Subject: AIList Digest V4 #73

From: vtcs1::bitnet% (AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 86 15:42:45 est

Received: From WISCVM(SMTPUSR1) by VTCS1 with RSCS id 3889
          for FOX@VTCS1; Thu, 17-APR-1986 15:44 EST
Received: from SRI-AI.ARPA by wiscvm.wisc.edu on 04/17/86 at 09:42:11 CST
Mail-From: LAWS created at  8-Apr-86 22:17:45
Date: Tue  8 Apr 1986 22:14-PST
From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI>
Reply-to: AIList@SRI-AI
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V4 #73
To: AIList@SRI-AI
ReSent-date: Wed 16 Apr 86 21:55:15-PST
ReSent-From: Ken Laws <[email-masked]>
ReSent-To: [email-masked]

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
      [email-masked]
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
                                [email-masked]
     
        In the fullness of time even parallel lines will meet.
     
------------------------------
     
Date: 3 Apr 86 20:43:57 GMT
From: [email-masked]  (Venugopala
      R. Dasigi)
Subject: Re: Computer Dialogue
     
In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] 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   : [email-masked]
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
      [email-masked]
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: [email-masked] (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
********************