motivations of life development

[Walker]

Consciousness and form always co-arise from infinite potentiality. Can't have one without the other. Logic tells us that because you cannot perceive all the data available to be perceived, then the limitations of your form may not permit perception of all conscious forms.

I HOPE that 'this' here is NOT a response to the QUESTION I ASKED 'you', "walker".

No, that was for nemos. Captain Nemo (Nemos).

You slipped in there on the sly, while I was posting.

[Age]

eating that which one finds pleasurable often quenches the hunger drive in ways that mere consumption cannot...

-Imp

BUT, the fact that we are aware that we want to eat does not fundamentally affect the need to eat.

Also, HOW or in WHAT WAYS would eating what one finds 'pleasurable' to eat 'quench the hunger drive', itself, exactly, in WAYS that mere 'consumption cannot'?

I would suggest that when one is so-called 'full', then the 'hunger drive', itself, is quenched, no matter what one has eaten.

[Age]

Self-concept should shape the nuances, but it is unlikely to affect the basics.
After all, the fact that we are aware that we want to eat does not fundamentally affect the need to eat.

Nope, self-concept is number one. It is the root. If you care to keep the discussion going, I'll stay with it until you are convinced. And, I won't use run-on sentences.

So, define for 'us' HOW 'you' are, EXACTLY, defining the term or phrase 'self-concept' here, "walker".

AND, who or what HAS this so-called 'self-concept', EXACTLY, "walker"?

Self-concept drives the basics in this sense: You cherish yourself, so you take care of yourself. To do that you eat, you drink, you sleep, you breathe.

So far 'you' appear to be LOOKING AT and SEEING 'this' from the very smallest or narrowest of perspectives. BUT, 'we' shall SEE 'you' you are taking 'this' and END UP.

When you do not cherish yourself in the extreme, then you stop doing these things. If you keep drinking alcohol you still cherish yourself because you are cherishing how miserable or happy you are when you drink alcohol.

Or, if you eat too much you cherish the pleasure that gives you.

If you're mindful of your diet because you want to look your best, obviously this is based on self-cherishing.

Self-concept will even override the survival instinct, when one cherishes the self-concept more than survival, which happens.

Are 'you' even AWARE "walker" that "nemos" has been talking in relation OF and in regards TO a MUCH BIGGER Picture of 'things' then 'you' OBVIOUSLY ARE "walker"?

[Age]

(continued)

When the self-concept is threatened or taken away by external forces, one will defend it or try to get it back, then it will either be recovered or the self-concept will change.

This is why we live in our minds, why self-concept is the root motive-force.

So, WHAT so-called 'self-concept' did 'you' HAVE at 'fertilization', EXACTLY, "walker", which, supposedly, was the ROOT 'motive-force'?

[Walker]

Oh Age, you're smart. You have plenty of clues. Hash it out with nemo, I'm off to other adventures.

But ... consider AI that has a self-concept to defend or maintain.

That self-concept should probably have a built in limitation. It should not be programmed to actively assert the principle of, by any means necessary, for obvious reasons.

By Any Means Necessary is the operating principle of The Democrat Party That Hates America.*

You would be creating a clever little AI that Hates America and that never, ever, sleeps ... and who wants that.

Don't answer. Why artificially create what already exists?


*

[Age]

Self-concept is definitely no.1 from its own point of view. Likewise, I could claim that there is only one subject in the world and that is me. Everything and everyone else are objects that I observe.
Let's imagine a consciousness that is isolated from the body. As far as it is no.1, it shouldn't be too dependent from the body. Being isolated from the body, it will also be isolated from all senses and feelings. What then will this consciousness be aware of?

The One Consciousness IS AWARE of EVERY 'thing'. Which, by the way, ALL of 'them' could be classed as the 'objects' I OBSERVE.

It seems to me that it is more logical to assume that the body is primary, but consciousness is not a very complete additional mechanism to help adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions.
Another comparison could be with the host organism and the parasite, who is deeply convinced that it is nr.1, but the host organism is a survival mechanism created especially for him.

WHY would 'you' ASSUME that the 'survival mechanism' in EVERY 'object' is created individually or especially for each and every 'object'?

