On 05/16/2013 11:19 PM, Piaget Modeler wrote:
Stanley,
Thagard's work on coherence is pretty interesting. He combines it
with Damasio's work to form a pretty cogent
theory. Similar to yours...
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/how-to-decide.html
<http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/how-to-decide.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Inference.Plan.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Emot.Decis.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Empathy.html>
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Inference.Plan.html
<http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/how-to-decide.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Inference.Plan.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Emot.Decis.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Empathy.html>
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Emot.Decis.html
<http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/how-to-decide.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Inference.Plan.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Emot.Decis.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Empathy.html>
http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Empathy.html
<http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/how-to-decide.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Inference.Plan.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Emot.Decis.html%0D%0Ahttp://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Empathy.html>
Cheers.
~PM
PM,
Just read a little of the first article. I immediately see that Thegard
and I differ in a few important ways. First, Thegard speaks of emotions
as an initial reaction and then quickly calls this the "gut reaction."
For me, emotion is more of a continuum and the two ends of the spectrum
are vastly different. At one end is the "triggered" response which
occurs quickly and subconsciously. There isn't much we can do about
this kind of emotion except to "condition" ones self to react differently.
The other end of the spectrum is more interesting and equally as
valuable (my opinion.) A good example of this "other" type of emotion
is what we experience and describe as "I just knew it was the right
thing." In other words, we "felt" the rightness of a path or choice.
Personally, I wouldn't call that emotion, but others consider any
"feeling" to be emotion. If anything, I would call this the "intuition"
experience.
I argue that the "intuition" end of the spectrum is natural and a
desirable mental state to arrive at. Remember the explanations as to
how Watson came to the point of "buzzing in" during the Jeopardy
competition? Watson was able to integrate several aspects of the
"problem" of fitting an answer to the clues. My understanding was that
it used something like experts in various categories. The ratings or
rankings of these various components were then "summed" into a number
and if the number was "big enough" then Watson buzzed in. Could say
"Watson was confident enough..." or that Watson was "hefty" enough to
weigh in... It starts to sound like "Watson felt like buzzing."
I believe this is what "deep" human thought is really about - taking the
"sum" of various ways of looking at the issue and seeing what that net
result feels like. (don't confuse me with facts about how
mathematicians and artists think :-) ) Notice the "feels" like.
How else would one deal with a summary of various unrelated aspects? We
recognize that some aspects of a car are more important to us than
others, but we arrive at the point of decision with a "net" feeling - we
think the deal is right. I suspect that there is also a "feeling" of not
accepting - which leads to more search and analysis.
Using "how one feels immediately" is not a good strategy for making
decisions. Any view/cognition needs to be supported by features that
are external, or logically evident. Using gut reaction for evidence is
giving your ignorance too much say so. Quick gut reaction may aid in
helping to steer us into proper ways of looking at situation, but it
should never be used as "evidence" of our rightness.
To bring this around to machine choices,.. the arbitrator will likely
compare two "merit" numbers and choose the higher merit. Merit is highly
abstract - that is, it doesn't have a characteristic that tells where it
came from. (not saying we can't investigate the process of asserting
merit, but the arbitrator wouldn't do that.) Lately I've come to see
that we don't have to invent "merit" or have a machine to calculate it -
we simply need to collect it from various sources that we trust. (an
AGI may aspire to calculate merit one day - but that is for the mature,
not the novice.)
My new saying... "I don't expect a design of a car to specify how to
create gasoline - the gas is fuel for the car, not the "car" invention.
Likewise, an AGI doesn't have to have mechanisms that "produce"
judgments - judgments are the fuel aspect of an AGI. An AGI needs to be
a collector and user of what's out there."
PM Thanks for the reference to Thegard - I'll read more, but his low
opinion of intuition is hard for me to accept.
Stan
-------------------------------------------
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
