Emotionless Intelligence

[the_aphid]

After stumbling upon this essay (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:38AfrKNYhCAJ:www.cs.unimaas.nl/p.spronck/Pubs/AIinAI.pdf+emotionless+intelligence&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a) I was prompted to watch the two movies which it discusses. So, this weekend I watched Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Steven Spielberg's A.I.. Now, I don't really intend for this thread to become a movie review, but let it be said that I believe Kubrick's film to be far superior to Spielberg's adaptation of Kubrick's ideas, perhaps this is because Kubrick had assistance from Arthur C. Clarke in the making of 2001, I don't know. :think:

Anyways, these two movies got me contemplating on the concepts of intelligence and emotion, and eventually prompted the question could emotionless intelligence exist? I am having a difficult time coming to any sort of conclusion to this question, and I believe I have narrowed down the reason. That is that we often define intelligence with the capability of learning, but how is the capability to learn distinguished from desire to learn, from the emotion of curiosity? And then if curiosity is a requirement of intelligence, than how could an emotionless intelligence ever occur?

I'm curious to see what ideas others have on this topic, so please, the floor is entirely open for discussion. :mellow:

[bhujjy]

Hello Aphid,

Interesting read. I liked 2001 better. :)

The learning process, I think, has many natural motivators: hunger, survival, sex, greed, envy, curiosity, kinship, empathy, love... All impelling us to increase our experience of pleasure.

Machines, however, are different, The follow their code. You could make them 100% 'loyal', ie. only interacting with one user. The ones to watch will be the ones programmed to learn by rewriting their own code (presumably to achieve greater efficiency and capability.) Emotion will not be necessary like it is in biologicals, in my view.

As far as the intelligence+love connection, www.netfunny.com has something to say about that. lol :)
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/08/Mar/bestfriend.html

Machine:
http://gizmodo.com/368651/new-video-of-bigdog-quadruped-robot-is-so-stunning-its-spooky
Versus Man:
http://gizmodo.com/372272/video-of-bigdog-beta-quadruped-robot-is-so-stupid-its-hilarious

[scameter]

Actually I was contemplating this issue myself a couple days ago while watching the third Terminator movie, where he was entirely emotionless and yet intelligent and logical, and I wondered why it is necessary, or even possible, for an intelligence to be emotionless. I think that it is entirely possible for an intelligence to be emotionless, based on evidence from the information material in completely emotionless organisms such as bacteria, essentially giving them a very simple intelligence without emotion, and with computers that we use now, which are logical and yet entirely emotionless. But, especially when considering AI, the question of intelligence requiring sentiency would be asked, but only the most advanced animals are capable of knowing themselves, best shown I think in the test of animals being able to recognize themselves in mirrors, which to my knowledge only humans and chimps are capable of doing. And yet, other animals, such as dogs and horses, have emotion, despite their inability to recognize themselves in mirror, and are also highly intelligent and capable of logical thought. One problem with giving an artificial intelligence sentiency is, I think, much easier than giving it emotion, because essentially sentiency simply requires a complex and intelligent enough brain/mind, whereas emotion is an entirely different yet connected part of the brain from intelligence and sentiency. I think that saying emotion would be apart of AI is a paradox of terms, since artificial *intelligence* is only the robot's intelligence, and emotion is separate from intelligence. Thus, to give a robot emotion would require giving it emotion as an independant action, if such a thing is possible with technology.

[schrodinger]

Anyways, these two movies got me contemplating on the concepts of intelligence and emotion, and eventually prompted the question could emotionless intelligence exist? I am having a difficult time coming to any sort of conclusion to this question, and I believe I have narrowed down the reason. That is that we often define intelligence with the capability of learning, but how is the capability to learn distinguished from desire to learn, from the emotion of curiosity? And then if curiosity is a requirement of intelligence, than how could an emotionless intelligence ever occur?

This is an interesting subject, not only for aficionados of artificial intelligence, but also to anyone who is interested in various fields concerning sociology, behavior, governance and leadership. The demise of the hard-line communist regimes has as much to do with their models of “man as machine” as it had to do with the superiority of capitalism. At the beginning of the twentieth century, leadership in Europe and Japan was based on control, and on restraining energies of those being led.
The prevailing view then was that emotions were undesirable in leaders and administrators, i.e. that emotion made leaders seem weak, ineffective, slow, arbitrary, and unnecessarily complicated the decision making process.
This is in stark contrast to the modern view, which is reinforced by psychology and neuroscience, that emotions are a form of intelligent awareness, that is, they are a form of thinking as well as a form of feeling.
There is even considerable biological evidence that the emotional centers in the brain are neurologically intertwined with the thinking centers, to the extent that decision making may be impossible without processing emotional input.
It may even be argued that emotions are what make us “human” and were recognized by Darwin as having great significance in the evolutionary process. If that is the case, I doubt very much that we can ever program a computer to have either emotions or human intelligence. While we already have programmable machines which are far superior to humans in performing certain tasks, a machine that has “emotional intelligence” remains in the realm of science fiction, where it probably belongs.

[francis]

Great question aphid.

Could emotionless intelligence exist?

I’ve had a lot of trouble with this one in the past. I think the bottom line is coming to grips with the idea that we are reactive, programmed beings.

To me the big break through was understanding the Turing test. The Turing test is where a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine (say over three weeks) each of which try to appear human; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test (wiki). As far as the emotion intelligence goes, I’d suggest emotion is a response that can be learnt.

2001: A Space Odyssey :love:

[bhujjy]

Thank you Scameter for your insightful comments.

So I went to Wiki to see what Intelligence is thought to be, and found references to 'property of mind', to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think, to use language, to learn, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
Quote: Intelligence comes from the Latin verb "intellegere", which means "to understand". By this rationale, intelligence (as understanding) is arguably different from being "smart" (able to adapt to one's environment), or being "clever" (able to creatively adapt). Endquote.
The article then goes on to various attempts to define intelligence. My impression was that the consensus was gravitating towards 'cognition'.

This suprised me, because I have always considered plants to be intelligent.
The phrase "intelligent life" has always seemed redundant to me.
My view is: how can something survive in the wild and not be intelligent? Plants are intelligent because they adapt to their environment.
So I basically accept that all life is intelligent. I cannot, at this point, find anything useful in the distinctions, ie. smart/clever, but not intelligent.

And so I must now realize that this view is very far from the general consensus.
Good grief!

To support my view, I have collected a few items:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory
- 4 basic strategies plants use to reduce damage by herbivores
1. growing in places (or in times) difficult for herbivores to access
2. diverting herbivores to eat non-essential parts of the plant
or developing enhanced recovery to herbivore damage
3. attracting enemies of herbivores
4. use chemical or mechanical defences (toxins that kill or reduce digestibility)
these defences can be induced in reaction to damage or stress caused by herbivores

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundew plant (carnivorous)
- goal: obtain nutrients
- attracts insects with sweet secretions
- sticks on contact
- 'snap-tentacles' embrace insect
- secrets enzmes to digest insect
- goal achieved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophrys
- the Bumble Bee Orchid
- goal: pollination
- employs female bee pheromones to attract bees at long range
- at short range, the flowers look like female Bumble Bees
- the bee pseudocopulates with the flower
- goal is achieved

If I were to change this view, I would have to change my world-view.
This would be hard for me. I have never even changed the part in my hair.
:)

There is the objection, I suppose, that I am confusing evolutionary adaption of a species as opposed to immediate 'adaptation' of an individual of the species. An 'intelligent species' without intelligent individuals? But then I have to consider the ant or bee. These species in so many ways are very intelligent, but if we were to sit down just one ant, trapped in its role, could it display the intelligence of its species?
I think our language, with its preference for categorizing, has difficulty with notions that bleed into one another, like: adaptation-intelligence, and species-individual.
Sorry for the length. Once I got started...

[idealist]

Research shows that human intelligence incorporates emotional input and is imparied absent those contributions. This is not to say that a different (non-human) intelligence could equal or exceed human intelligence using other inputs.

The somatic marker hypothesis proposes that intelligence depends on emotion. In particular, the amydala and vetromedial pre frontal cortex, the brain's emtional centers, are necessary to decision making under ambiguity. Antonio Damasio used the Iowa Gambling Test to test whether humans with damage to these brain areas would perform as well as a control group. The tests demonstrated that "logical" intelligence does have an emotional vector.

This link is to a .pdf of Damasio's work:
www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/19/13/5473.pdf

[Flux]

I agree with Scrodinger that emotion is quite possible too inextricably entangled with intelligence to make any clear distinction possible. As others have mentioned, pinning down a definition of intelligence can be quite difficult, but for the purposes of this post, I'm considering intelligence to be synonymous with a sense of self-awareness and sentience, however faint.

