Stick Page Forums Archive

Emotion and Artificial Intelligence

Started by: Ash | Replies: 81 | Views: 4,439

Ash
2

Posts: 5,269
Joined: Nov 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 4, 2009 10:39 PM #510013
Often seen in science fiction is the idea that an artificially intelligent computer, no matter how advanced, can't feel emotion. We can make it do all sorts of advanced things, but it can never be a true intelligent being.

If we were to make a computer that was so advanced that it replicated the behavior of a human, down to its creative ability and even the simulation of the chemical states associated with emotions, is it unfair to say that it is actually experiencing these emotions?
CGIllusion
2

Posts: 617
Joined: Aug 2005
Rep: 21

View Profile
Nov 4, 2009 10:54 PM #510025
I think in order for a machine to "feel" emotions it must be genuinely conscious and aware of its existence. A simple program that draws pictures may draw more aggressive pictures when it respondes to aggrivating stimuli, but that's all it is, a preprogrammed response? Don't have time to think on this gotta go
Ash
2

Posts: 5,269
Joined: Nov 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 4, 2009 10:57 PM #510029
This is a forum, not a chat room. It's not like you're pressed for time in responding, lol.
RawGreen
2

Posts: 2,543
Joined: Jun 2008
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 4, 2009 10:57 PM #510030
Isn't our brains just really advanced analog computers?
If we develop a computer advanced enough to the point where it comes to the conclusion on it's own that "I am aware", it would be rather unfair to deny it sentience.
Myself

Posts: 7,010
Joined: Apr 2006
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 4, 2009 11:31 PM #510053
Bicentennial Man: The Thread
alive
2

Posts: 1,331
Joined: May 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 4, 2009 11:46 PM #510056
I don't see how it could be unfair to say that a machine is experiencing emotions, really.
Far more interesting to me is whether or not the emotions of such an advanced machine can be considered equal to those of an actual human being; if one should take both parties' emotions into equal consideration before making a decision about something.
master of animation
2

Posts: 114
Joined: Jul 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 5, 2009 1:11 AM #510097
No.Because a being has to have Life or be a living thing.They can only simulate emotion,not feel it unless it is given LIFE.
CGIllusion
2

Posts: 617
Joined: Aug 2005
Rep: 21

View Profile
Nov 5, 2009 2:47 AM #510138
I don't see how it's possible to make a program "feel" anything. Take pain for example, how would you get a machine to respond to pain. You'd have pressure sensors on the body that increase a variable called pain. You have a function that checks the variable pain constantly, and if it rises to a certain level it makes that pain a priority and responds to it. However the machine does not actually feel the pain, it just analyzes the data inputs of it's touch sensors and increases a variable that just so happened to be called pain. If a part of the robot is smashed or broken, the sensors would constantly be overloading the system with input data that the system uses to prioritize it's actions and reaction. However the machine does not actually feel any of this, it's just input data, no different than if the machine were counting something. A feeling of pain can only be simulated, by attributing certain function responses and behaviors to the pain variable.

So if you cannot get a machine to actually feel a feeling, you cannot get a machine to feel an emotion. Machines are just too different from biological "living" matter to be able to feel. Feelings will not be possible until a biological/computer hybrid is created.
Ash
2

Posts: 5,269
Joined: Nov 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 5, 2009 2:58 AM #510144
Quote from CGIllusion
I don't see how it's possible to make a program "feel" anything. Take pain for example, how would you get a machine to respond to pain. You'd have pressure sensors on the body that increase a variable called pain. You have a function that checks the variable pain constantly, and if it rises to a certain level it makes that pain a priority and responds to it. However the machine does not actually feel the pain, it just analyzes the data inputs of it's touch sensors and increases a variable that just so happened to be called pain. If a part of the robot is smashed or broken, the sensors would constantly be overloading the system with input data that the system uses to prioritize it's actions and reaction. However the machine does not actually feel any of this, it's just input data, no different than if the machine were counting something. A feeling of pain can only be simulated, by attributing certain function responses and behaviors to the pain variable.


And how is what you just described any different from us? Describe the workings of pain in a human the same way.
CGIllusion
2

Posts: 617
Joined: Aug 2005
Rep: 21

View Profile
Nov 5, 2009 3:06 AM #510149
Well what I described is simulating the behavior of pain... and not actually the feeling. That robot can endure years of torture that would drive a man mad.
Ash
2

Posts: 5,269
Joined: Nov 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 5, 2009 3:07 AM #510150
What if you programmed the robot to go insane? After all, for the robot to accurately model human behavior, that would have to include flaws.
CGIllusion
2

Posts: 617
Joined: Aug 2005
Rep: 21

View Profile
Nov 5, 2009 3:13 AM #510154
What you are programming into the robot are reflexes. When a doctor hits you in the knee, you kick automatically. It's a programmed response that you do not consciously control, it's a response generated by reality void of perception. Our "feeling" are all perceived, and do not seem to actually exist outside of our imagination.
Ash
2

Posts: 5,269
Joined: Nov 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 5, 2009 3:22 AM #510159
And how is anything we do any different? We don't pick things at random. Every decision we make is the result of our programming and the variables that we are detecting. Every action we engage in follows the same pattern: detect stimulus, analyze suitable reaction, and engage in action.
CGIllusion
2

Posts: 617
Joined: Aug 2005
Rep: 21

View Profile
Nov 5, 2009 3:51 AM #510167
There are two states of awareness which relate to these sensory effects. The basic one can be called pure awareness. In this state the person is completely and vividly aware of his experience, but there are no processes of thinking, manipulating, or interpreting going on. The sensations fill the person's attention, which is passive but absorbed in what is occurring, which is usually experienced as intense and immediate. Pure awareness is experiencing without associations to what is there.

