That's a good link. I do appreciate Damasio. This theory has a lot about how body (somatic) states are involved with emotional states, but I think of that more as a side issue. Suffice it to say that selection is an emotional evaluation, which largely is done intuitively and subconsciously. One important part of the emotional system is that most things that we recognize have an affective character. Every sort of action basically has an evaluation, something lke good and bad. Good and bad are not just binary, but have a kind of level to them. "Good" and "bad" may not be the best terms to use, maybe something like approach or avoid would be a little better. Something like whether we like it or not. And we can be more or less indifferent, of course. This sort of evaluation is very basic and very fast, and it is these sorts of evaluations that help us decide what to think and what to do next. You have to remember that the brain is pretty close to a traditional neural net, so adding up these weighted reactions is pretty basically the natural things for brains to o under the covers, and it goes on constantly with everything we do. One feature of brains, more than computerized neural networks, is that these affective decisions are also modulated by chemical processes in addition to the raw multiply/additions done by the neurons, so it can be a much more flexible system. These chemical processes are the way that the somatic processes can effect the emotional system of decision-making. A computer system could presumably do something like this with more global variables modifying regions of nodes, but I haven't heard of people much doing that, though some of the simulated annealing things seem to be along those lines. andi
On Mon, May 13, 2013 9:25 pm, ARAKAWA Naoya wrote: > Hi PM & al., > > One hypothesis is > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis > though it is more a naturalistic account than a rationalist one... > > (Of course, there have been myriad of discussions on this topic > since the time of ancient Greece which I cannot follow ) > > -- NA > > On 2013/05/14, at 7:28, Piaget Modeler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I suppose the other side of the question is what do values look like? >> >> ~PM >> >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [agi] RE: Goal Selection >> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:04:29 -0700 >> >> >> I've been thinking about Goal Selection, preferences and priorities >> along these lines: >> >> http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=143153 >> >> My burning philosophical question of the day is why do we choose the >> goals we do at any particular moment? >> >> I can account for action selection. That's easy. We have a goal and we >> need to achieve the goal. So we pick >> actions that we believe help us to achieve the goal. >> >> But in the myriad of possible goals to choose, how do we hone in on the >> goals we do? >> >> My personal distinction is that Knowledge is action selection, whereas >> Wisdom is goal selection. >> >> Also, How do we represent goal rejection? Given an agenda, and a >> collection of current situations, >> how do we know when to reject certain goals, like theft as a means for >> attaining an object? >> >> Your thoughts? >> >> ~PM > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/3870391-266c919a > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