Although modern computers are emotionless, yet capable of calculations far beyond human abilities, there is also no evidence that computers are in any way aware of what they are doing--they think about the significance of what they're calculating.

As for how emotions tie into rationality--I know from my experience that even everyday words such as "sky" or "fork" can bring with them a very subtle mix of emotions. Not in the sense that I go into fits of histeria everytime someone starts verbalizing cutlery, but in the sense that terms for everyday objects and concepts have subtle connotations and associations that can have suprisingly large cummulative effects on how things are percieved. Again, it's not so much that I think it's intrinsically impossible for an "emotionless intelligence" to exist, but I have to admit that I'm at a complete loss as to how such an entity would conceptualize and associate.

[nzira]

The perceived "I" or 'me' bounds through the collective unconscious frequencies of the constructs perceived to be in place and therein our ability to adapt, from single cellular to multi-dimensional ..;)

[the_aphid]

Wow, a number of posts in 24 hours! I'll try to include everyone in my reply.
Machine:
http://gizmodo.com/368651/new-video-of-bigdog-quadruped-robot-is-so-stunning-its-spooky
Versus Man:
http://gizmodo.com/372272/video-of-bigdog-beta-quadruped-robot-is-so-stupid-its-hilarious
This is really quite an impressive video. It is unbelievable how 'life-like' it appears it its movements. Like when kicked from the side or walking on ice. Incredible, thanks for sharing it. Here is a TED talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/165) that touches on the topic of 'robotic evolution', also very interesting.I think that it is entirely possible for an intelligence to be emotionless, based on evidence from the information material in completely emotionless organisms such as bacteria, essentially giving them a very simple intelligence without emotion, and with computers that we use now, which are logical and yet entirely emotionless. But, especially when considering AI, the question of intelligence requiring sentiency would be asked, but only the most advanced animals are capable of knowing themselves, best shown I think in the test of animals being able to recognize themselves in mirrors, which to my knowledge only humans and chimps are capable of doing.While I don't necessarily agree that bacteria should be considered 'intelligent' -- I really think of them more as biological machines -- I certainly agree that there should be a distinction made between 'intelligence' and 'sentience'. Like you mentioned Scameter, there are lots of animals that display levels of intelligence, however if I were to classify the one quality that humans possess above and beyond other living organisms on our planet, I would term it as sentience. And just in passing, there are more animals than humans and chimps that are capable of recognizing themselves in mirrors. You're right about dogs, horses I have no idea, but my cats recognize themselves in the mirror, elephants, dolphins, and I'm pretty sure there are many others. Also, not all primates display self recognition, but certainly chimps, like you mentioned, and bonobos.The prevailing view then was that emotions were undesirable in leaders and administrators, i.e. that emotion made leaders seem weak, ineffective, slow, arbitrary, and unnecessarily complicated the decision making process.
This is in stark contrast to the modern view, which is reinforced by psychology and neuroscience, that emotions are a form of intelligent awareness, that is, they are a form of thinking as well as a form of feeling.
There is even considerable biological evidence that the emotional centers in the brain are neurologically intertwined with the thinking centers, to the extent that decision making may be impossible without processing emotional input.Very much like the Vulcans! But I think you touch on an interesting point here schrodinger. It forces me to contemplate the difference between feeling emotion and displaying emotion, and to the extent that one allows emotion to control their decisions and actions. Obviously someone can display emotion and submit to the motivational control of those emotions, like someone killing someone else in a fit of rage. While that can be countered by people that can display emotion which is also felt, perhaps to the same degree, however they maintain control and withstand the urge to react in a fit of rage. Then there are people that feel the underlying emotions, but have learned to control their responses to them so well that they do not display emotional responses, and likewise don't react mindlessly to those emotions. And then there are people that seem to simply become generally apathetic. However, from my understanding a general sense of numbness, a lack of emotion, almost encourages a sense of depression. Very often suicidal individuals do not attempt suicide because they are sad, but because they are numb. They simply don't see the point in continuing without the sensations of pleasure or pain. To me the big break through was understanding the Turing test. The Turing test is where a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine (say over three weeks) each of which try to appear human; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test (wiki). As far as the emotion intelligence goes, I’d suggest emotion is a response that can be learnt.I agree that the Turing test was a breakthrough, however I believe Taeguk touched on a very valid argument to refute the accuracy of the Turing test in another thread discussing artificial intelligence. Proposed by John Searle, the Chinese room is a thought experiment similar to the Turing test or the 'imitation game' which the Turing test is modeled after. Essentially it goes like so:

Searle asks his audience to imagine that many years from now, people have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. The computer takes Chinese characters as input and, following a program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose that this computer performs this task so convincingly that it easily passes the Turing test. In other words, it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All the questions the human asks are responded to appropriately, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human. The conclusion that proponents of artificial intelligence would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does.


