I do not want to reveal too much yet, so I am going to answer in such a way as to leave some things open for discussion, debate and further thought. I feel that much of the knowledge that we have acquired as a species requires further thought at least.
Hi gib, you are welcome to call me Aaron.
I have been working with a principle called rational mismatch - I may have mentioned it to you before. I wont explain it as I feel the two words “rational mismatch” speak for themselves. If you numb the body with local anesthetic then there are indeed emotions that remain - mind you, I would not enjoy being the test subject.
Yes I mean as in surprise or alarm - I say this because being scared comes soon after << hopefully I am making sense. I am saying that when it comes to emotion there are more separations to be made on one hand and more integrations where we have made separations previously. What I have become aware of is that neither philosophy nor science has a full grasp of the emotion.
You see this is an example of why I like to get feedback from other people - it opens up more angles of thought than I alone am capable of. I define emotion as rational mismatch and what precedes and follows I keep separate. I believe computing anything can be done from multiple angles.
Hopefully I encourage some feedback from you in this post.
Just a thought: If it is allowed to speak of a dualism between heart and brain, between blood and nerves, thenit should also be allowed to speak of a dualism between emotion/emotionality and reason/rationality.
It is perhaps my fault that you would arrive at such a conclusion - it is likely that the way I have presented some things that there is some ambiguity.
To clarify I would say an emotion is a kind of affect, and an emotion is itself being affected. James mentioned to me earlier that commonly used categories for things are often not well defined and this is conceivably where I am guilty of introducing an equivocation on the matter of an emotion.
Yes, emotions seem to be very complex - I say that emotions are attached to their own dynamics and are analogous to an ever changing turbulence being affected at the same time they are affecting. They are attached to their own dynamics for purpose of study and therefore partially removed from the complete system - as is the case of more than ninety percent of invented/discovered scientific systems.
I do not recommend that we believe in magic again . . .
I just did a quick google search for the terms eros and thymos - if I am correct these terms are ancient. I will read up on these terms as I have much use for understanding ancient ideas - most of the knowledge that I have accumulated would fall into the last two hundred years time frame and usually only touches on ancient material.
Without me going on and on forever over the analysis of your post, I will keep it short. Your post is right on the mark. Hopefully I am not too readily mixing concepts here that will make the visualization of what I am saying become blurry - plus I am a bit out of practice with technical details.
Your guess is spot on(correct). In this case I am slightly more interested in the human system but this does relate very strongly to AI systems. It would be foolish not to take into account AI systems with all the irresponsible developers of these systems out there. I am trying to pinpoint the construct within the causal chain of events to be more precise. I am treating a mind instant(conceptual) as a pattern for analysis i.e. an overall mind state in one instant of mind(a type of pattern calculus).
You are correct. You can not program emotions the way humans experience them, you can only program responses at best, so the AI system has to be allowed to program itself to allow for emotions to emerge, and this type of programming is embedded between encoding inputs, and neural type memory routines that are parallel and tree based. Complex Decision Trees and Markov Chains linking trees together is the best way I can describe it and these emerge over the complete neural matrix - these set the biases internally - there are external bias systems too(akin to social bias).
This is a true statement. The emergence of such things are already nearly here in the form of Neocortex based probability/pattern matching for AI and Machine Intelligence - the encodings for such things have been worked out on a rudimentary level and have found their place in industry and defense already. Very scary to me.
What a system expresses is only part of what I am interested in analyzing - internal modes are another part(how a system is at a point).
This is a viewpoint of what constitutes programming: for me it is data programming data. Instructions are only initiators.
