To: welsberr@inia.cls.org (Wesley R. Elsberry)
WRE>Research is being done to provide methods to quantify affect.
WRE>One example that I know of is the research of W. Jackson Davis
WRE>at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who has been
WRE>working on quantifying affect in humans for some time now. By
WRE>combining facial electromyography with standard subject slides
WRE>used in psychology for self-report of affect, Davis has
WRE>obtained good correlation between sub-threshold activation of
WRE>facial musculature and self-report of affect. The pattern of
WRE>activation indicates categories of affect (e.g., happy, sad,
WRE>etc.) and the amplitude (or more precisely, the area within
WRE>the envelope of the bursts) gives information on degree. In
WRE>other words, Davis is able to both categorize and quantify
WRE>affective states in humans via facial electromyography.
WRE> correlation is a standard method of statistical inference.
BV>Scientific measurements such as gravity and the speed of
BV>light, are called laws of nature because of their
BV>consistency.
WRE>Davis' research shows consistency as well. The precision is
WRE>not yet as high as modern techniques for measuring g or c, but
WRE>probably compares favorably with the precision of early
WRE>techniques used for each of those.
Bertvan:
Perhaps electromyography will be useful in the future. That hasn't yet
happened.
Any science with the precision of "a good correlation" can be an instrument
for abuse of exceptions. Freudian psychologists, who called themselves
scientists, believed they had a "good correlation" between a traumatic
childhood and neurotic adults.
Perhaps someone will eventually show that life can arise from accidental
interaction of inert chemicals. That hasn't yet been demonstrated. Perhaps
someone will eventually discover real evidence for sociobiology and
evolutionary psychology. That hasn't happened yet. Perhaps someone will
some day demonstrate that those mutations that might lead to increased
biological complexity are random, accidental, devoid of design, plan or
purpose. However so far, no one has even isolated an uncontroversial
mutation that might lead to increased biological complexity, much less
determine whether or not it was random.
Freudian psychology didn't disappear because Freudians became disenchanted
with it. The public became skeptical. Darwinists probably will never become
skeptical of "chance and selection". Evidence for Intelligent design will
probably never satisfy those now believing RM&NS explains nature's diversity.
Intelligent design might someday be accepted as part of nature, and I agree
that also hasn't yet happened. However, I object to the ridicule and abuse
now heaped upon any scientist wishing to pursue such research. (See the
newspaper account of Baylor.)
BV>>All actors, and most of the rest of us, could fool
BV>>electromyography (by an act of free will).
WRE:
>This is a statement made in ignorance of the technique in
>use by Davis, which examines *sub-threshold* activity.
Bertvan:
As with other such "science", I await demonstration of its usefulness and
validity. Most scientific research done at colleges is of doubtful value.
Dissertations are done to acquire a degree, and most papers are written to
acquire tenure. Useful research is done, mostly by industry, but I've heard
scientists admit that most scientific papers produced by academia are
trivial. (I don't include medical research in such an indictment, which is
done for a specific purpose, and we've come to expect verification of medical
research.)
BV>Choice, free will, spontaneity, creativity, consciousness
BV>and emotions were probably all necessary new ingredients.
BV>They seem to distinguish life from non life. (You'll never
BV>find any of them in a computer.)
WRE
>There are a variety of researchers who would also disagree on
>this statement. The volume, "Motivation, Emotion, and Goal
>Direction in Artificial Neural Networks" (Levine and Leven,
>editors) is available from Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, and
>will serve well as a starting point for further research.
Bertvan:
I am aware that some people working with computers attribute human abilities
to these machines, such as love, free will, creativity and spontaneity. I
would encourage anyone so inclined to vigorously pursue such research.
However, along with abiogenesis and sociobiology, I'll await more convincing
evidence. I wonder how the "god of the gaps" compares with those things
accepted by scientists because "promising research" is being done on them?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 22 2000 - 17:09:47 EST