What makes us want, and why, and why not computers?

I am trying to figure out what makes us want, or have desires, and what has to be done to computers to have such happen. In order to have desires there must be a set of potential decisions one can make in response to a situation, and then certain decisions take priority to one another, and I doubt that most decisions people make are influence on logical priority, rather, they are mostly egoistically stimulated. And ego has the intrinsic sense to mean selfish just as logical has the intrinsic sense to mean altruistic. But this is a matter of attitude and the healthy mind so I'm getting side-tracked:rolleyes:.

So in order for us to have desires, what conditions for priority matter?

1. Do I have it backwards and our desires constitute priority?
   
2. Are they both simultaneously interconnected, instead of my assumption of their precedence to one another.
   
3. Must I classify between ego and logical influences to obtain a correlation between how I measure priorities, so as do directly convey how something might have desires?
   

Computers have needs, the need to function. Are you saying that computers need to be aware of this to want this, that wanting is simply being aware, and therefore since awareness is relative to other subjects, wanting is only relative to what other subjects want?

Can't they be programmed to be aware of which actions take priority of other actions in a given situation? Is that how the human mind works? Under classical laws I'm sure that idea would quickly be conceded but its still a possibility. :cool:

:a-thought: Actually, if I pretend that say, ego and logical influences were inversely proportional in how they govern priority, then they would determine eachother. The idea of inverse proportions is a rough idea which allows for 2 things; the benefit of one taking majority influence on the other, and at all times the amount of influence of the sum of the two influences never changes. So this works. If I use those two features as laws, then awareness is implied of priority to whichever action will inevitably want to occur.

Wow this thread has gone around the block a time or two...

"Want" is a word whose definition is tied very closely to "Need". Both, with so many inferences, could be applied to the animate and inanimate. Similarly, both could be applied to the sapient and the non-self aware. But as I take the subject as I believe its intended, I'd suppose we're talking about people; the self-aware, sapient, sentient creatures that (most) of us are.

I believe this to be horribly complex. What rises to our conscious mind, as something on which to act or decide, has most-likely done so after competition between a number of wants, desires, whims and the like behind the scenes. At any given time I think it likely we have a number of notions floating about that compete for our attention.

Which gets our attention (and I believe speaks to the intent of the thread) is generally which we perceive to be the most important, the most urgent. Even though its am imperfect approximation to the process it describes, I believe Maslow's Heiarchy of Needs lays out a cogent structure for how human needs become played out. (Chart Link, Explanation 1, Explanation 2). For any level of need, want or desire, motives are fair-game for impugnment and critique. It's my belief that whatever we think our reasons are for wanting <this> or <that>, the only thing we can be sure of is that we're most likely wrong -and- it's probably not as mischievious as the critical mind might think.

As far as describing "needs" of the inanimate (computers and the like). I think there are some similarities; but not many, and only broadly-correlated. We are programmed and respond to that programming and we draw upon Memory (both short and long term). But in all honesty, I'm not sure I see the benefit of drawing such a correlation.

That's my contribution. Hope it helps

Thanks

... true enough - but is such a computer so deterministic as to be uninteresting? ... for a computer that has been programmed to follow cookbook steps for doing work, it is rather easy to predict its behavior and predict scenarios where where its behavior will fall short ... then there's a style of programming called event-driven programming - rather than following cookbook steps to do work, such programs are sensitive to asynchronous events and will alter their behavior to account for such events ... the behavior of computers developed in this style is almost impossible to predict unless you also know the exact temporal sequence of events that the computer will encounter ... moving on, you can get into computers built with high degrees of anthropomorphism, such as Multi-Agent Systems which are modeled after human societies ... so now we're not just talking about event-driven systems in isolation, but social event-driven systems that collaborate to get work done for the humans they represent ... add to that the ability to learn ("Negotiated with Agent XYZ to get ABC done, but Agent XYZ did not deliver; create and store a new rule: IF service offerer is Agent XYZ, THEN decline offer"), and what you've got is a computer that is completely non-deterministic in its rationality as far as human comprehension is concerned.

So when such a computer is asked by its human to do something, it creates plans to achieve its goal and these plans may include obtaining assistance from other computers and it will diligently set off to negotiate and learn from those computers to get to its goal ... does such a computer want to please its human? - does it want to achieve its goal? - does it want to interact with others of its kind?

To put it more bluntly, is a rational being capable of "want"? ... or is "want" something only an emotional being is capable of?

