Ben -
It appears that you begin by stating the equivalent of "If the universe continues to follow the known principles of thermodynamics, then your statement (that long-term persistence requires goal-directed effort) is true." For your statement to be of any interest, it must be implying that the universe might not continue to follow the known principles of thermodynamics. But I wonder, where is any evidence for that?
Regarding self-organization, I suspect that the scientific community is on the verge of acknowledging that self-organization is essentially a fourth law of thermodynamics. We see self-organization at every level of complexity in the universe. However, it works with the other known principles of thermodynamics, not to their exclusion.
Regarding goal-directed activities of an intelligent system, this appears to be well-understood as decreasing local entropy while increasing entropy outside the local system. What evidence is there, that any goal-directed intelligence system within the universe can persist without ongoing expenditure of energy?
- Jef
Ben Goertzel wrote:
OK, let me put my point in a different way.
I would say that if the universe remains configured roughly as it is now, then your statement (that long-term persistence requires goal-directed effort) is true.
However, the universe could in the future find itself in a configuration in which your statement was FALSE, either
-- via self-organization, or
-- via the goal-directed activity of an intelligent system, which then stopped being goal-directed after it had set the universe in a configuration where its persistence could continue without goal-directed effort
-- Ben G
-----Original Message----- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of *Philip Sutton *Sent:* Monday, December 20, 2004 10:18 AM *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* Re: [agi] A theorem of change and persistence????
Hi Ben,
I like your line of thinking
Why? :)
but I'm pretty reluctant to extend human logic into the wildly transhuman future...
You don't have to. If the idea I put forward makes sense to a human, it might also make sense to an early stage, but clever, AGI. If the clever AGI thinks about this issue and finds it of value it will translate it over time in whatever way makes sense to it and/or its peers..... into the wildly transhuman future. You don't need to make the projection, the wild-transhuman can do it.
The very idea of separating persistence from change is an instance of human-culture thinking that may not apply to the reasoning of a transhuman being.
I don't think the ideas of change and persistence need be hermetically separated from each other. I don't think such a separation is essential to the argument I was trying to make.
Consider for instance that quantum logic handles disjunctions ("Aor B")quite differently than ordinary Boolean logic. What kind of "logic" might a massively transhuman mind apply?
Sorry, the practical import of this has gone right over my head. Can you express your point in a way that is accessible to a non-mathematician/non- quantum physicist? :)
All I'm trying to say is that, in the face of ongoing change in the system, if something (anything) is to persist through deep time (other than by a most extraordinary [and probably very boring] and unpredictable accident) then some conscious goal-directed effort will need to be directed toward this outcome.
More simply, persistence through deep time, of anything, is unlikely without some conscious effort somewhere.
Cheers, Philip
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
