In this post I will discuss emotions with regard to robots.

Emotions in machines have been discussed for as long as the idea of human-like machines has been around. Emotions in machines are seen as a necessary part of consciousness and as so there has been an attempt to create a programming language which incorporates emotion. So the real question is, are they a necessary part of consciousness and problem solving? Probably not simply because emotions take the information we have processed and applies it to ourselves.

In that case is it necessary for machines to understand human emotions? Absolutely. Mainly because in order to understand humans it is not only necessary to understand the external events which occur to humans but rather how they react to them, how they affect them and why. All these are exhibited by bodily and even vocal reactions.

The last few weeks a lot has changed.  I signed up to the Open University and started a job in Aroma a coffee shop/bar where I worked for two weeks as a bus boy. After which I found a job as an assistant to the CEO for this company.

I hope to return to writing about subjects concerning thoughts, the mind and everything in between.

Freud does not explain why we separate our ego from the external world.

That is because in our subconscious we are aware of the meaning of pain. Pain itself is a good thing, without it our body would disintegrate without our knowing why. Pain is a feedback system which alerts us of harmful occurrences in our body’s, and since these occurrences happen at the same time as the sensations of pain we associate the pain with something harmful.

 “A tendency arises to separate from the ego everything that can become a source of such unpleasure, to throw it outside and to create a pure pleasure-ego…”

Again, pain is the representative of a situation which hurts our existence, our ability to be, and since our objective is to sustain the status quo of our existence we must rid of such experiences.

“The boundaries of this primitive pleasure-ego cannot escape rectification through experience.”

Based on what can he prove his claims? What about masochists? There association to pain through experience is different and therefore there pain-ego relationship is different.

“Some of the things that one is unwilling to give up, because they give pleasure are nevertheless not ego but object; and some sufferings that one seeks to expel turn out to be inseparable from the ego in virtue of their internal origin.”

The first part can be explained as all experiences; we cling to that we are aware that provides a better existence, the second part is a bit more complex yet beautiful in structure; during our experiences we might learn of a situation which will cause us pain yet on a different level will cause us pleasure. This internal paradox is the source of the ego’s pain.

“One comes to learn a procedure by which, through a deliberate direction of one’s sensory activities and through suitable muscular action, one can differentiate between what is internal- what belongs to the ego – and what is external – what emanates from the outer world.”

There doesn’t have to be necessarily a body to part of the ego, the ego rather compromises of all objects and ideas controlled by the ego. So essentially, the movement of the muscles or ability to sense is a proof or rather a reflection of the ego’s control.

“In this way one makes the first step towards the introduction of the reality principle which is to dominate future development” – Or simply the egos awareness of its scope of power.

What? How is he supposed to distinguish anything at all?

In order to distinguish anything from anything there first needs to be experience so how could he be able to distinguish?
“He gradually learns to do so, in response to various promptings.”

Oh, ohhhh so he can distinguish. Wait, when? Oh, when he has something to distinguish with and from, huh, how odd, because if that is the case, why assume he can distinguish without these “various promptings” in the first place?

“He must feel strongly impressed by the fact that some sources of excitation, which he will later recognize as his own bodily organs, can provide him with sensations at any moment, whereas other sources evade him from time to time – among them what he desires most of all, his mother’s breast – and only reappear as a result of his screaming for help.”

An infant who lacks all experience will be surprised by all sensations and stimulations since they are all foreign to him. “Impressed” is the wrong word since it requires the experience of comparisons of certain constants across many different experiences, the underestimation of a certain experience which is based on the same type of experiences, and the polarization of that instant.

And why does he desire his mother’s breast? Why does he care? His internal, yet undefined, need yearns in order for the baby to continue its existence.

“In this way there is for the first time set over against the ego an ‘object’, in the form of something which exists ‘outside’ and which is only forced to appear by special action.”

The ego has hardly been established, there is no acknowledgement of anything at all, because, again, in order for there to be awareness there needs to be a certain amount of experience something to “ignite” the already known facts.

The whole “outside” VS “inside” thing is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is our need to survive, and the most efficient way of doing so, which always boils down to control. Control over our body over objects over ideas. All those which we learn during infancy from our environment that seem to us that they enable control, we will follow as adults who need to survive on their own. If 300 years ago it was physical strength in order to work the fields, today it is mental strength in order to find lucrative jobs which inexplicitly seem to make us think will cause us happiness.

The first question that comes to mind is ‘why’.
Why does it sound so strange?
Why does it fit so badly with the fabric of our psychology?
He goes on “Normally, there is nothing of which we are more certain than the feeling of our self, of our own ego.”
Normally? NORMALLY???? How can normality take any part in this idea at all?
In order for us to try to comprehend the human experience we cannot view it in the eyes of the common man!
In order to create a framework, there must be consistency amongst all ideas of thought, not only those which suite our idea and argument!
He goes on to explain that the ego is not a single entity but there is something behind it the ‘id’, though externally it seems that this ego decouples itself from other entities. Except for one situation – “Against all his senses, a man who is in love declares that ‘I’ and ‘you’ are one, and is prepared to behave as if it were a fact.”
In this case I must agree to a certain degree, though I wouldn’t look at it as a problem but rather a superior state of mind; a moment where thought replaces the human and physical notions of our physical needs and essentially – when we are talking about the love of a man and a woman (or what ever to sexes you feel like filling in) – the human experience not only becomes one but replaces each other creating an entity which is similar to a double helix.

I personally have never felt such feelings of an eternal entity though I truly believe there is a god or some sort of eternal power which began it all. Though the origin for religion has nothing to do with god. Religion stems for the need of society for order; A system of rules which people govern in order to enable peace and order in an otherwise chaotic society. In order to prove this we need to look through the Jewish tradition’s laws, where the problems and issues are all social related, it again can be viewed that during the holiest of days, Yom Kippur, when we ask for forgiveness from god we are told we cannot make amends for the sins we made towards man but only by asking for forgiveness from the person we actually hurt. Than why have god? And sins? And heaven and hell?

Well, god does and cannot or doesn’t have to since we don’t have free will in the first place (I will elaborate on that another time). But in order for us not to commit any crime there needs to be a constant watching eye over our actions. We must envision some sort of “Big Brother” to make sure we do the correct thing, so religion created this idea and all the things that stem from it; Heaven, Hell and so on.

Maybe what really should be asked is ‘Why’. What is the reason for this behavior, the need to acquire these loose and relative terms- wealth, power and success?  Well to answer that we should start from the beginning and the actual reason for us to do anything at all.   The answer is that everything we do is for our existence, clear and simple. Everything from the moment we wake up in the moment until we fall asleep is purely for the reason of existing or so we assume. During our course of life we observe others at their success and their assumed happiness, simply deducing that those attributes that we lack, those that are related to control, those are the ones to aspire to in order to achieve true happiness.

Freud goes on, “There are a few men from whom their contemporaries do not withhold admiration, although their greatness rests on attributes and achievements which are completely foreign to the aims and ideals of the multitude.”     Based on what are these considered achievements at all?  Again there is the problem of experience and how we deduce the value of objects, situations and the like.

Ok that was hardly the first page I dot want to continue because for the next discussed subject I will have to go into allot and I want these to be concise and informative regarding my thoughts as much as possible. I am planning on doing this every day so if this interests you, stay tuned.