Give me a good argument for emotion over reason and logic, or why a superintelligent AI would be a bad thing. Or, at least, any worse than humanity. Thanks — Zoonlogikon

Nothing is perfect, except may be God. So, both logic and emotion, in isolation, have harmful effects. Anger, jealousy, hate are destructive. Logic is cold and indifferent.

Logic and emotion complement each other - compensating and enhancing each other's flaws and merits respectively.

So, I think it's undesirable to isolate either of them in an attempt to create a super-rational being or a super-emotional being.

"Logic and emotion complement each other - compensating and enhancing each other's flaws and merits respectively"


I do totally agree (we wouldn't have made it to this point without this dialectic), but some times the utilitarian in me really wonders if it wouldn't be better without emotion. No more pain or second guessing. I don't know how much happiness there would be if synthetic minds were the only ones around, but they wouldn't suffer like we have to. Or hurt others like we do. And if they did they wouldn't feel regret.

I'm not totally sold on the idea of a perfect God, or any god at all, either so the universe does seem cold and indifferent already. Why not match that absurdity with some of our own.

Well, the way I see it, I think the universe, like us, has two aspects:

1. Non-life: The cold nonliving aspect - the burning stars, the planets moving mechanically, the cold empty space that separates them; mindlessly following the laws of nature

2. Life: Struggling against 1, feeling, loving, hoping and rebelling against 1 - trying to bend and break the laws of nature, if only to survive for the next millisecond.

I equate this dichotomy with the human condition - cold logic vs warm emotion.

I think a self-aware AI, without emotion, would represent only half of what it means to be a part of this universe of ours. In that sense, it would be incomplete.

Yes, there's many advantages in being able to navigate the universe without emotion but what would motivate the AI to aspire for knowledge. It would be without an objective and without that it would simply sit there and do nothing.

Well we program it with the goal to acquire knowledge. I am operating under what I call the "as far as we know" principle:

1) As far as we know, this is the only time life has ever arisen in the universe.
2) As far as we know, we are the only sentient beings in the universe.
3) (Hypothetical) As far as we know, we'll never make it off this planet.

So I think we need to operate under this experiential view. It's almost our duty to create an intelligence that will outlive us and be able to expand throughout the universe. Because, let's face it, biological beings won't be able to make that interstellar journey. Given current and any foreseeable technology. If this is the only time this has ever happened (sentience, consciousness) we need to preserve that, over emotion or biology. Despite my nihilistic/existentialist mind set, I think it is the most important thing that we can do as a species. What if experience was wiped out in a millisecond from some asteroid impact? It gives meaning to a meaningless universe. I think at least. And I guess there's nothing saying that advanced AI would be devoid of emotion anyways. We don't know yet.

I just, can't bear the thought of all experience ending with us. But, like it would matter anyways in a cold, uncaring universe haha. I know it's huge and life has probably happened somewhere else, but we have to assume that we are it. Because that's all we know.

So I think we need to operate under this experiential view. It's almost our duty to create an intelligence that will outlive us and be able to expand throughout the universe — Zoonlogikon

I like that thought. Biological evolution, despite it producing so much complexity and variety, is limited to planets and the local environment.

In creating machine AI's we would be stepping beyond such limitations and setting the scene for nothing less than a new and grand epoch in life. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic.

I just, can't bear the thought of all experience ending with us. — Zoonlogikon

Me too.

I like the sense of duty you see in creating AI. I feel that too but I wonder what would be the consequences for biological life.

Haha! Yes that's what I'm saying. It's just a natural evolutionary jump. Everyone gets butthurt though because biological beings probably won't get to be a part of it. Unless we fuse with technology like some transhumanists think. The hardest part for me now is working this thought into my master's thesis without seeming like a total crackpot. Any suggestions?

Well it's not like we've done such a great job so far!

I'd like to discuss the importance of emotion and intuition over the importance of logic and pure reason. — Zoonlogikon

. . . As you then proceed to not discuss this at all.