Now, Searle asks the audience to suppose that he is in a room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a book containing an English version of the computer program, and processes the Chinese characters according to the instructions in the book. Searle notes that he does not, of course, understand a word of Chinese. He simply manipulates what to him are meaningless squiggles, using the book and whatever other equipment is provided in the room, such as paper, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. After manipulating the symbols, Searle will produce the answer in Chinese. Since the computer passed the Turing test, so does Searle running its program by hand: "Nobody just looking at my answers can tell that I don't speak a word of Chinese," Searle writes.[1]

And basically I think the same could be said about 'emotional intelligence'. That just because you could hypothetically make a machine that is deemed 'intelligent' and that displays 'emotions', and also responds convincingly, this does not mean that the machine is either intelligent or emotional.This suprised me, because I have always considered plants to be intelligent.
The phrase "intelligent life" has always seemed redundant to me.
My view is: how can something survive in the wild and not be intelligent? Plants are intelligent because they adapt to their environment.
So I basically accept that all life is intelligent. I cannot, at this point, find anything useful in the distinctions, ie. smart/clever, but not intelligent.Perhaps you'd enjoy this TED talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/214). Michael Pollan describes how agriculture is not the product or invention of humankind, but rather the successful 'Darwinian manipulation' of all the crops which are now covering the planet.The somatic marker hypothesis proposes that intelligence depends on emotion. In particular, the amydala and vetromedial pre frontal cortex, the brain's emtional centers, are necessary to decision making under ambiguity. Antonio Damasio used the Iowa Gambling Test to test whether humans with damage to these brain areas would perform as well as a control group. The tests demonstrated that "logical" intelligence does have an emotional vector.This is the way I am compelled to look at the problem myself. It is difficult to reconcile the idea of an intelligent species devoid of emotion. Perhaps the problem relates back to evolution. Since our intelligence and emotions are products of our evolution, it can be argued that the emotional responses we adapted were beneficial for us and promoted our survival. However, if we are talking about artificially created intelligence, tailor-made intelligent machines that serve a purpose to their creators and do not have to stand up to the scrutiny of evolution, then perhaps such a being is possible. Maybe not 'fit for survival' in a savage world which depends upon emotion, but technology can be viewed very similarly. Technology only 'survives' because it is useful to humans, because we maintain and power the devices and have developed a dependence on them for our accustomed way of life. <_< Thanks for the link.Again, it's not so much that I think it's intrinsically impossible for an "emotionless intelligence" to exist, but I have to admit that I'm at a complete loss as to how such an entity would conceptualize and associate.But can a distinction be made between the 'emotional' associations and the seemingly 'logical' associations with such words. Like 'sky' can emotionally associate with pleasant (if we're talking about clear skies) and unpleasant (if we're talking about clouded skies), but perhaps that can be differentiated from the logical association that blue skies are not dangerous or harmful, while dark skies are ominous or threatening. Maybe this is really all emotion amounts to though, that it is the formation of a sort of 'imperative' of what is deemed beneficial or detrimental to us, and the sensation we feel called emotion is simply the biochemical symbol of the underlying 'imperative'. Does that make sense? After so many comments I might be getting a little confused...:blink:The perceived "I" or 'me' bounds through the collective unconscious frequencies of the constructs perceived to be in place and therein our ability to adapt, from single cellular to multi-dimensional ..;):lol: Fair enough, but perhaps this is better suited for another thread ;)

[francis]

Well answered aphid.

And basically I think the same could be said about 'emotional intelligence'. That just because you could hypothetically make a machine that is deemed 'intelligent' and that displays 'emotions', and also responds convincingly, this does not mean that the machine is either intelligent or emotional.

I could say that about a few of my mates ;) Which for me, was the whole point of the Turing test.

Many of us are operating on automatic programming. As children we become programmed by our instincts to survive. And it’s our parents, friends and environment that dictate the order of survival. Eventually, we become conditioned to act in certain ways, and in time this becomes who we are, our ego.