Which brings us to an anthropomorphism of another kind: the Belief-Desire-Intention agent ... Belief-Desire-Intention software model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :cool:

It's kind of ironic that after all the centuries of philosophical schools chasing after pure rationality, inventing science and taking us to where we are today where we have the ultimate rational being sitting on so many people's desktops ... after all of that striving effort, here we find ourselves trying to lend the ultimate rational being a touch of humanity.

Yes I thought of this right off the bat. Desires must be emotion, but emotion is just stimulation of ions, and such other materials. Where is that preference for which scenarios to put in priority to another of the mind itself, because I'm sure its driven by a part of the brain. Take out that certain part of the brain, and we can no longer want.

... if emotion were uniquely human, there would probably be an isolatable part of the human neocortex dedicated to it (seeing as how it would be such a new product of evolution) ... but is emotion uniquely human? ... is it even uniquely mammalian? ... or is emotion at least as old as the evolutionary split between mammals and dinosaurs? (Animal Sentience and the Evolution of Emotion) ... in which case, could emotion be so old and so foundational to all subsequent evolution as to preclude any attempt to remove it? ... asked another way, even assuming you could pinpoint a single area of the brain that was responsible for emotion - would removing it cause the "mind" to cease to exist?

Holiday,

All of the animal desires are based on survival. Every single desire found in an animal is an instinctual desire that leads to survival.

Computers don't survive and did not evolve and develop survival instincts. Each computer was created by mankind independantly.

If, however, computers came from 'surviving' computers and were programmed to pass on their behaviour and develop 'new' behaviours. Eventually you will get computers with instincts for survival. Because the computers that don't survive will not pass on their improper behaviours and the computers that do survive will pass on their successful behaviours.

This is the source of all of our wants. We are 'programmed' to have these desires because they promote survival.

If robots or machines had the ability to desire something. Then they would be no different then humans. In order to desire you need to be able to have "feelings" in order to desire. Robots can't feel anything.

True, but a computer can develop certain behaviour patterns, you could even program the computer to have a tendancy to a certain behaviour pattern. This could appear from the outside as a desire for that behaviour.

Reguardless, the computer can develop the tendency through natural selection.

Ah... that just gave me a thought. Evolution evolves the genome, but what if the very process of evolution evolves? Like the acceleration to velocity sort of thing going here.

... yep, it already has ... from genome-based Darwinian evolution (a mother passing her genes to her offspring), to antibody-based Larmarckian evolution (a mother passing her antibodies to her offspring through mother's milk), to meme-based cultural evolution (a mother passing her ideas to her offspring), to ... ... ...

Good discussion

• I understand that some animals (dogs) have emotions. I can't really take a stand on it since I've had little experiences with 'em and haven't researched. How would such a thing be quantified? "So, How are you feeling today? A little down?"
  

• The fact that we can program a computer to mimic the "thinking process" really opens up the ground in this on-going comparison. Theoretically, one could program desire, emotional responses, a survival protocol and even more. Taking to its logical conclusion, the lines blur almost completely.
  

• Evolution Evolving: This blows my mind and also strikes as quite likely. It stands to reason that the process itself would likely, itself, change over time. Evolutionary acceleration, alterations in "where is X genome going" and more really open up the field-of-play.
  

... and again, the possibilities multiply exponentially. Death to certainty and let the party begin! <dun dun dun>

Thanks

Actually if you look at the Evolutionary curve over time it is an exponential curve.
It took billions of years for single celled organisms to form a language and begin to work together and form a single Animal.
Once a successful language was developed and co-operation, it only took a few hundred million years to develop motion and a sense of smell. Once this occured it only took a few million years to begin developing neurons and a brain. Once this occurred it only a few hundred thousand years to develop mankind, and once this occurred it only took 6000 years for man to get to E=mc^2 and develop the United Nations.

If you think about it, computers and quantum physics have been around for less than 50 years. Look how quickly this is evolving.

We are the first generation to experience the world wide web. Look at how quickly this has grown in the last 10 years.

Evolution is exponential.

It sounds like the exponential relationship with evolution also creates new branches that might have exponential relationships in progression too? Matter organizes exponentially at a rate that could be inversely proportional to the energy manifestation which could be represented by entropy?(which can also be represented exponentially?)

Oh and then here's a thought. Exponential is in relation to linear in that it is a 1D representation of the 2D formality of the 1D, thus the "squaring" in the parabola. And this can be denoted to "stacking", so lets say coordinate for linear graph is (1,1) and a second coordinate is (2,2). Then for the x squared equation, exponential, the coordinates become (1,1) and (4,2). And assuming the pattern continues (9,3) etc.

