On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:44:08PM -0400, Mark Waser wrote: > > How relatively simple? Evolution doesn't do simple. I doubt that any > > human goal system has a simple mathematical formalization. > > I guess the question is "how do you define simple?"
How many bits in a poor (unsupportive) context it takes to specify the system. E.g. 16 bit multiplier, versus an E. coli, or a bunny. > What I have in mind has three really simple axioms, a > fourth that I suspect is provable from the first three > (but I don't want to fight over) and everything else > follows from there (although, as always, the devil is > in the details -- but always resolvable by referring > back to the original four axioms). Let us hear these axioms, please. I don't think a rehash of Asimov's 4 laws is going to cut the mustard, though. > Mark > > P.S. And, as a side comment, evolution often does do > simple when there is a down-gradient path to it and > particularly when complex exacts a cost. It's just > that human biases are struck more by the complicated > examples and you notice them more. Human primates are not exactly simple, and that's about all we really care here. -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
