I really fail to see your point, well, other than distinguishing the line
between robot and something else. Regardless, emotions are really the root
of very few human mistakes, that is, as you said, intuition, a very
different animal all together from most definitions of emotion. Intuition
is merely an extension of the one thing our brains do well, patern
recognition, it's what we're wired for, and the whole point in neural nets
in computing. Because we base things off of patern recognition, and not
actual computing, we'll recognize paterns that aren't truly there,
computers/robots that use techniques of patern recognition are already as
faulty as human intuition makes us, if not more. Take those scrambled
letters many websites use to verify you aren't a bot.... Computers can
already identify letters easily enough, but once a an N is tilted, and has a
thin extra lin though it, the computer, prone to inaccuracy in its patern
recognition believes it to be an "a" just as a human may believe 3 + 4 is 12
for a brief moment based upon past experience when they glanced at those
numbers.
Emotion, is distinct from intuition in its very nature, though simulating it
in the truest sense would be difficult because it is largely a physical
sensation, and thus anything that would experince emotions in the way
humans, or at least animals experience emotions, would need some sense of a
range of physical sensations. That said, the other part of emotion, is a
thought process, I'm listing this second because it is almost peripheral to
the experience of an emotion, when you're angry, you think a certain way,
but nothing keeps you from stopping thinking that way simply by your own
force of will. Nothing keeps you from accurately doing complex math if you
really want to while you're feeling a strong emotion, and if you really want
to do it and concentrate on it, you're not any more prone to errors than
normal. Furthermore, emotions can freely begin and end with simple thoughts
in humans, often one's spouse will make one angry, and then calm them with a
single action that triggers a thought of love for the spouse, and as such,
if someone knows how to control their emotions, they can remain unaffected
by them as they do any precise work. I see no reason machines would lack
these abilities had they emotions.
This of course, is speaking of emotions as we experience them however,
artificial emotion is mostly reffered to as an something not within an
entity that also contains artificial inteligence (or they'd be lumped into
inteligence, as emotions are part of the behavior of all sentient beings we
know of.) This doesn't really necisarily have any concequence from the
earlier mentioend elements, because it is just that, artificial, not
experienced in a true manner, and thus, not the same thing as the emotions
of a sentient being. As the purpose of artificial emotion is mostly human
interaction, the emotions would likely be exagerated, but only to the extent
desired by the creator of that system. It's likely that some simulations of
emotions would lose precision, in other tasks, but this would be by design,
so that humans involved would notice the emotion, and as such it would be
ultimately preforming its designed task with precision.
</rant>
On 9/29/06, rAgAv < ragav.pa...@googlemail.com > wrote:
> According to me, the more the emotions the less will be the precision.
> Emotions = K/precision ; 'K' is a constant
> Therefore, robots with emotions are 'robots' no more; as they will
> behave quite like humans. They will *believe* in intiutions and make
> mistakes. Mistakes which they would'nt do, if they knew they were
> mistakes.
> Thanks in advance,
> rAgAv.
--
IM me or something!:
http://widget.meebo.com/mm.swf?kJzCwbxuiE
|
