ought to do.

Fine. The desire/feeling/drive may give you a motivation which is stronger than the motivation produced by your "ought" belief. That doesn't change the fact that the "ought" belief motivates you to behave according to it. I never said that the "ought" belief guarantees that you will behave according to it; only that it motivates you to do so.

Quote:

Now, when I do what I think I SHOULD do, even at the sacrifice of a desired goal, it is usually to avoid getting caught (as in public shamBoth refer to negative emotional drives. But there is also the positive emotional drive to do "good" because it feels good.

I'm a motivational internalist, which means that I believe that it is impossible to genuinely belief that you ought to do something, and yet not be motivated - by that belief alone - to do it. You can be motivated in the selfish ways that you've described, but that isn't quite what I have in mind (unless you're suggesting that you believe that you ought to avoid getting caught, or that you ought to make yourself feel good).

I don't know whether you personally have beliefs about what you ought to do, or whether you are just a hedonist in the way you've described. But many people believe, for example, that they ought to refrain from telling lies, and this belief alone is sufficient to motivate them to refrain from telling lies. No emotion is necessary.

0 Replies

But there is a difference in the emotional attitude towards a lie and a truth. Those that don't tell lies are very often those who has either been hurt by a lie or hurt others with one.

So I maintain my view that while motive can be rational, motivation isn't.

You might think you're motivation to go to work even though you really don't want to is rational. But it isn't... that is merely the motive, derived from the knowledge that if you don't go to work there will be a string of consequences you want even less than going to work.
You hate your job, but you love your child...
I do think that rational thinking can find a solution to such a problem, but the problem itself, the factors that are defined as important, is a matter of emotional attitude towards it.

After all, to care is an emotional "activity". And if you don't care about something, you aren't likely to do anything about it.

0 Replies

Some social theorists used* the term"MOTIVATION" with reference to drives (psychological and/or biological) and use "MOTIVE" as reasons given for actions. Motivation referred to that which precedes action and drives it. Motive (sometimes called "motive talk") follows actions with the purpose of "explaining" and justifying them. Are we making this distinction without realizing it?

*I use the past tense because I'm recalling literature from the past, i.e., the "qualitative sociology" of the turn of the century.

0 Replies

I am making a distincton between motive and motivation at least.

In any given situation there may be motivation do do a number of different things. There will only be a motive for the thing you actually do.
In some ways, the motive is merely the result, or perhaps the justificaton of your choice on which motivation to follow. But there is nothing to suggest that motive comes after the action as a general rule, in my opinion.

0 Replies

What does philosophy mean to you?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know