Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!se-sd!jim
From: jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, Cognitologist domesticus)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What AI is exactly.
Message-ID: <3894@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 20 Sep 90 15:28:12 GMT
References: <59525@bbn.BBN.COM> <147@tdatirv.UUCP> <59556@bbn.BBN.COM>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 25

In article <59556@bbn.BBN.COM> BKort@bbn.com (Barry Kort) writes:
>As I see it, emotions are an emergent property of any learning system.  To 
>put it poetically, emotions are the expression of vanishing ignorance.  Or 
>to put it more mathematically, if K(t) denotes accumulated knowledge over 
>time, then emotions correspond to the time derivative, dK(t)/dt.

I disagree.  Emotions are physical sensations coupled with memories or
a particular thought.  I don't think their necessary for "being", 
"intelligence", or "learning".
Not to flame, but I wish people would stop using the term "emergence".
I know they won't, but could you state what you mean?  My assessment
of the idea of emergence is that it's not possible within our curernt
paradigm of science and rationality.  The impression I get is that
people throw the term around when they need a hand-waving explaination
of some mental phenomenon.

>Thus any learning system, be it made of silicon or made of meat, will 
>exhibit emotions indicative of its progress or lack of progress in 
>acquiring significant new knowledge.

I can take a multitude of drugs that will allow me to feel any emotion
at all.  I wouldn't consider this a measurement of progress in learning
anything.

- Jim Ruehlin