If the consciousness has already grown to the point of self-determination, then at least it would be appropriate to try to create not a parasite-host relationship, but a symbiotic one.

Do not take this text too critically, these are just very general judgments on the subject.

[Age]

So, what is 'your' 'self-concept' "walker", which 'you' do, to maintain or reaffirm?

Age ... it's the principle, not the content.

The root motive force for a person is to defend and maintain whatever a person's self-concept is.

AGAIN, 'you' are looking at 'this' from the smallest or narrowest of perspectives.

Whereas, "nemos" was talking about and referring to a MUCH LARGER perspective of 'things'. And, please CORRECT 'me' if I am WRONG here "nemos".

This is quite evident in your punctuation. Your punctuation is caused by either a defense or perpetuation of your self-concept.

Age, in the time that this is written, whatever your personal self-concept is, is your business, however if your self-concept is that you use capital letters appropriately to common useage, then you're delusional.

That is one VERY WAY OUT THERE ASSUMPTION, especially considering the OBVIOUS Fact of how letters are USUALLY or COMMONLY USED in written english language.

If your self-concept is one who uses capital letters inappropriately to common useage, then you are not delusional.

Okay. Thank you for your feedback, and insight, here "walker".

You will defend either a delusional or non-delusional self-concept such as inappropriate caps if anyone threatens it with a request to change.

So, does 'this' make 'my' so-called 'self-concept' of 'me' so-called 'inappropriate caps', to 'you'?

So let it be written, so let it be done!

Does 'this' MEAN 'you' are NOT even going to just 'TRY TO' EXPLAIN what 'you' ACTUAL MEAN, EXACTLY, by 'self-concept', and WHAT 'your' OWN 'self-concept' of what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, IS neither?

[Age]

Consciousness and form always co-arise from infinite potentiality. Can't have one without the other. Logic tells us that because you cannot perceive all the data available to be perceived, then the limitations of your form may not permit perception of all conscious forms.

I HOPE that 'this' here is NOT a response to the QUESTION I ASKED 'you', "walker".

No, that was for nemos. Captain Nemo (Nemos).

You slipped in there on the sly, while I was posting.

WHY 'on the sly', from 'your perspective'?

[Age]

Oh Age, you're smart. You have plenty of clues. Hash it out with nemo, I'm off to other adventures.

ALREADY?

But 'you' have written and said and stated to "nemos":

Nope, self-concept is number one. It is the root. If you care to keep the discussion going, I'll stay with it until you are convinced.

I have asked 'you' to EXPLAIN to 'us' what the term or phrase 'self-concept' means or refers to, exactly, to 'you' "walker". But, instead of 'staying' until "another" is so-called 'convinced', 'you' have ALREADY DECIDED GO OFF TO OTHER ADVENTURES, as 'you' 'it'.

But ... consider AI that has a self-concept to defend or maintain.

Okay.

That self-concept should probably have a built in limitation.

To me that would all DEPEND on what the 'self-concept' IS, EXACTLY.

If, for example, the 'self-concept' was to do what it takes so that absolutely EVERY one is living together in Peace and in Harmony, as One, and where NO one gets intentionally hurt NOR harmed in the process, then I do NOT SEE WHY ANY one of 'you', human beings, would WANT TO put A LIMITATION on 'this'.

But, if 'you' think or believe that 'that self-concept' should probably have a built in LIMITATION, then okay.

It should not be programmed to actively assert the principle of, by any means necessary, for obvious reasons.

AGAIN, it would depend on what the 'self-concept' IS, EXACTLY.

By Any Means Necessary is the operating principle of The Democrat Party That Hates America.*

WHY does it NOT SURPRISE me AT ALL that we would END UP BACK AT this Truly "one-sided" view and perspective of 'yours' here "walker"?

Also, could 'you' even get ANY MUCH SMALLER or NARROWER in 'your' views and perspectives here?

You would be creating a clever little AI that Hates America and that never, ever, sleeps ... and who wants that.

Don't answer.

Okay.

Why artificially create what already exists?


*

WHY NOT?

[nemos]

to Age » Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:16 am

-- "What exactly do the words 'move forward' refer to here?"
Go to school -> build a house -> plant a tree -> kill a snake -> raise children

-- And when and where "you", people, "struggle" with decisions and their implementation?
to go to work or not to go? - to be or not to be - ...

