From: "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com>
> If you know where the emotions come from, you can replace them with
> abstract thought structures that implement the same functionality.
That's a big "if" because if the emotions come from sensory input mixed with
memory and intuition, abstract thought structures alone will not suffice to
implement the same functionality. To phrase it differently, if the "gut feel"
is derived from enteric nervous system interaction with the CNS, which is
stimulated by external signals, which in turn generates further cerebral
activity, then moral decisions may require physical or sensory connection to
the corporeal environment. In contrast, abstract thought structures operate in
isolation.
> Otherwise, of course, you'd better pay attention. In fact, you'd better
> pay attention regardless, because a lot of things that look irrational at
> first glance turn out to be adaptive for good reasons. (However, it does
> usually make sense to override emotions that appear to be adaptive for
> very clear evolutionary reasons that conflict with your own declared
> goals.)
Overriding emotions can be dangerous not only for the reasons you mention, but
also because the methodology involved in the override process can become
associated with pathological behavior. For example, repression of emotion for
the sake of misguided religious ideals can pervert healthy expression of
honest feelings. More drastic instances of dysfunction resulting from
overriding emotions have been mentioned by Richard Dawkins in his article
"Religion's Misguided Missiles."
--- --- --- --- ---
Useless hypotheses, etc.:
consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind, free will, qualia,
analog computing, cultural relativism, GAC, Cyc, Eliza, cryonics, individual
uniqueness, ego, human values, scientific relinquishment
We won't move into a better future until we debunk religiosity, the most
regressive force now operating in society.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:52 MDT