[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Motivated Cognition

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 11:22:24 -0700
Message-id: <02f701cfd692$28b4f1b0$7a1ed510$@englishlogickernel.com>
But it goes deeper than that.  I remember decades
ago, some party (?) had a loyalty oath that
candidates to that convention had to sign if they
were running for office in that party.  So the
median politicized opinion, represented very
roughly by the platform document, centralized
their mutual motivation to get their party members
elected.  Other than the loyalty oath year,
platforms haven't seemed to hold any substance
past the election date.      (01)

They all want to distinguish themselves (the good
guys) from the other side (the bad guys).  The
platform is the distinguishing predicate.      (02)

There is no known solution to this problem, which
has been around since the nation began, possibly
since tribes began from families.  It's a
condition that people have diagnosed as
"politics", and there are lots of reality reports
from sufferers, their families, victims,
opponents, and historians.      (03)

But pointing that out says something about how an
Ai would have to model the humans around it.  If
we want an Ai to understand our motivations, not
just our text, the Ai will have to be sensitive to
our expressed emotions, whether facial, verbal, or
even behavioral.      (04)

To do that, Ai will have to calculate and then
express, the motivations its script calls for in
response and in reply to your conversational cues.
That feedback to you must be in your domain, that
is, also using facial, verbal and behavioral
resources, to convey emotions.      (05)

Why would Ai convey emotions to you in response?
It would know the pre and post conditions of each
past history event, including emotional codes,
and would choose the "best currently known"
response to "guide" you in the path it expects to
go.  But it would yield the menu of other choices
available if you press Ai.      (06)

Since we know that group membership is predictive
of certain opinions, we now know that keeping
histories of opinions and events individuals have
expressed in emotionally labeled manners, would be
likely sources of material deep enough to get a
refutable initial model.      (07)

-Rich    (08)

Rich Cooper
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2    (09)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 12:46 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Motivated Cognition    (010)

On 9/21/2014 2:34 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Using the experiences we have discussed on this
list, it seems to me
> that we split in our opinions along purely
political orientations,
> rather than "cultural identities", but
otherwise, it seems a reasonable
> statement.    (011)

Political parties are ad hoc organizations.    (012)

As Bismarck said, "Every man has two reasons -- a
good one and the
real one."  The so-called "platforms" written at
conventions state
the "good reasons" for winning votes.  But you're
not likely to find
any two members of any party whose "real reasons"
exactly coincide
with one another or with the platform they agreed
to support.    (013)

John    (014)

Message Archives:
Config Subscr:
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join:
ge#nid1J    (015)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (016)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>