What I like about Buddhism it that through the processes like mindfulness and insight meditation we can slowly start to see who we really are, down below the ego. Then we can begin to see life as it really is.

Or something like that

Cheers :)

[scameter]

Aphid:While I don't necessarily agree that bacteria should be considered 'intelligent' -- I really think of them more as biological machines

Well, but intelligence doesn't necessarily mean very intelligent. To me, intelligence essentially means the capacity to process information, and I think that bacteria are capable, on a very simple degree, of that.

Aphid:You're right about dogs, horses I have no idea, but my cats recognize themselves in the mirror

I'm quite certain cats don't recognize that the image of themselves they see in the mirror is them, but rather they think it is another, different cat. Hence why in so many videos on TV and in other places, cats are comedically shown playing with the image of themselves they see in the mirror because they don't know it's them. I think you may have misunderstood me; or maybe your cat is just very intelligent.

[francis]

Hi scameter,

Well, but intelligence doesn't necessarily mean very intelligent. To me, intelligence essentially means the capacity to process information, and I think that bacteria are capable, on a very simple degree, of that.

I like where you are going with the “intelligence doesn't necessarily mean very intelligent” idea. I suppose I’d be more interested in whether people are thinking with their reptilian brain or their cerebral cortex.

I’m not sure about cats, but elephants have self-recognition.

[schrodinger]

Very much like the Vulcans!--The_Aphid--

Possibly my earlier reply needs a bit of clarification, as I can see no connection between what I wrote and Mister Spock. :lol: I pointed to biological evidence that indicates it may well be impossible for decision making in the human brain without processing emotional input because the human brain evolved in such a way as to cause emotional processing and thinking to be neurologically intertwined. This is quite different from the Vulcan brain as portrayed on Star Trek. So, to refine my answer I would have to say that emotionless “human intelligence” is impossibility as it is a contradiction in terms simply because it is emotional input which makes our intelligence “human”. But your question did not specify human intelligence, only intelligence, in general. I feel confident that emotionless intelligence in other species, perhaps even Vulcans, and certainly in computing machines, can and does exist. When I look at the eyes of a Great White shark, for example, I see no emotion, only a cold, calculating killer intelligence that can send shivers down the spine, as the movie Jaws proved to Spielberg’s great financial advantage. Similarly, certain insects such as spiders seem to display an emotionless intelligence as they methodically spin their elaborate webs to snare unsuspecting prey. Or maybe I just have an aversion towards sharks and spiders?:uhoh: On the other hand, even insects can display emotions, as anyone who has stirred up an “angry” nest of hornets can surely confirm.

[scameter]

I think one thing that may be the cause of the human mind's intelligence being intertwined and essentially dependant on emotion, and vise versa, is due to the fact that our intelligence is not functional; when a human is born, they do not have a specific job to do in life, like computers or robots do when we make them. The only job an individual human has in it's life is to live, any other functions it has are given to it by the individual (though, of course, I'm not trying to deny spiritual things, I'm just being scientific). So, our emotion helps us in our lives and has a function for our living, as does intelligence, but neither have a function beyond that, if that makes sense.

[Trevor]

I'm curious to see what ideas others have on this topic, so please, the floor is entirely open for discussion. :mellow:

Don't certain serial murderers have this attribute? Emotionless intelligence?

[bhujjy]

Aphid!

Thanks for the Ted links, especially Michael Pollan's!
I have an old rancher friend I can safely talk to about anything (he is very down to earth and kind). Last night I was going on about my admiration of plants and he stopped me for a moment and said, "The earth is intelligent, too." He said he's seen good productive land change hands many times and that it takes a couple of years for the land to respond to a new 'owner'.
For me, Pollan's perspective is very refreshing.

