What makes us want, and why, and why not computers?

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by mashiaj

i think that the computers, robots will never be like the living beings because
the living beings are made in a manner that is beyond thought, the computers works in binary 01, our brains works inexactly 1.674573553745367354362434 emotions are inexact thoughts are exact.

They wont be "like" living being's, the would "be".

"Composed of thought"

Are we not?

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

.
Speaking of anthropomorphizing, does a bacterium that has turned to swim up-gradient toward a cellulose source "want" cellulose?

Is the notion 'want' simply an embellishment of the sense of purpose tiny things tend to permanently have? Have animals begun to evolve and reject this consistent revolution of purpose that carries the universe? The sloth or the unemployed TV addict - where is the purpose? Are we merely conglomerations of atoms having lots of fun with specified purpose, even capable of igniting metaphysical ideas as a purpose?

I would say to the first query that purpose is desirable, even necessary, yet for humans in society a purpose is often a great pleasure; although our purpose is essentially to exist, humans have managed to invent secondary purposes, like delusions of success among peers; however the lack of secondary purpose often defeats the ego into believing that the primary purpose is not worth the protein it was made from. Could one say that desire for hierarchical movement as a purpose is common among all things, even the very small things? So when something is conditioned it's position is subject to change, it could transform the impression it makes upon other things. Do atoms have ambitions? Or perceptive abilities? Surely they do, logically speaking they should be conscious, so perception is not out of the question.

Randomization of language might confuse the purpose, but deciphering the puzzle would be a purpose in itself. Sounds like a riddle. A fiddle! No it's horrible. Or incorrigible. Is that the end of the doodle?

Purpose it is! Everything has a purpose, people would appear to have many very confusing purposes - evolution has blessed people with ideals disguised by confusion - the smaller entities could also be utterly confused. Perhaps the bacterium is in a state of fusion, compelled by it's sense of purpose to fulfill the criteria arranged for it - of course there's the reward when it finds the cellulose, so is reward the reason for purpose or is reward an phenomenon that entities have succumbed or evolved to desire? In other words have the rewards always been at the pinnacle of a purpose, the entities becoming accustomed and addicted to the rewards, yet before the evolution there was indifference between the entity and it's reward.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

I would say to the first query that purpose is desirable, even necessary, yet for humans in society a purpose is often a great pleasure; although our purpose is essentially to exist, humans have managed to invent secondary purposes, like delusions of success among peers; however the lack of secondary purpose often defeats the ego into believing that the primary purpose is not worth the protein it was made from.

... I read in a book once that the contemporary denigration of teleology is misplaced - that Aristotle was right in the first place ... there is a Final Cause - life is it's own purpose ...

Originally Posted by Doobah47

Do atoms have ambitions? Or perceptive abilities? Surely they do, logically speaking they should be conscious, so perception is not out of the question.

... interesting question ... is life matter or process? ... if only the latter, can non-life have ambitions?

[dominant_monad]

I don't think something can have ambitions unless it's sentient and can represent those ambitions to itself in an abstract way. Otherwise it's simply reaction, or carrying out what has been built into it by evolution.

[boagie]

For computers not wanting, is it not the lack of innate need, anything that wants has a biological innate need, even desires serve this master of innate need.


"I don't think something can have ambitions unless it's sentient and can represent those ambitions to itself in an abstract way. Otherwise it's simply reaction, or carrying out what has been built into it by evolution."

Dominant Monad,

Why would the formation of abstract concepts constitute the ability to take action, these abstractions are still caused and their formation is reaction, the following behaviour whatever that might be, would still be reaction.

[dominant_monad]

Why would the formation of abstract concepts constitute the ability to take action, these abstractions are still caused and their formation is reaction, the following behaviour whatever that might be, would still be reaction

I didn't say specifically that, i was referring to "ambition" as someone above used it. "The ability to take action" is different from "ambition", as i understand it, ambition implies a desire to improve one's 'self', and you can't have ambition unless you first recognise you as your 'self'. Simply taking action can be reactionary, and occur without a sense of self.

But if you're point is about determinism, and that abstract thoughts themselves are caused, and therefore they count simply as reactions, then i agree, as i think determinism is near unescapable if physicalism is true, although that's not what i was meaning in that sentence above.

[Holiday20310401]

And then what causes ambition is what causes the self. Still back to square one. I'm still convinced that analog is an approach that neurons "link" as that gives the complexity for consciousness to arise.

Also, it has to do with processing, that perhaps relies in the analog. A computer will process information 0,1 as they flow through; but nothing else is processed outside of that. And 0,1's are only the input, at the instance of an input there can't be an output genereated at the same time, I think.

As humans we process what we perceive and perhaps we develop a sense of self, ambition, consciousness through the gathering of memory to create relative instances that can be compared to the perception being processed. When we look at a knife we give it potential, by not categorizing its properties like a computer; rather we relate its use that has benefitted us in memory, thus defining the knife. Its like relative instances; with the ability to relate back to memory already processed and the experience.

A computer experiences only the information coming in to be processed, not able to substantiate between relative experiences. It is programmed what experience has what potential. It has no emotion to give "intropsectral sustantiative potentials". lol.

[Binyamin Tsadik]

Computers don't want because they don't have any needs.

[Holiday20310401]

That doesn't make sense to me. Computers need to be able to function just as we do. If computers could recognize each other's needs then they would understand the need to function themselves. So the knowledge of the needs for the self is intrinsic to experiences one has with others who are the same. We cannot simply derive it from ourselves I guess, and then expect wants or desires to arise like that.

This is why I think the mind works analogically. Tricky!!!

[paulhanke]

... is it so much they don't have needs, or is it that they have needs but their software is completely unaware of those needs? ... there is a thrust area in the information technology industry to develop robust computer systems that do not only address typical functions that directly support human activity ... they are also aware of themselves and their environments and have control over themselves to the extent that they can be self-regulating, self-healing, self-etc. ... the buzzphrase for such systems is "autonomic computing", obviously inspired by the human autonomic system ... given that such computers are aware of their needs and are capable of taking steps to address those needs, can they in any primitive sense of the word "want"?