Lukasz Lazarz Emotions Worth Good Beauty

LLazarz emotions worth good beauty

Instead of usual txt hereby I attach a presentation aiming at throwing light on crucial concepts of Emotions, Worth, Good, Beauty (till now reserved for old fashioned philosophy) from point of contact of AI and cognitive psychology (cognitive architectures). In the first pages I put the plan of presentation which might be helpful in understanding of the particular slides. LL.

2 Comments to “Lukasz Lazarz Emotions Worth Good Beauty”

  1. 1. Summary:
    a. It is not easy to make a summary of ppt presentation which in fact is a summary itself. Nevertheless from the boxes and arrows I try to decode the main thesis of the supposed lecture.
    b. As Lukas accurately presumed the most helpful are the first three slides, wherein he presents his general intentions. So it goes like this:
    c. He generally maintain that the cognitive sciences have the growing impact on various other sciences;
    d. Then he claims that the neuroscience is useful but not enough. It is overestimated as the sole source of cognitive science (?)
    e. Then we are supposed to learn something about the AGI perspective of human nature, and in this background, to understand the integration of theories of emotions /needs (various) with the cognitive architectures. This perspective of human nature can be decoded upon the slides. Not surprisingly that nature is reduced to needs which are set in certain order / hierarchy (according to Maslov) and which are (as I guess) quantifiable what let them be introduced to the utility function. More problems I have with the decoding the objective of emotions. They are described as being connected with “appraisal”. The “appraisal” itself looks like a tool which enhance the human ability to accurately assess the situation and choose the most appropriate action. But the issue requires further clarification.
    f. At the end we meet the final conclusion. The description on the slide No 4 under the title “Implications” is incomprehensible. I can understand the particular sentences but I can’t understand the general sense. Particularly I can’t understand why the naturalistic fallacy by Moore is mentioned here (?). However the final conclusion on one of the latest slides is readable. We learn that Good and Beauty is reduced to Worth and Worth is in fact reduced to utility, calculated according to the utility function.
    2. Remarks
    a. First and foremost: Lukas, I am sorry for the critique expressed below. I like your presentation form the “esthetic” point of view. It looks impressive. It makes all of that stuff which I can hardly handle while preparing the ppt files. However I don’t think that it is a good tool to present quite complex ideas. It may be, that some of my tough words are the consequence of my poor understanding of all of those boxes, arrows and motion pictures.
    b. Most of the readers know my general opposition towards the concept of AGI. Just to remind you briefly: I like the computational concept of human mind and I find it even plausible. I like also many of the theoretical proposals of psychology (folk psychology dated back even to 50’s – like Maslov). I think they improve our understanding of human behavior. I don’t accept however the mixture of computational theories with the folk psychology and especially I can’t accept the use of utility function (dated back to 19th century) which in my opinion has been proved to be false by the set of experiments.
    c. Because of that unfriendly attitude I’d better focus on the formal aspects of the commented presentation – its clarity, originality and structure. From this point of view I’d say that the presentation is relatively clear until it reaches its main topic: the concept of Worth, Good and Beauty. In other words we can quite easily decode the main thoughts of the author regarding the AGI and its integration with the certain theory of needs. As I wrote above, unclear is the concept of emotions and its function and respectively the said integration of theory of emotions is also incomprehensible. Incomprehensible is the problem of emotions itself. We don’t even know what problem is being set.
    d. The most important issue (Worth, Good and Beauty) is treated by the author badly. There are only one slide about that, upon which I have formulated my judgment of reduction i.e. that the said ideas has been reduced to needs. However I am not even sure if my interpretation is correct. In other words the reader can learn very little upon that slide. W don’t know what meanings have those words (Worth, Good and Beauty), do they have any ontological status or are they only the projections of our mind?
    e. However if my interpretation is correct then, the whole idea of reduction is trivial. In light of the AGI theory one could hardly expect anything different. To make that idea more interesting one have to learn more about the mechanism of reductions which is supposed to be behind. Why we use those misconcepts? What functions do they have even if they are only needs – in other words why they evolved? What arguments do we have to support that reductions except the pure theory (do we have any?).
    f. At the end: My knowledge of English is not good enough to correct the spelling and grammar errors however there are plenty of them, and the presentation definitely requires the editors correction if it is going to presented anywhere.

  2. Thanks Marcin for reading it. However, frankly speaking, I do not know what to answer on your critics. As regards formal ppt comments, thanks for appreciation. As regards linguistic comments – it has been done orginally in Polish for purposes of CogSci conference in Poznan. English version has been done for purposes of this blog – as we agreed.

    The reason why we can not argue about this presentation because all discussion would concern (as always) the problem of reduction, which in fact, for me is not a problem at all. Reffering to one of your comments why the problem of naturalistic fallacy is raised – it is raised because of potential arguments of anynaturalists. I wanted to show it is a pseudo problem like many many others existing in traditional philosophy.

    I know it was the summary itself, – so I am not suprised with fact that for sb who is not deeply interested in such approach it is hard to understand the content. I have not prepared the paper yet due to lack of time , however i will try to do that soon.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: