I was thinking about this yesterday in the context of simulated devices like my AI bots and there is a very large hole in the concept of instinctual reasoning that favors personal survival and the complete picture of a virtual entity or living being. I remember a quote from SNG where "Data" says that his neural circuits had become accustomed to someone's input. I guess this is something like I miss the presence of your experience. Or simply , I miss them. I have a great love for my siblings/friends/family and it is not often expressed, and this is one kind of love and certainly there is much more to this than some simple reactive process. This is where emergence meets the universe and though it can be a subject of discussion and many can have an opinion as to it's nature, the fact that it incorporates things which branch to virtual infinity like many emergences, makes it something that shall forever remain a mystery. The -complete- characterization of systems which are emergent is impossible. Some emergent systems do have very well defined states that will be established, and perhaps it will be possible for me to find a method to characterize them more fully. The mushroom and the genotype to phenotype are good examples of emergence and though it is a system of independent single cells, the result is very predictable. This does not mean that it is fully characterized, since almost any factor can lead to some states that defy prediction. I am reminded of experiments where spiders were exposed to LSD-25 and then observed to create webs. Even though under normal circumstances they would produce a web that could be easily predicted in form, once they were exposed to the psychoactive compound, the nature and complexity of their designs was different for the duration of that effect. The emergence that was common to that spider was likely the most effective solution in it's environment that could be achieved by evolutionary progress. It is possible that the random fluctuations in emergence could have produced a better design, but it would never be stable in a biological sense. I guess love is one of those categories that has too many things in it and needs to have more items added so it isn't so confusing to talk about. You know the person I am talking about, the one with a heart and brain. Yes that narrows it down a bit :)
Automated Intelligence
Auftrag der unendlichen LOL katzen
3 comments:
I occasionally have moments of clarity when I feel like I could eloquently elucidate love's simplicities and complexities; however, they are only fleeting glimpses that serve to remind me of love's delicacy, and the stark contrast between words and experience that prevents me from any real understanding.
Additionally, I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "emergence", so some points may have been lost on me.
This is a reference to the concept of emergence. It is certainly complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
I suppose the most interesting simple example there is the fact that a strip of paper can be twisted and connected producing a mobius strip and thus has a property that exists in the whole but not in the parts.
I suppose that like love it is only one facet that is glimpsed when dealing with things this complex.
Even with the strip of paper which is two sided , once connected becomes one sided.
I don't understand it completely myself.
Gotcha - thanks. Yes, now I understand a little better. Just by context, I had defined "emergence" as a sort of manifestation, but now see that the idea focuses more on the gap between what is controlled and predictable, and the actual outcome of the combination/interaction, which is often the opposite. And I think it's a great way to describe love. As you said, there are "too many things in it", most of which are different with each person, which increases exponentially as you consider the effect of different combinations of people who might interact.
Definitely fascinating stuff. :)
Post a Comment