Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel-eecis!gatech!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Emotional computers
Message-ID: <jqbE43Gtx.FFA@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <32DBBF95.64C0@esumail.emporia.edu> <5bgeab$o2n@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> <32DCCC23.41C6@cs.bham.ac.uk> <staring-1501970853160001@smisch.tiac.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:25:09 GMT
Lines: 29
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:43512 comp.ai.philosophy:51105 sci.cognitive:14476

In article <staring-1501970853160001@smisch.tiac.net>,
Samson <staring@my.screen> wrote:
>In article <32DCCC23.41C6@cs.bham.ac.uk>, Ian P Wright <ipw@cs.bham.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> However, we can say that this simple hypothetical Brooksian robot, or
>> MINDER1, exhibits interruption of resource-bound attentive processing
>> when new contingencies are detected, in the same way that a person
>> may suddenly swerve their car in order to avoid a child in the road
>> (i.e. their current processing  was interrupted due to a new contingency
>> and a new goal of avoiding the child speedily adopted).
>
>As anyone who has nearly had a collision or neary walked off a cliff
>knows, the emotional response comes after -- not before -- the system
>interrupts its resource-bound processing. How does MINDER1 behave _after_
>it avoids destruction?
>
>Of course, I can't see why anyone would _want_ a robot that starts shaking
>and sweating after all danger has passed.

And I can't see why anyone would want to present an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
The fright/fight/flight mechanisms resulting from evolution are rather
effective; mere failure to understand them does not make them inappropriate.
But some insight might be derived from the fact that a race car does not
stop short the moment it crosses the finish line, nor does it cease to
"uselessly" dissipate heat.
-- 
<J Q B>