So the "x" stacks the linear past of "x", because the past is determinate, linear, (however uncertain it may be, the now is absolute so the past has an absolute means, thus linear). So the uncertainty is artificially, or falsely (however natural it may be) represented by our genome and the way it stacks information to represent our ancestors.

I'm not saying that without the stacking process of DNA we would not have exponential organization of matter, because life-matter is the same matter as matter. What I want to figure out now is if the DNA causes an exponential relationship in organization, then what is it of. It can't be matter, and energy is inversely related so scratch that off, and I don't think life is the right one because that would mean life would have to have a separate force to target it's change. I mean, matter and energy both have forces that influence their propagation, right? Life doesn't have that unless the universe is deterministic in which case all forces must be accounted for in the universe at a sequence in which actuality is absolute about, not a pretense of. If indeterministic, then life is not accounted for in actuality, and therefore matter plays a force on actuality, kinda like Newton's third law applied her since actuality would have to be acting on reality/matter in which potentiality becomes connected.

And that means the universe will end when the exponentially increasing magnitude of the force matter applies exceeds that of any other inversely proportional force(like entropy?). This can be represented by the monistic dot for the end of the universe.

Oh and that means that if the universe is deterministic, then Justin, you would have been right about this whole oneness, consciousness thing, because they must be inter-related to the force propagating life. (if and only if)

And yet I cannot see how the universe would have any sense of "wanting" this organization, so I imagine these are just actually nonsensical correlations that are only deterministic to our minds and our reality.

Oh and back to "separate force to target it's change". Our minds are governed by an inertial force seen blatantly in the public in respect to the flow of power in society. So, maybe there is a duality to the inertia concept in the mind, ironically.

The universe is deterministic and not deterministic at the same time.

We must use relativity to understand this point. Relative to mankind, the future is indeterministic. Everything appears to be random. Even experimentally it is random. But the past has already been determined. The particle can exist in any one of these states based on probability, but in the end it only exists in one of them.

From the perspective of the future the past is deterministic.
The all-powerful limitless, knows all outcomes. So from this perspective the universe is also deterministic. From His perspective, it is as if, all of the future has already happened. We are simply re-living it as a part of His memory.

You will find that many things hold duality based on perspective.

... likewise, it's worth considering things from the relative perspective of the earth ... the earth is not a closed system dominated by entropy, as the universe is ... the earth is an open system continuously flooded from the outside with solar energy ... entropy is a bit player here on earth, as are the other laws of classical thermodynamics - these laws only dominate in artificial closed systems constructed by humans ... the lead player here on earth is nonequilibrium thermodynamics, where self-organizing processes such as life, evolution, and mind dominate ...

the universe is also a closed system to Olber's Bubble.

And does the mind see things in patterns that reconcile with non equilibrium dynamics?

Thermodynamics doesn't matter much to me. It is just the idea of energy carrying that certain characteristic to the mind that matters to proving my points here.

... yep ... the Golden Ratio is a number that appears over and over again in self-organized systems resulting from thermodynamic disequilibrium ... the Golden Ratio is also a number that appears over and over in human art ... the human mind resonates with the patterns of nature - whether that is due to evolution or the fact that the human mind is itself a pattern of nature, I can only guess ...

Wanting is an idea that desribes a certain type of behavior, as we have defined the type. The idea arises, like all ideas, from experience: i.e., from memory.

More specifically, wanting is the same as willing, which is the same as doing, exept in that willing/wanting may be purely 'mental' and doing requires a 'physical' component. The idea of wanting is a function of one's behavior, which is placed in context by memory, in relation to all other remembered behaviors. In other words, one acts and then names, takes authorship of, and finds explanations for those actions.

Alright then, so what makes most of us want to be happy over being sad? Is the mind programmed in some way to like a certain one, and then why would we like certain emotions? I do not understand how stimulation is enough.

The question is not 'why do we prefer happiness to sadness', as that implies that our preference is seperate from those states/emotions; that implies a division into subject and object, which is imaginary. We do not prefer happiness to sadness; we experience life, divide life into various parts, and then name those parts. One part is happiness and another is sadness. The world, and the individual as a part thereof, is ordered in a certain manner and not in another. Therefore, there will be certain relations between the parts of life that we give names. Happiness corresponds to certain behaviors and saddness to others. Asking why there is this correlation is non-sensical; this is like asking 'why is the world as it is and not as it is not?'

That was probably confusing, but I hope it helped.