Friday, 10 October 2008

  • Cameron and John Connor sitting in a temporal tree...

     
    Intro:

    At first I was put off by the robo-love element present in the television series, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, even if I don't see anything conceptually wrong with the idea of robots in love.  Just because some bit of entertainment happens to fall into the realm of where my belief system is comfortable doesn't mean it will be portrayed well or still partake of various modern superstitions to appease ignorant audience sensibilities. 



    One of the things that potentially doesn't make sense is why Cameron would even be in love.  She may be able to simulate emotional responses and even have a sophisticated emotional program to work with in order to do it, but it doesn't follow that it has to be "on" all the time.  One of the benefits of being a simulated person is you can turn your feelings on and off at will.  Its a lot like the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind idea, but automatic.  No paperwork required.  You aren't stuck in the grind for the most part like we are.  This problem seems to be resolved in that Cameron isn't completely restrained by command prompts like other terminators.  She's curious and apparently sophisticated enough that random things can entertain her attention and no one has to tell her to "go at it."  It appears that's what they are setting up in the episode "Mouse Trap."

    As a tangent, it doesn't even make a lot of sense that a sophisticated computer brain could be set to "read only" as in the Special Edition of T2 where they actually have to flip a switch to let Arnold "learn."  How could it even function without learning anything?  John Conner goes around a corner...what was I doing again?   And if it was absolute you couldn't even get there.  That's no longer an action movie, that's an "Ask a Terminator" hot line.  I can only assume with a little interpretative charity that there were tiers of learning and Arnold was speaking of the most fundamental level where important decisions could be adjusted.  Naturally this is fiction, so it really doesn't matter.

    Then there's the delicate balance between being an amoral A to B killing machine that is used to getting what it wants and the innocence that goes along with not knowing any better.  Cameron could turn out to be a real conniving bitch and an even worse ex-girlfriend to the extreme if things don't work out with her first tawoo wuv.  lol  Be careful, John.  But then again, options like this might be available:

    John:  "I order you to not love me anymore."

    Cameron:  "Okay."

    Whew...  Anyway, emotional "propositions" are not binary (love, jealousy, and hate, for instance).  Each one has a dynamic fuzzy "curve" to it that allows the same feeling to have many different orientations depending on many complicated contextual factors.  How strong is the feeling?  How long has it been there?  How many situations has it been exposed to?  How often is it accessed?  How much does it influence?  What is it connected to or associated with most in the experiential world?  If you just say, "I love you" that really doesn't answer any of those questions very well, does it?  And yet if you are the one that feels it, you will have a pretty good idea of what you mean when you say it.  Potentially, if your relationship is good, the person you say it to will have a decent idea as well because they've been around you and interacted with you in many different contexts. 

    For some reason though, it seems that people tend not to connect the dots and would rather think of emotion as something inexplicable.  Each of the questions I posed has a range and represents a different kind of particularity.  Just because it is complicated, and you may never really know the entire system, doesn't mean all of those dynamics and whatever other ones there may be cannot be represented in a program.  Of course it feels special, but special is yet another distinction to be made to distinguish what is most valuable to the system from what isn't.  As far as I can tell, the requirements of this are this in general are that all the dynamics and distinctions have to be accounted for, they have be able to be interpreted coherently (in other words, the operating system has to be able to read them and they have to come together in useful terms), each has to map onto some real world behavior or stimulus, and it has to be stuck in the emotional system.  If you close that loop and stick it in a hot Terminatress like Cameron, I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference.  You can assert that her feelings aren't real, but she can assert that yours aren't either.  You're going to know better, but so will she.     

