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

[Holiday20310401]

Why do we want, is it because we have values? What gives us the ability to want or distinguish values?

In relation to a computer how do we know that a computer doesn't 'want' anything? Obviously it doesn't but does this imply that 'wanting' relies on the conscience?

If we never had the self awareness or instinct for survival would we want anything? Is all virtue derived from instincts in our DNA that indirectly lead us to 'want'.

Note: "want" = prefer, desire, etc.

I know that I crave a food perhaps because I remember what it tastes like and decided I like it instinctively, I react to the desire for food.

A computer does not 'prefer', or 'rather accept'; it will either be true or false, based on positive and negative. Binary: 00010010 = a value

0 (2^1)
1 (2^2)
0 (2^3)
0 (2^4)
1 (2^5)
0 (2^6)
0 (2^7)
0 (2^8) Therefore 00010010 is a value of 36.

If value matches then true, if not then false, right?. If two values were tried as inputs, say 30 and 14, There is no depiction between what the true value of those values are relative to the value wanted (36). An analog perspective would be able to perceive 30 as closer to 14 so if in this situation 30 was comparable to 36 as relative to 14 as less comparable to 36 then 30 would be what the computer would want more (except thats not the case). Perhaps, because there is a need for relative comparison, the only possible way do that is to process 'potential'. What I mean is a knowledge of the future to know what potential the values have in the future.

In a digital sense a potential value is only comparable to the present, meaning the single instance, or single value that corresponds to the value tried to be inputted.
In an analog sense a potential value always has value relative to the exact value needed (36 in this example). In order for this situation to work the potential value needs the potential of relativity, not just the potential of true and false.
Relativity requires memory yes, but also the ability to emphasize memory as projections to the future. True and false would only require memory to store the code and act upon it.

Any insights to help me figure this out?

[Zetetic11235]

Perhapse consider the food a pointer to the data stored inreguards to the food and what you have experienced of the food. Consider a data bank containing all experienced things and place the parameter of either needing food to accomplish an order sent by receptors in the stomache or by the pleasure receptors in the brain. Say that need and pleasure are true and unpleasant options are false when both are present. Then enter in the health value and consequences of consumption. It is all maximization based on sense data to the best organizational ability of the mind. When two people with the same need crave different things, it is due to incomplete information on both parts in regards to maximal benefit. If one craves a food which is unhealthy but stimulates the pleasure center of the brain, the known disadvantges of ingestion may or may not outwiegh the advantages or in this case compulsion. Also, you must remember that although nuerons are functionally binary, that is fireing or not fireing, they are multi directional and work in n-ary space. A neuron can fire in any or multiple directions to multiple destinations. The human memory affects the path of maximal benefit and makes it less clear. The human mind is no less that one hundred times more complex than the most sophisticated supercomputer due to the method of organization and networking neurons have.

[paulhanke]

... hmmmmmmmmmm ... my Windows PC hacks up hairballs all the time - does that mean that it doesn't "want" me touching its keyboard in a certain way? ... or am I anthropomorphizing?

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

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

Circling back around to the third part of your question, is a computer simulation of consciousness itself conscious?

Getting back to the first part of your question, if we knew enough to construct a computer simulation of consciousness, would we by definition know what makes us want and why?

And at the end of this tortuous circle, have I answered your question? No - but that's not for lack of "wanting" to!

[Holiday20310401]

What would make a computer be able to want. See, I believe that an analog set up gives us the abililty to want in a self aware perspective.

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

What would make a computer be able to want. See, I believe that an analog set up gives us the abililty to want in a self aware perspective.

... so then an analogue computer (Analog computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) has more chance of being self-aware than a digital computer? ... I dunno - maybe I'm short-sighted, but I just have a hard time attributing something as alive as "self awareness" to something as material as the computing substrate ... I'm more of an "organization" and "process" thinker, myself ... to-date, things engineered by humans are too organizationally and processually simple - too linear - to ever be considered alive, let alone self-aware ... that isn't to say that all things created by humans are that way, too - after all, isn't human culture a human creation?

[mashiaj]

if the computers evolved from natural selection maybe.

[YoungButWise]

Us human beings want and choose thing because of one thing, Greed. One of the seven deadly sins. Every human is born to want things to desire. Computers are not capable because they do not have a brain or animal instinct. Therefore, Because of our animal instinct we have greed and therefore want and choose rather than decide.

[Holiday20310401]

But could you not hardwire a computer to simulate the the emotions of greed. I think what we are getting at is intentions, and how a computer has no connection between intentions and self benefit.

When cognating the intentions there is no input towards what matters of its self, which in turn relies on a self awareness, which relies upon emotions which can cause greed. The only input is the binary, the only info. taken into account is the info, being processed in the instance of processing. The information being processed does not link to any other information in a deterministic way, defined through the being itself. That sorty of thing is programmed.

[dominant_monad]

nice posts.. i think you're hitting on it holiday, intentions require a sense of self, and computers lack that sense of self. It's my personal belief that a human's sense of self is also just an illusion, made up of complex neurological processes, giving the illusion of 'self' vs. 'other'. I believe that babies are not born like this (can you remember wanting something at the age of 2 weeks?), and that as we grow up, we develop a sense of self over and above our base reactionary needs.

Anyway holiday have you looked into machine-state functionalism? there are lots and lots of arguments that the mind is or isn't like a computer.. the biggest problem for machine-state functionalism (and functionalism in general) is called 'liberalism' (as the word is normally used in Phil of Mind). That is, if you say that the mind is like a machine, then you also say that machines have a mind. Does your toaster also have a mind? if not, (like we already said above), where do you draw the line? The other big problem is that of 'qualia'. Does a computer feel pain? Can that subjective qualitative feeling of being alive translate to a deterministic machine-mind?

Your original question: What makes us want, and why, and why not computers? is the central problem of the Phil of mind. What makes us different from the other forms of complex mechanics that we've seen to date? Where is that spark of life? of consciousness? How does that happen? I don't think any of us can answer that, but it's good to argue about it.

Links you might find useful:
MindPapers: 4.3c. Machine Functionalism

[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.