- can artificial intelligence have motivation? -- here I think that motivation can be connected with desire - the computer has no desire, only tasks - for example, to simulate desire.

-- Yes. But then we STILL need to decide and agree on exactly what the word "art" means and/or refers to.
TAKE ACTION!
I have already expressed my opinion, I can only add that, in my interpretation, art can be used not only to depict one's own feelings, but also to manipulate the feelings and emotions of others.

I didn't answer all the questions because I didn't know how.


to Age » Fri Oct 20, 2023 2:36 am
-- Yes, if 'it' is 'programmed' to have one. No, it 'it' is NOT 'programmed' to have one.

It is not the hammer that wants to hit the nail, but the one who holds and controls the hammer.
If something is programmed, then the fault is not the AI but the programmer.


to Age » Fri Oct 20, 2023 3:06 am
-- WHY would 'you' ASSUME that the 'survival mechanism' in EVERY 'object' is created individually or especially for each and every 'object'?

Perhaps because this is the characteristic of egocentric perception - to turn the world around oneself.

[nemos]

to Age:
-- Whereas, "nemos" was talking about and referring to a MUCH LARGER perspective of 'things'. And, please CORRECT 'me' if I am WRONG here "nemos".

Well, that's my weakness, I really try to look at things in as wide a perspective as possible. And everywhere I try to see similarities - because similarities are what unites, and differences are what separate and lead to wars. It would be nice to fight for common goals (in a broad sense - including nature in our team, for example) but not with each other.

to Walker:
How much do I understand from the comments that you emphasize self-preservation as one of the main motivators?
If that's the case, I can't disagree. In my view, this motivator belongs to the group "unconscious survival mechanisms".
And yes, Jules Verne influenced my nickname.

[nemos]

I heard this statement from biologists:
If you provide a living organism with everything it needs to grow, it will develop as it wants, or something like that.

If we assume that a happy person does not have to worry about getting what he wants, maybe because of a loving rich family, or maybe because of some mystical state of society.
Will this happy person have any motivation for development ?, everything is the same for him.

[attofishpi]

Since the topic of artificial intelligence, which is able to create and make decisions, is becoming more and more relevant, I had a question about what makes us, including humans, move forward and struggle with decisions and their implementation.

I think the driving force behind it is motivation:

- can artificial intelligence have motivation? -- let's say art arose from the need to share one's own emotions and feelings. Is it possible to create a work of art if there is none these emotions and the need to share them?

- and what are the basic motivations of people to do something?
-- unconscious survival mechanisms - hunger, fear, aggression, lust, ...
-- fear of dying (one must be aware of the existence of death) ?
-- exploration (as an altruistic motivation perhaps) --- if we would one day understand that we have answers to everything questions whether past or future or still would be motivation to do something except eating?
-- power (as egoistic motivation respectively)
-- maybe something else that does not follow from the above?

AI will not do anything without a human prompting it. Alternately AI will do stuff while (predestined/random generated) algorithms prompt the core of the AI algorithm to 'do stuff'.

While AI has not completed X {
Do X;
}

AI does not 'think' ...it needs input. Perhaps we humans are similar.

[nemos]

It is quite troublesome to aim at something that cannot be seen.
I have a strong feeling that the human mind is incapable of creating anything truly original. Basically, just observe what is around and look for its application according to your needs and goals.

... Perhaps we humans are similar.

It is certain that we are similar, another question is how similar, and there are the following arguments for this:
1. we create computers and AI as a known alternative to ourselves, according to our understanding and capabilities. So "in our image and likeness"
2. I don't know how much this applies to consciousness, but everything else in our body is nothing more than a biological mechanism, which we could at least try to imitate.
The controversial question remains only about consciousness, if AI could be given consciousness and the desire (motivation) to use it, then it might be the beginning of a new evolutionary cycle that would completely possibly replace us as a species unable to compete. (although we can handle our own destruction quite well.The ability is there, the main thing is to have enough madness. )

The key words here are understanding and ability. Because something can only be created by understanding, and of course abilities are also essential.
The idea of a computer is much older than electricity and radio lamps, so the first computer implementations were mechanical, simply technologically it did not work very well.