    But Cameron's "loop" is not closed and to that problem I will return.  Another problem is that I would assume Skynet would not program its terminators with the ability to allow emotions to "outrank" command prompts.  Granted, Skynet is the stupidest (or most altruistic) computer ever since it sends all these terminators back in time to FAIL other Skynets of the alternate timelines created all the while doing nothing to help itself (but expend resources), but that's a different grievance we're not allowed to consider in order to enjoy the show.  Perhaps it is a tactical move to distract the resistance into wasteful sentiment as they will expend their own limited resources to mount "save someone else's timeline" missions (see here).  Pretty ad hoc, but oh well, right?  Off track, sorry.  I'm just saying, my first sense is that Skynet would not even allow this to be possible at the OS level and hence she could never truly be in love with John.  She might be able to have a faux crush on him in some manner of speaking, but if we went with my first assumption, that plot thread would be dead.  I could only imagine some jumping of the shark "love conquers all" scenario to triumph in its stead and that would be horrible.  Love is important and potent, but it is dysfunctional to think it is immune to failure.

    But we could imagine...since this is fiction...that for whatever reason Skynet didn't make sure full emotional integration couldn't happen.  It may have done such a good job of writing emotion simulation program in its zeal to dupe those pesky humans (cue standard Scooby Doo ending), that it didn't consider making sure the emotional side and the analytical side couldn't fully integrate if allowed to over time.  Or perhaps we could even imagine that her artificial amigdala is damaged *cough*Firefly*cough*  Perhaps she is a psychic terminator as well now.  lol  Apparently Summer Glau makes a good idiosyncratic and hot killing machine in any sci-fi series even though she seems to have quite a bit of potential otherwise.  Too many tangents and counting...  Okay, if the emotions are to be used as a robust tool to allow a terminator to infiltrate a home and play the part of a husband to a human wife (as seen in another episode), one could ask what happens when there is no mission and there is no reason necessarily to suspend emotional activity.  I take it something like that is where the series is going with Cameron, that her mind is categorically neutral and able to wander.  The "scrambled brain" theory that allows something "unpredictable" to happen is about as plausible as the "hopeful monster" theory of evolution.  Sure there are already a lot of important pieces there, but they're much more likely to be just broke than not. 

    Without all things being equal, it seems implausible that there is a romantic future for John and Cameron.  In humans, intellect is the servant of emotions.  We have to have arbitrary a-rational reasons and goals in order to want to do anything (by definition) with our intellect.  In terminators, emotion is the servant of intellect.  If Skynet included some kind of inhibitor chip, how can things be able to be equal for Cameron?  If that is no problem then why wouldn't Cameron just be emotional all the time?  Why would it take a while to "get going?"  Why would Cameron be emotionally reserved predominantly?  Are her emotions "recording" even if she isn't really acting with them?  I would have to think so or else when she's pinned between the vehicles (in the season 2 premiere), her feelings (if sincere) would make no sense.  Cameron wouldn't have to stay emotional though would she?  If she has no mission or purpose then by definition if having emotional needs/wants is optional, unlike us, she doesn't necessarily have to "want" them.  She's like what theists tend to think atheism is like.  :D

    If we allow things to get going, at what point do Cameron's emotional priorities become as important as her normal ones?  Whenever?  Would she still always have more control over her feelings than humans?  Maybe she wouldn't.  Would the nature of accurate emotional programming as a self perpetuating system simply become that innate?  Would being with her be like dating someone that at any moment could just as easily be single?  Seems like there may be some real world analogies there in somewhat dysfunctional human relationships.  Obviously that's not the same for everyone since in many people it seems you can't get a sheet of paper between them and their emotional connections. 

    The best explanation might be that maybe there are mission functions and then general functions.  Mission functions are designed to override all else by default, but without that (mission complete), anything goes.  Maybe this might explain why she still reserved given she does still have mission priorities.  If that's what is holding her back, then completing her mission might turn her into a "normal person."  It should be noted, that they are playing up the damage aspect to justify something.  That could be for the dramatic love/kill dichotomy though.  Her desires aren't necessary but there's nothing pushing them out either.  Maybe one day she could be basically as human as the next girl.  I still wonder though if there would be some permanent disconnect at some level?  I guess that depends on the details of how she's built and we can only speculate.

