Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!whuts!homxb!homxc!marty From: marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Feeling and thought: which comes first? Message-ID: <4524@homxc.UUCP> Date: 9 Dec 88 18:15:59 GMT References: <2609@datapg.MN.ORG> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel Lines: 63 In article <2609@datapg.MN.ORG> sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) wrote: > In article <5626@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> pluto@beowulf.UCSD.EDU writes: >>One net-poster remarked that emotions and feeling are a natural >>by-product of thought. I imagine that thought is a natural by-product >>of feeling and emotion. > > Emotions and feelings are a "natural byproduct of" how our Terran bodies > and minds function....... > Some "feelings" are also triggered by instinct or feedback.... Feedback > can cause feelings either due to memories triggering neuronal activity > which are a "memory" of past feelings, or due to thoughts causing > limbic-detected chemicals ("hormones") to be produced. I think I agree basically with both. I have a concept that is probably not testable, but which I find comfortable. Maybe it's a sort of extended definition. Reason (the word ``thought'' is ambiguous) is something both computers and humans can do. But reason does not lead to decisions unless goals are defined. Goals are not rationally derivable, except from more fundamental goals. Survival is a goal. Hunger, fear, etc. are feelings that tell a human that survival is at risk. Joy, relief, etc. are feelings that tell a human that a goal is being met. Feelings clue us in to what our goals are, and then we use reason to further define those goals and decide what course of action would attain those goals. Ordinarily a human can take a course of action that will produce good feelings in the long run, without causing bad feelings in the short run, and we call that ``rational behavior.'' When a human takes a course of action that produces good feelings immediately, but bad feelings later, we say he/she is ``not behaving rationally.'' I think all our actions are driven fundamentally by our need to feel good, which is built in to help insure survival, though it sometimes fails. Reason is built into computers, in the instruction set. Goals are not. Any goals a computer might have must be programmed into it. But they would then function in pretty much the same way feelings function in humans. When you feel pain you know something is wrong; it is a feeling that says you should stop what you are doing. Ordinarily, computers are programmed to give a message to a human when something is wrong. If a computer is to handle such a situation without human intervention, it must have a hierarchy of goals. That is not to say that a computer must have feelings in the way we know we have them. I would say our feelings are a set of interrupts that we use to tell us how well our actions meet our goals. If a computer is to handle multiple interrupts without human intervention (in a way that helps it survive and do what it is supposed to do) it needs something that does for it what feelings do for us. What I just wrote doesn't look rigorously logical to me, and I don't intend to prove it. I take it as a working hypothesis. It helps me to conceptualize a world in which humans are intelligent, rats learn, and ``artificial intelligence'' is discussed. It might help someone else. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Home (201) 946-8147 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!houdi!marty1 Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.