Will,
> Remember when I said that a purpose is not the same thing
> as a goal?
> The purpose that the system might be said to have embedded
> is
> attempting to maximise a certain signal. This purpose
> presupposes no
> ontology. The fact that this signal is attached to a human
> means the
> system as a whole might form the goal to try and please the
> human. Or
> depending on what the human does it might develop other
> goals. Goals
> are not the same as purposes. Goals require the intentional
> stance,
> purposes the design.
To the extent that purpose is not related to goals, it is a meaningless term.
In what possible sense is it worthwhile to talk about purpose if it doesn't
somehow impact what an intelligent actually does?
> Possibly, but it will be another huge research topic to
> actually talk
> to the things that evolve in the artificial universe, as
> they will
> share very little background knowledge or ontology with us.
> I wish you
> luck and will be interested to see where you go but the
> alife route is
> just to slow and resource intensive for my liking.
>
> Will
That is probably the most common criticism of the path I advocate and I
certainly understand that, it's not for everyone. I will be very interested in
your results as well, good luck!
Terren
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