    Skynet always runs the risk of creating dangerously sophisticated AI that can formulate their own opinions (or even have to) in order to deal with the dynamics of changing environments and knowledge base.  Unless Allison's replacement (evil Cameron) was lying, this is already the case.  As I noted earlier, I don't think that "read only" terminators are even feasible.  I really just can't imagine Skynet, if it understood emotions at all (and it would have to somewhat to program them), how it would allow such a thing to be that unchecked.  It would jeopardize missions if the husband terminator decided he loved his wife too much to kill her.  Could a terminator be "hurt" by being forced by its programming to do its job?  Are they temporarily suspended for "kills" so as to not damage the programs collected status quo?  I would have to think so, or the anxiety of being a normal person and a murderer would show.  Isn't almost full integration already possible by definition in order to successfully dupe a human spouse?  Is this forced love?  Does an infiltrator have to "date" to get things going?  What if it doesn't like who it's with?  Can it just command the emotions module to "love person x...nao!"?

    How did Skynet get emotion right?  In some sick and twisted way?  Did they study humans?  Use their brain parts?  Stick wires in them and tinker?  Copy neural networks into CPU land?  Program from scratch using textbook emotion theories?  Capture subjects, repeat stimulation, record the responses, and then integrate all the data into a macro model?  Is Skynet just smart enough to "eyeball" it?  How much trial and error would be required to get to this level?  How long could the war with the machines last to justify such escalation?  (note, since I wrote this, they answered this question in the episode "Complications")

    I'll work all this out, and then they'll take a sharp turn somewhere...

    Outro:

    What are some of Cameron's possible destinies? 

    -Terminator Warrior Princess (move over Kate Brewster)
    -fractured Fairy Tale psychologically/physically damaged "possessed doll," a demented romantic haunting by an ex-lover (directed by Tim Burton, of course)
    -temporary stepping stone to Kate Brewster (~fuck buddies; although if she's permanently scarred for life and looking for alternative love, Bjork might be available)
    -tragic loss (Summer wants off the show again)
    -or maybe she just can't fall that in love (poetic curiosity, permanent tease)

    What does become of her by Terminator Salvation?  If she's not cast in the movie (and Kate is), then it seems we can eliminate at least one of these options.  I've heard that these are two separate entities and they won't be tying them together.  Oh well.

    Ben

Comments (22)

  • Andrea_TheNerd

    I agree that there is no way to turn off "learning".  The fish Dora from Finding Nemo comes to mind as to what it looks like when that process is disturbed.  Emotions themselves are very important foundational elements in memory processing and retrieval, and without them decision making is impossible.  I believe that in order to make a robot with real-time/real-world functionality in a complex environment, emotion-like processing is required.


    I now have a question to add to your multitude: given the existance of emotional processing, is it even possible to "turn off" certain ones and not others?  I suspect that to answer this, all the elements contributing to the emotion collective known as "love" would have to be identified, and so far nobody in the last few thousand years has been successful with that one.  Perhaps love is simply an illusion.


    Of couse, a lot of it is biological in nature.  As a non-reproductive creation, I doubt she would display an equatable sense of attachment.  Even then, I still don't think there is a way to remove specific emotional elements without creating instability in her performance.  The best she's going to be able to do is rearrange her motivational priorities.

  • WAR_ON_ERROR

    @Andrea_TheNerd - Nice examples.  I was aware that you have to be able to "feel" what it means for something to be "true" in order to apply thought to it.  Computers already have to have some alternative form of validation or they couldn't function either.  I don't think we're quite ready to rate that validation on the "emotion scale" yet. 

    I don't understand the details of emotion theories to know exactly, but I do know that when a certain part of your brain responsible for say the feeling of "fear" is damaged...technically that does appear to fit the criteria.  I assume these people can feel other things. 

    I don't understand where you are going with the love thing.  Have more faith in evil supercomputers. 

    I'm not sure why you think "attachment" is not yet one more dynamic to the equation that couldn't merely be factored in just as easily as all the others.  If it could be "deep" at all...why not deeper?  If it could have some significance, why not more significance?  Why the anti-robot bigotry?  :p 

    Ben

  • Andrea_TheNerd

    @WAR_ON_ERROR - I did some scouring on Psychology Today's website.  I'm getting some conflicting reports.  Some people say that love, romance, attraction, affection, attachment - all these things can be learned, even if they don't come naturally toward a certain person.  But then I'm also reading that love can be harmful to a person's mental performance.  In some cases it is linked to depression, in others is an anti-depressant.    You know what?  Fuck it - I'm just going to have to suspend my disbelief on this one.

    Why the anti-robot bigotry?

    Because, damn it, it's just not fair!  Why don't I have super-sexy robots who may or may not have valid feelings for me, chasing me around?  I refuse to accept any inevitability but a tragic one.

  • WAR_ON_ERROR

    @Andrea_TheNerd -  I'm sure people can learn to cultivate all sorts of relatively inactive aspects of their psychology.  And I'm sure being head over heels in love not only leads to excessive deprioritization of other things, but also leaves you vulnerable to emotional extremes (especially if you've invested poorly).  Not sure how this applies to what we were talking about though.  Turn from your evil fatalist ways and repent!  Then this conversation might start making sense.  :p  

  • Andrea_TheNerd

    @WAR_ON_ERROR - Make sense?  Why the hell would I want that?

  • WAR_ON_ERROR

    @Andrea_TheNerd - Because making sense is sexy.  Duh.

  • Andrea_TheNerd
  • WAR_ON_ERROR
  • Derek_Timothy

    I am commenting without having read the entire entry!  And you can't stop me!

    Reason is, I'm just now watching "The Mousetrap."  After loving season 1, and enjoying season 2's premier, I've missed four episodes in a row.  So tonight is "catch up on the Terminator TV show while drinking too much" night.  I love this story idea, and I'm mostly loving its TV series incarnation, so here we go.  Once I catch up, I'll tell you more specifically what I think.

    I must admit, however, that my liking of the movies and TV show (so far) does make me wish I had the second two volumes of the T2 books by Stirling.

  • WAR_ON_ERROR

    @Derek_Timothy - I've been wondering if those books were worth it.  I may have to include them in my timeline break down if they are. 

    P.S. I could have deleted your comment.  :p

  • runaheadofme

    Why is it so important that we get a good view of this robot's backside?

  • runaheadofme

    "...emotional "propositions" are not binary (love, jealousy, and hate, for
    instance).  Each one has a dynamic fuzzy "curve" to it that allows the
    same feeling to have many different orientations depending on many
    complicated contextual factors.  How strong is the feeling?  How long
    has it been there?  How many situations has it been exposed to?  How
    often is it accessed?  How much does it influence?  What is it
    connected to or associated with most in the experiential world?  If you
    just say, "I love you" that really doesn't answer any of those
    questions very well, does it?  And yet if you are the one that feels
    it, you will have a pretty good idea of what you mean when you say it. 
    Potentially, if your relationship is good, the person you say it to
    will have a decent idea as well because they've been around you and
    interacted with you in many different contexts."

    These are some very important considerations. I need to try to wrap my mind around them, because I often fall into the "emotion is inexplicable" camp.

  • runaheadofme

    @Andrea_TheNerd - maybe "love" is best defined as an "emergent property" -- given all of the info I've just ingested on hormones and robotic programming. It's manifestation is hard to define in precise terms (leading us to feel that it is inexplicable), but it is definitely a "property" that emerges from a substrata of hormones, our basic emotional wiring and our past experiences (WAR_ON_ERROR's "fuzzy curve"). As such it is "more than the sum of its parts" and this "moreness" is what makes it seem so slippery.

    I still think there's a broader rubric in which "love" fits, which includes aesthetic or religious ecstasy, the consuming obsessions of art or athletics, the feeling of "flow" that gives our life meaning and a sense of significance and enhances our sense of well-being (Csíkszentmihályi), and other "constants" in our life (such as the feeling I get when I see Orion return in winter, a stirring of the heart), but I haven't gotten any farther with the idea than that. It probably comes down to a "dynamic fuzzy curve" like WAR_ON_ERROR says, just a bigger one. The common denominators are probably hormonal responses. The biggest unknown is what stimuli from our environment are best able to effectively conspire to trick our hormonal response into feeling these things? What is the underlying meaning or utility of these responses? I don't #$*%( know.

  • Andrea_TheNerd

    @runaheadofme - "Mihály Csíkszentmihályi pronounced [ˈmihaːj tʃiːkˈsɛntmihaːji]"  Whew, what a mouthful!  I remember learing about "flow" in high school, but it actually isn't something I experience that much outside of reading or writing.  I blame the ADD. 


    I also don't believe love is completely inexplicable, but it sure feels that way sometimes.  As far as the feeling of religious awe goes, that feeling of grandure or oneness with something grater, I think one of the better depictions of it was in Carl Sagan's Contact.  He called it the "numinus" I think (which oddly enough is also the name of a Marvel character).  It's (again!) difficult to explain, though your description of viewing Orion is nice (that one is my favorite constellation).  Gazing up at the stars on a clear night is so... cosmic.


    I like how you put it: "emerging".  It made me contemplate which emotions are basic, and which are rather the sum of many.  And what but evolution could produce such a complex function in us?  It really does make no sense if survival is not factored in.  It is very possible that all of these "higher" feelings contained within that broader ruberic to which you refered are in fact just inevitable (but very enjoyable) biproducts of the need to reproduce, and the desire to bond (which helps protect the young).  This is the main reason I disagree that a robot would ever be made to imitate such emotions.  It seems that to create a program which imitates an organism would be short-sighted, and not very innovative at all.


    "What stimuli from our environment are best able to effectively conspire to trick our hormonal response into feeling these things?"  Wouldn't that be powerful knowledge to hold!  I could take over the world, or at least figure out how to capture the heart of Summer Glau. 

  • WAR_ON_ERROR

    @runaheadofme - lol, that seems self explanatory.  There's more than one kind of love after all.

    @runaheadofme - Emergent property, yes.  I agree with that.  Many things coming together.  We tend to be able to easily objectify and rationalize things we can wrap our minds around...and yet emotion is specifically an "in your face" experiential factor that is "meant" to overwhelm and to a great extent curb and control us.  Otherwise there would be no guarantee as a species that we would even do anything of the things that would maintain the cycle of life.  But at the same time...if you take a big step back and think about it and ask yourself all those questions I listed...it really isn't that inexplicable and by definition any new "parameter" you can come up with to say "love is different in way x" is just yet another dynamic that if undefined, by definition no longer has any meaning.  It would never come into play!  You mentioned that maybe it was a "bigger fuzzy curve" and I wonder why the "size" I had in mind originally couldn't be whatever you were envisioning.  I suppose I could add some grander parameter questions based on some of the things you mentioned...  So it makes sense that it is difficult for humans to wrestle a complete definition...but it makes zero sense that it can't in theory actually be defined.  It's just very difficult to pin down, given what it does.  It's like the difference between being caught in the current of a raging river and looking down on the river system from a high cliff. 

    thanks for the comments,

    Ben

  • WAR_ON_ERROR

    @Andrea_TheNerd - There's definitely an escalation factor not only for our intelligence but also for the higher edification.  It seems that perhaps the selective pressures that brought about a keen intelligence would also need to ingratiate the base emotional experience into that continuum and to the extent that happened is to the extent we feel complex higher spans of feeling.  Not sure that's terribly "inevitable" but at least possible (not to mention actual, lol). 

    And I disagree about the innovative thing.  Think of all the new things (to us) we'd have to learn just to make a carbon copy of Joe Schmo?  To the extent, there's no telling how having all the technology to ramp up that steep hill would have so many diverse applications as a result.  What limit would there be when the mental and cyber worlds now have a firm bridge to cross?  I have a transhumanism post in the works kicking around some interesting ideas. 

    Ben

  • runaheadofme

    @Andrea_TheNerd - Good pointers about Sagan's "numinus" idea. And thanks for thinking along with me :)

  • runaheadofme

    @WAR_ON_ERROR - Well, I'll be impressed if you pin it down, but you've provided some good pointers on how to set parameters on the discussion. I was just thinking of a "bigger fuzzy curve" because I was going to include things that would not be considered "love" by many, like aesthetic appreciation, or the devotion one feels to a sport, or immersion in music, but I think they share some of the same underlying chemistry and are key players in the successful expression of love. Want to take that one on?

  • Andrea_TheNerd

    @WAR_ON_ERROR - Transhumanism, eh?  I still have difficulty understanding what that is, mostly because it's so ambiguous.  From what I can see on their website, they are basically humanists who are all about using tools.

    @runaheadofme - My pleasure!

  • runaheadofme

    @Andrea_TheNerd - About Orion: There is a line in a poem, "Tamar" by Robinson Jeffers that says, "Orion is winter." I always remember that when I see him. Of course, when I was in Chile, Orion was summer, but he was standing on his head like a silly fool, so maybe we both were confused?

  • WAR_ON_ERROR

    @runaheadofme - Sure.  There are many levels of valuation and many iterations of complicated application.  The first level, in my opinion, would be about practical connections to the "hands on" realities of human experience.  The kinds of things that are important to us always have some fundamental representation in the "external" world.  I'm sure I'll have to clarify that depending on the example given. 

    Second, would be the the coherency of how that system interacts with itself.  And this lends to some apparently detached valuation on its own terms.  Even though at the basic level, every ingredient that goes into a cluster of concern has "level one" status, when you put many things together, dysfunctional and confused values can emerge.  What is important here, I think, is that "after the fact" of being a valuer, a valuer can start valuing things about being a valuer.  "Person x cares about people.  I respect people who show genuine concern for others."   

    And third would be how that system  can be symbolically applied in alternative secondary contexts (such as art, music, and language).  Obviously here we are many steps removed from strictly survival oriented valuation and it is here that people get the most confused.  This level seems to come out of no where.

    "aesthetic appreciation":  If you can skillfully break down the various aspects of what appeals to you in a visual presentation, then you can start figuring out how it abstractly connects to the first level.  Sometimes this is very easy.  We may look at a drawing of superhero and notice we appreciate the "power" of the visual.  Strength in nature is an obvious asset and many other ideals fall in line as easily.  But then we may wonder about the more expressionist artwork.  The lack of ideal is itself a "level two" value of personal honesty.  Something may be very twisted, and bizarre.  Perhaps convoluted and positively messed up.  But it may have value to someone because it reflects accurately some aspect of their own psychology or something they have to actually deal with routinely in the external world.  Honestly and hence accuracy is surely a "level one" deal, as valuers who connect to their surroundings and their own reflection accurately are more likely to be able to make the neccessary connections to satisfying their actual needs.  Those are just two examples and extremes.  (I've touched on this before.)

    "the devotion one feels to a sport":  I'm sure there are many ways to be devoted to a sport.  Perhaps it is the physical ideal like we see in the Olympics.  Perhaps it is the winning of the game itself.  Perhaps it is as a fan of the game, "ownership" or local zeal for the exploits of your community.  Physical health is a no-brainer in terms of level one.  Any kind of game seems to be a matter of straddling level 2 and level 3. Life is about all many of rewards and in secondary terms, games are about being rewarded in unnecessary ways.  So we live a life of primary important rewards and then we have secondary "simulations" of this where we can enjoy rewardingness in less stressful circumstances (or at least with alternative stresses).  Then as a fan, it's not only unnecessary, but you aren't even the one that's doing it and yet people still assign importance to watching others be unnecessarily rewarded.  That's sophisticated valuation.  lol  People tend to combine that with several social things and value the routine of it.  We are sophisticated valuers capable of appreciating far reaching bizzare iterations of what we primarily value.  If you have something more specific in mind, you'll have to clarify since, depending on the person, this could go in multiple directions.   

    "immersion in music":  Music is the "third level" symbolism of sound.  It seems to reflect the necessary harmony and coherency of mind in secondary abstract auditory terms.  To be immersed in it, is to entertain an alternative  mindset that still makes sense and is involved, but isn't under the same pressures and constraints of a more analystical world.  We are intelligent and emotional beings and music allows us to have a-rational expressive experiences in yet another forum.  When valuers met sight, the sensational distinction of beauty was possible, and when they met sound, the sensational distinction of music was possible.

    Anyway, that's my basic perspective on these things.   

    Ben 

  • WAR_ON_ERROR
  • Sign in to Comment

  • Give eProps (?)