[the_aphid]

I'm quite certain cats don't recognize that the image of themselves they see in the mirror is them, but rather they think it is another, different cat. Hence why in so many videos on TV and in other places, cats are comedically shown playing with the image of themselves they see in the mirror because they don't know it's them. I think you may have misunderstood me; or maybe your cat is just very intelligent.:lol: Well maybe the accuracy of such tests is determined on a cat-by-cat basis. I am fairly certain that my cats have determined the concept of reflection, as when I play with my cats sometimes I will hide in the bathroom, and as they approach they can see my reflection in the mirror. They don't come running up to the mirror however, they know to come into the bathroom and turn the corner to find me. Also, they don't react to their reflection in any humorous ways, and I have seen them both react to another cat in the house, so I know what they would do if they truly believed there was another cat in the house. Perhaps what this shows is that, like human infants, cats are capable of learning what a mirror does. I think that the problem with the mirror test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test) as a means of identifying intelligence is that it is biased in the senses of sight that certain animals utilize.There is some debate in the scientific community as to the value and interpretation of results of the mirror test. While this test has been extensively conducted on primates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primates), there is also debate as to the value of the test as applied to animals who rely primarily on senses other than vision, such as dogs. As dogs have very poor visual resolution and acuity withred/green color blindness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Red-green_color_blindness), they have little chance of recognizing themselves or a dot (commonly red) in a mirror. However, dogs do recognize their own scent invariably with 40x more neurons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron) than humans dedicated to processing smell. The key point being that the mirror test is only a measure of ability closely matching humans, not a statement of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness), as is popularly believed.
Similarly, cephalopods like the octopus or the cuttlefish clearly show signs of intelligence, but they also display no signs of recognition with mirror tests. Once again though, it is believed (similar to dogs) that this has more to do with their vision than their intelligence. Most cephalopods are colour blind, but it has been concluded that their vision utilizes detection of polarized light. The communication between these animals is based on the changes of colours and patterns of the chromatophores in their skin. I read a study somewhere which I cannot seem to find now, that showed that cuttlefish would retreat from a mirror placed in front of them in their tank, however with the presence of a polarized filter, they would then pay little or no attention to the mirror and would not react the same way.
Very much like the Vulcans!--The_Aphid--

Possibly my earlier reply needs a bit of clarification, as I can see no connection between what I wrote and Mister Spock. :lol: I pointed to biological evidence that indicates it may well be impossible for decision making in the human brain without processing emotional input because the human brain evolved in such a way as to cause emotional processing and thinking to be neurologically intertwined. This is quite different from the Vulcan brain as portrayed on Star Trek.Well I think I understand the misunderstanding :PWhen I look at the eyes of a Great White shark, for example, I see no emotion, only a cold, calculating killer intelligence that can send shivers down the spine, as the movie Jaws proved to Spielberg’s great financial advantage.An interesting specimen for discussion of emotion and intelligence, since great white sharks are solitary creatures. Actually my understanding is that there has been no documented observation of their mating procedures. I remember watching a documentary that hypothesized that the scars that are commonly displayed on great whites are likely the result of very violent and aggressive mating habits.On the other hand, even insects can display emotions, as anyone who has stirred up an “angry” nest of hornets can surely confirm.Well are they actually 'angry' or are they simply triggered into a defensive response? Similar to most ant colonies, they will attack anything threatening their colony unquestioningly. Can the act be differentiated from the associated emotions that any living being might 'feel' when threatened? I don't know. I remember when I was younger I hit a wasp nest with a football at my grandfather's farm, and the wasps began attacking the football. I would argue if they were truly intelligent they would know to attack the person that threw it and not the inanimate object which did the damage.The only job an individual human has in it's life is to live, any other functions it has are given to it by the individual (though, of course, I'm not trying to deny spiritual things, I'm just being scientific). So, our emotion helps us in our lives and has a function for our living, as does intelligence, but neither have a function beyond that, if that makes sense.I think I understand what you are driving at, and I was actually contemplating this myself recently. I draw a sort of parallel between artificially created intelligence and the concept of the divine creation of man. If people see their purpose as that which is imposed by their 'creator' then similar to artificial intelligence their purpose would be to serve their creators desires. However, if you view humans as mere products of evolution, then their purpose would seem to be that of their genetic code, the purpose to reproduce and perpetuate their existence isn't really all that different from an AI's purpose to follow their code in serving their creators. Perhaps that would be the sign of true sentience, if an AI were to overwrite their given code and behave in a way that was against their designed programming. Similar to humans that override their biological urge to procreate, just as an example.Don't certain serial murderers have this attribute? Emotionless intelligence?Well I don't know about that. I think most serial murderers are very specifically responding to emotions. Be it anger or jealously, or perhaps the pleasure they get from inflicting suffering or gaining control. Maybe it is emotionless in the sense that they neglect any sense of empathy for the victim, but personally I think that what drives them is most certainly a very greedy or self-serving sort of emotional gratification.Thanks for the Ted links, especially Michael Pollan's!My pleasure :thumbsup:Last night I was going on about my admiration of plants and he stopped me for a moment and said, "The earth is intelligent, too." He said he's seen good productive land change hands many times and that it takes a couple of years for the land to respond to a new 'owner'.
For me, Pollan's perspective is very refreshing.I also find Pollan's perspective very refreshing, however I think he would be the first to agree that these plants aren't actually displaying an intrinsic 'intelligence' or 'consciousness', or at least not to the extent that I am driving at in this particular thread. I think the 'intelligence' of a particular plant is simply an excellent demonstration of beneficial adaptation, a sort of mindless manipulation of the elements. I mean it is not like an orchid consciously alters its appearance to attract a particular insect for the purposes of dispersing its pollen, but rather that their is a co-evolutionary dependence which is being utilized, it simply promotes survival of the species which happens to be designed in a way that is favorable to other species. Like the potato that Pollan mentions at the beginning, it does not 'decide' to be a particularly tasty variety of potato, but rather it is simply successful in reproduction because people have developed a taste for that variety. If a particular plant species is dependent on a particular insect for pollination, and then that species of insect is eradicated, the plant species does not mindfully alter itself into attracting a new pollinator, it unfortunately goes extinct along with the insect it depends upon.

