Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!genesis!odyssey!gls
From: gls@odyssey.ATT.COM (g.l.sicherman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Job Hunt
Message-ID: <335@odyssey.ATT.COM>
Date: Tue, 20-Oct-87 11:43:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: odyssey.335
Posted: Tue Oct 20 11:43:54 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Oct-87 23:24:48 EDT
References: <15196@topaz.rutgers.edu> <1368@houdi.UUCP> <1377@houdi.UUCP> <1380@houdi.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Middletown, NJ
Lines: 34

> Do we need a definition of anger?  Anger, as I understand it, is  an
> emotion  that catalyzes physical actions but interferes with reason.
> I agree that Mr. X may rationalize his action, but I  don't  believe
> it was his best choice. ...
> 
>        ...  I thought what we all needed was a little humility.   If
> Col. G. L. Sicherman thinks either that he is perfect, or that I am
> perfect, I disagree.  Tentatively.

If you go telling people what you think they all need, we may decide
that you're not very humble!

Arguing over whether people are "perfect" or "flawed" is like arguing
whether Eugene the Jeep is a rodent or a marsupial.  Perfect for *what?*

And I agree that we need a definition of anger.  "Catalyzes physical
actions?"  The anger *produces* the actions.  If you had no emotions,
you would never act.

>        ...  I  believe  that  at  least some emotional responses are
> maladaptive and would not exist in a perfect intelligence, while  he
> apparently believes the human mind is perfect and cannot be improved
> upon.

Again, perfect for what?  It sounds as if you regard emotions as a
part of intelligence.  We don't agree on the basics yet.


	"This rock, for instance, has an I.Q. of zero.  Ouch!"
	"What's the matter, Professor?"
	"It bit me!"
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...!ihnp4!odyssey!gls