[ExI] Why Emotion? Was Re: Unfriendly AI is a mistaken idea.

[Brent Allsop]

John K Clark asked:

"I've been asking this question for
years on this list but never
received an answer, if intelligent behavior is
possible without emotion then
why did Evolution invent emotion?"


“Why Emotions” or why did evolution come up with emotions is another 
topic I’d like to see canonized. I remember you bringing this up before. 
We’ve discussed this many times on this list. And I’ve attempted to 
answer this (or at least express my POV) at lest once before. But of 
course all the stuff lost in the archive evidently isn’t worth much 
right? So I guess we'll have to repeat this all yet again just like we 
did before? Do you think we'll make any progress this time around over 
last time?


John and A B seem to be in a similar camp on this, or at least have 
similar things to say.
Both of you indicated that there is a lower level of mechanical or 
replicator intelligence that doesn’t require emotions. But “survival and 
reproduction” requires, or at least is facilitated by emotions.

Lee says “It's evidently easier to retain an emotionally charged marker

for someone or something than to retain statistics.”

Stathis says: You could say the same thing about emotion and physical 
strength, but that doesn't mean we can't make a physically strong 
machine lacking either emotion or intelligence.

But my POV about most of the above is that none of this is in any way 
explanatory. It seems to just claim we can produce simple intelligence 
with computers today, so that kind of intelligence must not need 
emotions. We can’t yet produce the more advanced kinds of memory or 
motivated behavior, so it must be required for that. But there is no 
explanation in any of this, just pointing out this correlation which 
could be arbitrary.

Most of you know I believe nature has phenomenal properties – like red 
and green. And of course emotions are simply a complex phenomenal 
extensions of these more baser phenomenon. I think these phenomenal 
properties of nature are powerful building blocks of knowledge, 
conscious awareness, and motivation. There is no motivation in a 1 and 
zero, and it takes a whole lot of them to get anywhere close to the 
motivation and meaning contained in red and green.So, my POV is that 
nature has phenomenal properties, which are great and efficient building 
blocks for intelligence. So of course evolution would utilize these 
powerful phenomenal blocks to build motivated intelligence.


Also I believe purely abstract ones and zeros can model “emotional” 
behavior, so this is another reason I don’t like much of what has been 
said by others here. The key is efficiency. Like I said before it takes 
a lot of ones and zeros to represent a simple phenomenal hunger pang or 
orgasmic sex drive.


There is no fundamental meaning in a one or a zero. But red and green - 
now those do have real meaning and a reason, and a purpose – just like 
all more complex emotions. More of that is what we all really want, and 
evolution has used these phenomenal properties of nature as an efficient 
and easy carat (and stick) to get us to know and do what it wanted.

I probably haven't said this any better than last time. I seem to recall 
many of you disagreed with this POV. I can't really recall why, and I 
hope you don't expect me to dig up what you said last time out of the 
archives so I guess you'll all have to say it all yet again.

Brent Allsop