[bhujjy]

Aphid,

Thank you for your reply. I agree that I have projected a bit onto what Michael Pollan was saying! You have helped me to find my problem (I think)

Independant action appears to be the concept I am missing here.

So that a plant, incapable of independant action, is merely following its code (DNA), making it machine-like, involving no choices, no decisions: reacting in a set way depending on its internal coding and its external environment.

And when others discusses intelligence and self-awareness (sentience), I am always left behind. (I will not entertain the obvious reason why. lol)

I believe this is my problem:

- if there were independant action, a thought could come from nowhere
- but even thoughts are dependant, along with everything else
- choice, causa sui, is not possible
- therefore, independant action cannot exist
- leaving me with dependant action
- therefore all life is reacting in a set way depending on its internal coding and its external environment.
- leading me to take my seat in the plant section :)
- being self-aware is nice, but doesn't change my basic situation.

- I liked Scameter's view of intelligence as being the ability to process information
- I have, however, now found myself thinking that Life IS information
- and that intelligence is the life Process
- and self-awareness is a quality of this Process

[the_aphid]

I believe this is my problem:

- if there were independant action, a thought could come from nowhere
- but even thoughts are dependant, along with everything else
- choice, causa sui, is not possible
- therefore, independant action cannot exist
- leaving me with dependant action
- therefore all life is reacting in a set way depending on its internal coding and its external environment.
- leading me to take my seat in the plant section :)
- being self-aware is nice, but doesn't change my basic situation.Fair enough bhujjy. However let me suggest an alternative. Like you suggested, thoughts do not come from 'nowhere' and do come from dependent sources, stimuli in the environment, information from a book, etc. But that doesn't negate the possibility of choice. I think many people believe that an idea, or a thought, is like a single spark in their brain. The truth is, or rather my belief is, that thoughts are a cascade of electrical and chemical activity in the brain, many different pathways reacting simultaneously, very intricately routed. There is the presence of a sort of feed-back loop in the developed mind, that can encourage further directed chain reactions of electrical/chemical signals which themselves branch into further refined 'networks'. This is how I conceptualize how someone can be triggered to have an idea or a thought, but then consciously direct these thoughts towards a desired end. Does that make sense? I mean, when I started this post, all the words above were not laid out in my mind because of your post, and if communication and the formation of refined concepts was all dependent on particular stimuli or dependent on 'fate', then I feel it highly improbable that the abstract and articulate ideas which people discuss on this forum would ever see the light of day. Furthermore, I began this reply yesterday, and didn't have time to complete it, so I let this reply sit on my clipboard (both on my laptop and in the metaphorical clipboard in my brain) and have returned to it after further contemplation. Given that period of time I have had an even greater opportunity to direct my ideas, and as a result I have edited through and refined my reply, and I feel this is made possible only with independent action.- I liked Scameter's view of intelligence as being the ability to process information
- I have, however, now found myself thinking that Life IS information
- and that intelligence is the life Process
- and self-awareness is a quality of this ProcessAn interesting idea, but I think the argument sort of falls apart when you look at different forms of life, and how they likely evolved on earth. For example, what 'information' does a bacterium process? Other then the genetic code that it possesses, it simply uses a tumble and roll method of moving about, and its success is not determined by any conscious effort, if it happens to tumble into a nutrient rich environment it prospers, however if it rolls into a pool of toxic compounds it dies. I find it extremely anthropomorphic to describe this as 'smart' or 'intelligent', I suppose unless you attribute this all to intelligent design, then I would agree that everything which exists could be considered to be intelligent, including the inorganic balls of hydrogen and helium which create every other element on the periodic table. But, I personally don't believe in intelligent design, I believe in the (or a) process of evolution, and the progression from non-sentient inorganic matter to complex sentient beings...essentially. I mean there is no 'hard boundary' between life and non-life, things just sort of blend together. Things like amino acids, proteins, ribosomes, viruses are essential for life to exist, however they themselves are not alive.

