From: phil osborn (philosborn@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Feb 25 2000 - 23:07:29 MST
>From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
>Subject: Emotion and Cognitive Science (ws) What is intelligence(Ws: neuro
>mods.....)
>Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:11:53 EST
>
>In a message dated 2/25/2000 6:40:56 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>asa@nada.kth.se writes:
>
>( To my pretty bold statement that software engineers describe intelligence
>in terms of software capabilities.)
<
> This was likely true, but if you look at what is going on currently in
> the congitive sciences and reinforcement learning community, people
> are definitely getting interested in emotions as essential part of
> intelligence.
> >>
>
>Thank you. It seems so obvious to an artist that they are essential to
>thought, for my job is to bring out of my intelligence, the emotive
>material
>I require, onto an image, into the visual arena, where it can be
>processesd
>by the cortex (eyes) into the brain in an entirely non-verbal way.
>
>But is humor actually an emotion? Of the same type as sadness, for example?
>Is it not, rather a sensibility?
>Are sensibilities and emotions really the same thing?
>
>Is there a correcation between happiness and homor?
>Psychologically, humor is sported often JUST when people are enduring pain
>and sadness, sort of as a survival technique.
>
>If humor is an emotion, then are other sensibilities, such as talent, taste
>and aptitude emotions too?
>
>From my rather lay-woman's point of view, the only emotion that science
>seems
>to have researched exhaustively are anxiety and chronic sadness
>(depression)
>, in order to cure it. Aern't the more " acceptable" ones, like happiness,
>bliss, boredom, rejection, satisfaction, caring, enthusiasm, love,
>trepidation, curiousity, hope, greed, pity, gratefulness, uncertainty, etc.
>etc. etc. etc, are still really un-understood.<end quote>
Actually, Nathaniel Branden, in applying Ayn Rand's philosophical principles
to the study of consciousness, made at least a really fine start in his
original "The Psychology of Self Esteem." Arthur Koestler also did some
really nice analysis of various aspects of the non-digital sides of
consciousness in such works as his "The Act of Creation, in which he does
define and validate a full explanation of humor, among other things.
"Non-digital," by the way, does not mean "non-rational." It's just that
consciousness is fundamentally different in structure from any computational
device out there, including so-called neural nets, altho they are a step
closer.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:02 MST