Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!tm11+
From: tm11+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas James Menner, Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Emotions (was Re: Simulating thinking is NOT like simulating flying)
Message-ID: <0Zm8Fvi00VQXMBK81N@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 90 18:48:27 GMT
References: <2088@syma.sussex.ac.uk>,
	<GHH.90Feb1092159@cognito.princeton.edu>
Organization: Psychology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 44
In-Reply-To: <GHH.90Feb1092159@cognito.princeton.edu>

ghh@clarity.Princeton.EDU (Gilbert Harman) writes:
> Michael Scriven discusses why well designed androids would
> have to have feelings and emotions in PRIMARY PHILOSOPHY
> (McGraw Hill, 1966), pp. 181-197.  The robot
> must be able to respond to emergencies, for example, and at
> such times will
> 
>    be short with people for his time, and if they persist,
>    he will be shorter, indeed rude... [stuff deleted]
>    ... reaction states.  But if the android is a
>    close match to human beings in its powers, it will need
>    to conserve the additional resources released by deep
>    emotions, having them triggered only by especially
>    threatening circumstances.  Within limits, emotions are
>    efficient, and feelings are necessary. (pp. 194-5)

It is not at all clear from the example provided (of an android/robot
dealing with others [human or otherwise] in an emergency situation)
that emotions or feelings are necessary to that entity's survival.
Certainly in many cases emotions *would* be helpful to some entity's
survival, but I don't see how a case could be made for the necessity
of emotions.  As a result I would argue against the claim that robots
or androids *need* emotions, unless the desired goal is to have
human-like behavior on the part of the machines.

John Haugeland (U. of Pitt Philosophy Dept.) suggested in a talk here at
CMU several years ago that human-like intelligence/behavior (including
emotional behavior) is dependent upon what he called an "ego
function", i.e. the computer/robot would have to have some sense of
"I, myself" in order for it to approach human intelligence.  These
seemed dance perilously close to the "consciousness" debate, but it
was an interesting idea.  Unfortunately he said he was just throwing
it out as a suggestion and could offer nothing more concrete.  I
suspect it might be intertwined with phenomenological/existential
thought along the lines of Heidegger (haven't people like Dreyfus and
Winograd suggested similar ideas?).

**************************************************************************
Thomas Menner			||   ARPA: tm11@andrew.cmu.edu
Carnegie-Mellon University	|| BITNET: tm11%andrew.cmu.edu@cmccvb
Pittsburgh, PA			||   UUCP: psuvax1!andrew.cmu.edu!tm11
**************************************************************************
"When you're swimmin' in the creek/And an eel bites your cheek/
 That's a moray!!"   -- Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers