Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 4 Issue 073
AIList Digest Wednesday, 9 Apr 1986 Volume 4 : Issue 73
Today's Topics:
Psychology - Survival Instinct & Emotions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 86 10:23:18 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!ll-xn
!mit-amt!mit-eddie!psi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
Hi:
Before the recent tragedy, there had been a number of
instances where the space shuttle computers aborted the mission in the
final seconds before launch. My explanation for this was that the
on-board computers were displaying a form of 'programmed survival
instinct.' In short: they were programmed to survive, and if the
launch had continued, they might not have.
Almost everyone I told explained this to back then was
incredulous. "You don't actually _believe_ that the computer wanted
to survive, do you?" was a typical comment. I feel this brings out an
important point, though, which deals with simulation, feelings, and
our understanding of The Real Thing.
On a computer, simulating an event and the actual event may be
indistinguishable. (This does not mean, as one of my friends
believed, that in a computer simulation of a hurricane, the simulated
victims of the storm would be rained upon by square-root symbols.;-))
For example, if a computer can run programs in the language Lisp and
we then write a simulator for the language CLU in Lisp, then the
computer can actually run programs in CLU.
Now, what does this mean for feelings? Well, I won't go that
far, but I would assert that a 'survival instinct' is a much simpler
thing that can be simulated on a computer. The space shuttle
computers could be thought of as programmed to survive, in just the
same way that evolution has programmed animals to survive. No
consciousness is necessary(yet), just a goal and a means to that goal.
It should be noted that the means of continuing survival available to
the space shuttle computers are very minimal right now, but even
animals must draw upon a limited set of defenses in order to survive.
The successes in AI so far have been in very restricted areas,
to say the least. Certain well-understood human abilities have been
simulated on computers. Where the ability is less understood, like
that of a chess master, the simulation breaks down. Where something
such as 'survival' may be understood, I challenge anyone to come up
with a generalized theory of 'feelings.'
A final point: whenever we understand something, it loses its
magical properties for us. If, for example, we observe the complex
behavior of some program, we may be amazed. When we look at the
sources and see how it works, however, we will probably feel that
there really is no magic there, and that we could have written the
program ourselves. The same could be true of parts of the mind
which we understand. The simpler facilities, like an instinct to
survive may seem obvious, while others, such as the feeling of love
may yet seem mystical. Maybe someday we will come to understand even
that and be able to program it into computers.
Ultimately Yours,
Joseph J. Mankoski ***PSI***
{decvax!genrad, allegra, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!psi
psi@mit-ai.ARPA
In the fullness of time even parallel lines will meet.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 86 20:43:57 GMT
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!venu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Venugopala
R. Dasigi)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
In article <1439@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> psi@mit-eddie.UUCP writes:
>thing that can be simulated on a computer. The space shuttle
>computers could be thought of as programmed to survive, in just the
>same way that evolution has programmed animals to survive. No
>consciousness is necessary(yet), just a goal and a means to that goal.
>It should be noted that the means of continuing survival available to
>the space shuttle computers are very minimal right now, but even
>animals must draw upon a limited set of defenses in order to survive.
To me it appears that the ability to dynamically redefine the goal in a
context-sensitive manner is also an important characteristic of the
"survival instinct". While animals seem to have this ability, programming
this ability into computers (in the same sense as in the case of animals) is
perhaps very difficult.
--- Venu
Venugopala Rao Dasigi
UUCP : {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!venu
CSNet : venu@umcp-cs
ARPA : venu@mimsy.umd.edu
US Mail: Dept. of CS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park MD 20742.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Apr 86 03:15:06 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester
!rocksanne!sunybcs!ellie!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: survival instinct
It depends on what you mean by "wanted." Even rocks are programmed to
survive--they're hard. (The soft ones become dirt: survival of the fittest!)
"This rock, for instance, has an I.Q. of zero. Ouch!"
"What's the matter, Professor?"
"It bit me!"
Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva
------------------------------
Date: 5 Apr 86 13:51:18 GMT
From: ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (B.KORT)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
Joseph Mankoski writes a thought provoking article on whether
survival logic in NASA computers has any connection to human
survival instincts wired into to our brains from birth.
I have been pondering this question myself. It seems to me
that I have some autonomic responses to threat situations
which appeear to be wired-in instincts. I note that I don't rely
on them often. Most times, I rely on learned behavior to handle
situations which might have called for fight/flight/freeze if
I were living as a hunter-gatherer on the Savannahs some 20,000
years ago.
Joseph asks for a theory of feelings. As it happens, I just wrote
a brief article on the subject, which may or may not be suitable
for publication after editorial comment and revision. Just for
the hell of it, let me append the article and solicit comments
from netters interested in this topic.
