On 10/2/07, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/2/07, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Argh! "Goal system" and "Friendliness" are roughly the same sort of > > confusion. They are each modelable only within a ***specified***, > > encompassing context. > > > > In more coherent, modelable terms, we express our evolving nature, > > rather than strive for "goals." > > > > Terminology. Note that I did talk about subproblems of 'goal system': > 'goal content' (textual description, such as Eliezer's CV) and > property of system itself to behave according to this 'goal content'. > Word 'goal' is a functional description, it doesn't limit design > choices. > What do you mean by context here? Certainly goal content needs > semantic grounding in system's knowledge.
Fundamental systems theory. Any system can be effectively specified only within a more encompassing context. Shades of Godel's theorem considering the epistemological implications. So it's perfectly valid to speak of goals within an effectively specified context, but it's incoherent to speak of a supergoal of friendliness as if that expression has a modelable referent. Goals, like free-will, are a property of the observer, not the observed. When I speak of context, I'm generally not talking semantics but pragmatics; not meaning, but "what works"; not linguistics, but systems. [I want to apologize to the list. I'm occasionally motivated to jump in where I imagine I see some fertile ground to plant a seed of thought, but due to pressures of work I'm unable to stay and provide the appropriate watering and tending needed for its growth.] - Jef ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=48987856-77b6a9