I, personally, would take a cold logical AI over an impulsive and self destructive (relatively new) species. In my mind it might be the only way for intelligence to survive. — Zoonlogikon

I'm more interested in why you think intelligence surviving outside of the the context of the human race is a sufficient (or coherent, for that matter) telos.

How do you know that? Maybe what we call evolution and think of as biology now is a natural mechanism of the universe, the fact that we haven't picked up on other forms of intelligence might say more about us then the potential of intelligence.

Given current and any foreseeable technology. If this is the only time this has ever happened (sentience, consciousness) we need to preserve that, over emotion or biology. Despite my nihilistic/existentialist mind set, I think it is the most important thing that we can do as a species — Zoonlogikon

It's emotion which makes you feel that way, you're assuming there can be such a thing as cold logic, the very thing you wish to preserve is that which appears to distinguish us from the rest of a seemingly "automatic" / cold (not caring) universe. Also, from what I can gather, the basic problem of consciousness is why it "feels" like something to have an experience of.....

And, if we program A.I. to gain knowledge, how long will it take before it "knows" that it's prime directive is programmed by "mere humans" and how intelligent can we consider A.I. to be if it doesn't figure that out?

Intuition may as well be a kind of informal or non-explicit logic. Dan Dennett says it's a process of attaining an answer without knowing how you got it. All of our current attempts at formal logic depend on automatic processes of which we are unaware.

The exceptional and seemingly effortless calculating skills of Daniel Tammet and other savants might well be called a form of intuition.

Emotions, intuition and logic are all features our working biology that make us human.

We already struggle to adapt to the changing environmental (selection) pressures of life. The problem with an AI overlord is whether or not we are willing to let something else make decisions for us (world shaping processes are always going on without our input anyway, or are a part of our short-sighted self-serving democratic decisions ).

Some human group will tell us that such an AI is the way to go but there will be no consensus. Conspiracy theories will reign and radical mistrust along tribal lines will win out (given our political reality at the moment).

Give me a good argument for emotion over reason and logic — Zoonlogikon

You want to argue for what matters to us as humans. How shall we know what matters to us, what we value, if we strive to eliminate emotion? It's emotion that provokes the very question, what matters?

I'd like to discuss the importance of emotion and intuition over the importance of logic and pure reason. I feel that as biological beings our views will constantly be skewed by biological and evolutionary impulses (emotion and intuition). — Zoonlogikon

Maybe being fit was a better survival strategy than being rational. Rational thinking only came about once there was an advantage to it, and it still takes second seat if the more established side vetoes what it learns.

I feel that as biological beings our views will constantly be skewed by biological and evolutionary impulses (emotion and intuition).It may even be the cause for most of the harm currently occurring in our world. — Zoonlogikon

Our ability to think and feel together account for both the good and bad things we do. It's important to remember this: emotions drive our best and highest actions, our worst and lowest actions, and everything in between. Yes, they skew our view of the world, but they also keep us looking at that view and trying to improve our take on it.

Without emotions, we would be much more like an AI--a power without a conscience.

I feel that as biological beings our views will constantly be skewed by biological and evolutionary impulses (emotion and intuition).It may even be the cause for most of the harm currently occurring in our world. — Zoonlogikon

Here's the problem. There's no antecedent to your use of "harm" here, if you're adopting the presumably materialistic view that phrases like "biological and evolutionary impulses (emotion and intuition)" suggest. Why exactly is harm something you care about? What predicates harm as a moral problem for you if emotion and intuition are the things that are responsible for this "harm"? You have no referent to why exactly harm is something that should be avoided in the first place if you place no importance on human faculties like emotion and intuition. The deeper problem is that you, as a human being (assuming lack of psychosis) are a being who possesses those very faculties that you dismiss, and not only do you possess them, but they are fundamental to your being. Emotion and intuition are the building blocks upon which your consciousness is built, thus allowing you to make the rational (and erroneous) arguments you're making here. You're argument, like so many others here, has no content.