==================== Article on Feelings ========================
A Simplified Model of the Effects of Perceived Aggression
in the Work Environment
Barry Kort
Copyright 1986
Introduction
The work environment offers a mix of personalities. In this
paper, I would like to examine the effects of one dimension
along which personalities are perceived to differ, and trace
the consequential effects. I would like to focus attention
on the dimension
aggressive...assertive...politic...nonassertive...nonaggressive.
The effects that I wish to investigate are not the
behavioral responses, but the more fundamental internal body
sensations or somatic reactions which lie behind the
subsequent behavioral response. The goal of this
investigation is to discover the biological roots of somatic
reactions to stressors in the work environment, and develop
a useful model of the underlying dynamics. I make no claims
that the model constructed here is complete or
comprehensive. To do so is beyond my ken. Rather, I have
attempted to construct a first crude model, which despite
it's simplicity, can be advantageously applied to ameliorate
a few of the ills that we encounter in the work environment.
A Model of Nature of Aggressive Behavior
It has been said that civilization is a thin veneer.
Underneath our legacy of some 5000 years of civilization
lies our evolutionary past. Deep within the human brain one
can find the vestiges of our animal nature-the old mammalian
brain, the old reptilian brain. Of principal interest here
are two groups of structures responsible for much of our
"wired-in" instincts.
The cerebellum is responsible for much of our risk-taking,
self-gratifying drives, including the aggressive sex drives.
It is the cerebellum that says, "Go for it! This could be
exciting! Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."
The limbic system, on the other hand, is responsible for
self-protective behaviors. The limbic system perceives the
threats to one's safety or well-being, and initiates
protective or counter measures. The limbic system says,
"Hold it! This could be dangerous! We'd better go slow and
avoid those torpedoes."
Rising above it all resides the neocortex or cerebrum. This
is the "new brain" of homo sapiens which is the seat of
learning and intelligence. It is the part that gains
knowledge of cause and effect patterns, and overrules the
myopic attitude of the cerebellum and limbic system.
Occasionally, the cerebral cortex is faced with a novel
situation, where past experience and learning fail to
provide adequate instruction in how to proceed. In that
case, the usual patterns of regulation are ineffective,
and the behavioral response may revert back to the more
primitive instincts.
Whether or not the cerebral cortex carries the day, the
messages of the cerebellum and limbic system ricochet
through the nervous system, leaving their signature here and
there. In the next section, we explore how these messages
manifest themselves in somatic sensations, commonly known as
feelings.
Somatic Reactions to Stress
When an individual is presented with an unusual situation,
the lack of an immediately obvious method of dealing with it
may lead to an accumulation of stress which manifests itself
somatically. For instance, first-time jitters may show up
as a knotting of the stomach (butterflies), signaling fear
(of failure). A perceived threat may cause increased heart
rate, sweating, or a tightening of the skin on the back of
the neck. (This latter phenomenon is commonly known as
"raising of one's hackles," which in birds, causes the
feathers to stand up in display mode, warning off the
threatening invader.) Teeth clenching, which comes from
repressing the urge to express anger, leads to a common
affliction among adult males-temporal mandibular joint
(TMJ). Leg shaking and pacing indicate a subliminal urge to
flee, while cold feet corresponds to frozen terror (playing
'possum). All of these are variations on the
fight/flight/freeze instincts mediated by the limbic system.
They often occur without our conscious awareness. Another
reaction is migraine headaches which arise when one is vexed
by the situation at hand, and is searching without success
for a rational solution. A person's awareness of and
sensitivity to such somatic feelings may affect his mode of
expression. The somasthetic cortex is the portion of the
brain where the body stresses are registered, and this
sensation may be the primary indication that a stressor is
present in the environment. A challenge for every
individual is to accurately identify which environmental
stimulus is linked to which somatic response.
Somatic responses such as those outlined above are
intimately connected with our expressed feelings, which
usually are translated into some behavioral response along
the axis from aggressive to assertive to politic to
nonassertive to nonaggresive. The challenge is to find and
effectuate the middle ground between too much communication
and too little. The goal of the communication is to
identify the cause and effect link between the environmental
stressor and the somatic reaction, and from the somatic
reaction to the behavioral response. The challenge is all
the more difficult because the most effective mode and
intensity of the communication depends on the maturity of
the other party.
Acknowledgements
The original sources for the ideas assembled in this paper
are too diffuse to pinpoint with completeness or precision.
However, I would like to acknowledge the influence of so
many of my colleagues who took the time to contribute their
ideas and experiences on the subject matter. I especially
would like to thank Dr. John Karlin, Dr. R. Isaac Evan, and
Dr. Laura Rogers who helped me shape and test the models
presented here.
=========================================================================
Comments are invited.
--Barry Kort ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
