Ask HN: Are emotions algorithms for survival?
Some scientists argue that emotions are algorithms for survival. Yuval Noah Harari in his Homo Deus writes that emotions are biochemical algorithms that are vital for the survival and reproduction of all mammals. Similarly, Dominik R. Bach and Peter Dayan identify principles according to which these algorithms are implemented in the brain and describe their approach by considering decision making in the face of proximal threat. [doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.35]
But let's say the organism is addicted to a substance or destructive behavior, and its brain's reward center keeps telling it that it feels good to repeat a self-destructive behavior.
Is this an error in the algorithm, since it may pursue the opposite of survival? Are emotions really algorithms for survival?
6 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 23.4 ms ] threadA good read on it is 'Why we cooperate' https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/why-we-cooperate by Tomasello, he comes at it from an anthropological perspective, a quick example is 'guilt', guilt is an emotion that allows other members of our tribe to see that we're sorry and to forgive us, if the tribe doesn't forgive then you're exiled and die. So your survival in that context is dependent on emotional responses etc, but reproduction certainly isn't dependent on emotions.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608139/new-model-of-evolu...
The trouble humanity has always had while contemplating her own nature, lies in complexity providing more than one solution to similar problems. Individually, our cognitive strategies diverge for greater collective coverage. Genetic efficiencies, experiential refinement, and deliberate manipulation vary results.
By the insights I have gained by life long introspection, I offer that emotional system provides "smoothing", and "weighting".
The weighting may be considered a form of survival algorithm insofar as it primitively associates with the mind's facility for inductive reasoning (defaulting to attachments at birth, growing more complex through reinforcement throughout the lifetime.
As smoothing, the inherently abstract nature of information is grainy. Consider what may make one piece of information more important than another. Meaning derives from long complex (and branching) chains from root implications to perceived values. The emotional subsystem provides a smoothing between independently compartmentalized neural processes.
"By default" emotions may work one way, with the reinforcement of training they may work a different way, with some special kinds of development they may be either overridden or enhanced to spectacularly un-intuitive results.
On point 2, I feel you should caveat that's only if group selection is a thing, which many don't think it is.