The other state of awareness is one which can be termed conscious awareness, in which the sensory experience is connected to meanings, plans, functions, decisions, and possible actions. This is our normal way of perceiving and how we usually go about our daily lives. We do not sense the world directly, but with the incorporation of our memories, meanings, and uses. In the state of pure awareness objects are experienced as sensory qualities, without the intrusion of interpretation. There are examples of this in normal life. The sensation of sexual orgasm may be (and hopefully is) experienced with pure awareness. Natural beauty, such as flowers, mountains, oceans, and sunsets, is sometimes experienced from a point of awareness without adding conscious thinking.

These two processes of awareness have been described by Charles Solley and Gardner Murphy (1960, Chapter 14) as non-reflective consciousness and reflective consciousness. Alan Watts compares the awareness state to a floodlight of attention, which shows a broad area and lights up anything that is there. Consciousness awareness he compares to a spotlight, which is focused and can be directed, though on a narrower area. This is a good analogy in pointing out that no deliberate directing is done in the awareness state, although it is sometimes the case that the area perceived in awareness may be a small one seen in great detail.

The awareness state can be called "choiceless" because choice is a part of consciousness functions. Decisions made outside of consciousness are not called "by choice" since choice implies conscious action. In a state of direct awareness there are no choices made and no decisions or actions occur. The stream of sensation flows and the person is aware of what is happening; if he acts he does so without consciously deciding to move. (That is, action is handled by some process other than the consciousness monitoring the awareness experience.) When complicated action becomes necessary conscious attention is activated and the sensation is used as stimuli, criteria, or information for the choices, plans, or action.

The awareness is not always experienced purely under marijuana, but often is mixed with some, though reduced, conscious attention. Consciousness, conscious awareness, or conscious attention involves a connecting function which observes experience in relation to past experience, memory images, memory recording, expectancies, plans, goals, etc. This type of consciousness may intrude on the awareness state at a low level. However, when awareness fills the attention there is a "becoming lost" in the experience, in which there is often not even a memory of what occurred. This seems to be a state in which consciousness functions are not present, and all experience is at the level of awareness. Consciousness, attention, and memory recording are apparently not active. (It is possible that attention was present and either was not remembered or the memory is not accessible to consciousness.) Such a state of pure awareness is at one end of a continuum of varying degrees of conscious activity, with the other end at a state in which the contents of awareness are used for decisions, plans, inferences, etc., and are not experienced for their primary sensory qualities; they are information rather than experiences.

This analysis suggests a reason for sensory enhancement under marijuana, a movement of attention from consciousness processes to awareness processes. We usually think of attention as synonymous with consciousness, but it is an uneasy synonymy. Consciousness seems to be more than attention, but we cannot describe a consciousness without attention. Perhaps it is possible for attention energy to move into sensory processes and operate less in the decisional, deliberative processes of consciousness. If this happens it would provide much more energy for attending to sense data, and we could expect the sensory experience to be more vivid and more detailed.

Intensity of sensory experience seems related to the total proportion or amount of attention which is involved in the process. If attention is used in conscious or unconscious processes in making decisions, remembering, evaluating, etc., then this much is removed from the awareness of the sense experience. Thus it may be that one of the causes of sensory enhancement under marijuana is that attention energy moves from consciousness processes into awareness processes, which amplifies the experience.

From a drug article but still related.
Full link : http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/mjeff1.htm

Detect stimulus, analyze suitable reaction, and engage in action are done through pure awareness (preprogrammed responses just like a robot would react). Humans have the ability of conscious awareness in which we actually try to interpret what is going on and make a choice. For instance, I may choose to inflict more pain because it makes me feel alive. A robot cannot feel this, there is no conceivable way of programming feeling into a robot.

Pinch yourself and try to think of a way to make a robot feel exactly what you feel.
In conclusion its unfair to say robots actually experience emotion since you can only simulate behaviors and reflexes, but you cannot actually get it to "feeeeeeeeeel". Just because it looks like it feels pain, doesn't mean that it does.
Gyohdon
Banned

Posts: 3,416
Joined: Jul 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
Nov 5, 2009 6:42 AM #510207
I had a talk like this with a friend once. We took it to our physics teacher, we asked: 'Could a robot ever feel emotions and think like a human being?'. His answer: Not right now, but we never know what happens in the future. Then he explained that a robot could only react through their own programming, but never fully feel the emotions or think. Mainly because we don't even know what it is ourselves.
Then he told us that a movie like A.I. might work though. Make a kid-robot, program it to make it think it's real, then give it a learning program and raise it like a real child.
Website Version: 1.0.4
© 2025 Max Games. All rights reserved.