Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!agate!riacs!danforth
From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: emergent properties
Message-ID: <1990Oct23.165301.9813@riacs.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 90 16:53:01 GMT
References: <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct3.183522.17076@riacs.edu> <3549@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <45348@apple.Apple.COM> <3560@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <4152@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> <15238@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: news@riacs.edu (James A. Woods)
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center
Lines: 42

In <15238@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) writes:


>behavior.  Since I can't see a blue sky here in Los Angeles, let me pick
>on the sea instead.  I would argue that there is no such thing as a spontaneous
>response to the sight of the sea.  We cannot avoid responding to the sea on the
>basis of any number of memories we have had, including books we have read,
>movies we have seen, and (particularly in my own case) music we have heard.
>(Vaughan Williams is forever with me.)  In other words whenever I react to
>the sight of the sea, my mind is VERY BUSY, indeed;  and if it were not busy,
>I would not be having that reaction.  If I detach my mind from the experience,
>the sea becomes just as "stupid" as Minsky's blue sky and Rembrandt collection
>(which I cannot look at without remembering that old Charles Laughton movie,
>just to take another shot at the same point).  The only thing which is
>troubling about Minsky's position is that it turns our attention away
>from any sense of aesthetic universals, but I would say that aesthetic
>theory has needed that kick in the pants for quite some time.

     It is necessary to be somewhat quantitative here (numbers!).  Any 
response that occurs within 1/2 second I would catagorize as being
spontaneous.  So if the first sight of the sea brings a positive feeling
(within 1/2 second) then I would argue that your behavior has become
"automatized" and is not governed by rational, logical, thought.  As one
muses on the sea then I would agree that memories, music, and books
come into play and enhance or modify the initial response.
     The "automatic" responses in animals and humans plays a fundamental
role in their behavior and determines which way they will "turn" in a 
multidimensional space of possible behaviors.  All of this is part of
being and "thinking".
     It is conceivable that someone else will have a negative response
(within 1/2 second) to the sight of the sea if extensive prior experience
caused pain or discomfort so that it becomes difficult to assign any
absolute measure of "goodness" to any specific situation.
     The point is that our pleasures and pains guide and direct our
paths of thought in ways that have very little to do with rational or
logical thinking.  Both facets (emotion,logic) work together to make us
"thinking" creatures.
--
Douglas G. Danforth   		    (danforth@riacs.edu)
Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science (RIACS)
M/S 230-5, NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035