Terren, > >> 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?
Does the following make sense? The purpose embedded within the system will be try and make the system not decrease in its ability to receive some abstract number. The way I connect up the abstract number to the real world will the govern what goals the system will likely develop (along with the initial programming). That is there is some connection, but it is tenuous and I don't have to specify an ontology. Will ------------------------------------------- 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