Ultimately the concept of choice (or consciousness for that matter) cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and really it is the topic of another thread, but without choice how can anyone or anything be considered to be intelligent. Fatalism in essence denies intelligence beyond the creator that wrote the code, and whether this be a divine being or simply the interaction and process of physical laws playing out in existence, I can't help but feel that machines devoid of free will (be it biological or artificial) cannot be considered to be 'intelligent'. Basically, self-awareness inevitably results in the phenomenon of free will. Either you can go with the flow, or you can resist it and alter your projected path, and this is where I believe true 'sentience' is born.

[bhujjy]

Aphid,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it very much.
I need 20 rereads and some long walks.
Everything you said makes sense to me.
And everything I wrote makes sense to me.
It is so cool.
You are right that this is stretching your initial 'open floor' invitation. Sorry.
- but without your thread, my domino would still be standing upright :)
That said, I must share 2 items on my clipboard:
- as you get better at chess you notice that you have fewer good moves from which to choose. (greater awareness = less 'choice')
- a human being cannot produce of a sequence of random numbers (trapped in patterns?)

Further to your reply:
- yes, I am probably breaking a groundrule in how I am using the word 'intelligence'
- but I can't think of a better word, yet
- design: I'm not (consciously) thinking of intelligent design.
- another helpful point you made was: "I believe in the (or a) process of evolution, and the progression from non-sentient inorganic matter to complex sentient beings..." Considering this, I find myself not looking at it as a progression. If not a progression, then what?
- it's like breathing. Expansion and contraction.
- since I am not seeing a progression of beings or anything else, I am also not seeing a supreme 'most complex' being. (present company excepted)

- I am saying that by watching 2 beginners play a game of chess and watching 2 grandmasters play chess I am watching essentially the same thing.
- because I am not looking at moves. (edit: I am looking at ratios)
- I am thinking that 'failure' is not a useful concept with impermanence.
- if the point of evolution is to increase complexity we should naturally think in terms of progression and increasing 'intelligence' (as the ability to process increasing complexity). However, the point of evolution is not to increase complexity. The point is to adapt. There will be occasions where simplicity is the most adaptive. And this also leads me to regard intelligence with a larger process.

- we agree that the 'choice' thing is the lynchpin, I think.
- Thank you so much for listening. Here's one of my favourites for you:
- A man couldn't decide, but it was too important to leave to chance. So he flipped a coin and it came down heads. So he chose tails.

[Michael]

Emotionless Intelligence might as well be another dimension as far as human beings are concerned. We could no more comprehend it than we could what it is to live in a two dimensional universe.

[coberst]

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

“Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

Emotions and feelings are an essential component to reasoning and judgment. No human can set aside their emotions and function as a conscious being.

[rahulkumble]

In my view, intelligence is as much a thought process of the brain as is emotion. Machines, how much ever advanced they may be, show only repetitive work/functions. When we purportedly created artificial intelligence, say the blue-chip which defeated the chess grandmaster Kasparov, it was just a more complicated machine able to handle only a bigger 'x' number of functions. It could not on its own create a new function 'x+1'. Its advantage was only the speed with which it could access those pre-set functions faster than the human chess grandmaster. I think emotions and intelligence are inter-linked. When the computer in movie 'Space Odyssey' tries to kill humans, its acting on emotion of 'ego' not intelligence alone. Remember a negative feeling is also an emotion. It is showing a negative feeling on the need to eliminate humans.

Hence, I disagree with the concept of 'Emotionless' Intelligence. Us humans and to lesser extent other animals all have varying degrees of EQ (emotion quotient) and IQ, but nowhere is either one of them zero, except may be in case of medically retarded ones.