2008/7/4 Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Will, > > --- On Fri, 7/4/08, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 > > I don't think I follow, but if I do, you're saying that the purpose of your > system determines the goals of the system, which sounds like it's just > semantics... > > Terren
Purpose and goal are not intrinsic to systems. Have you come across the 2-bitser argument from Dennett. It revolves around a vending machine that can accept either US quarters or quarter-balboas. Depending upon where it is placed in the world it can be said to have two different purposes, either a vending machine for accepting quarter dollars or quarter balboas. My sort of system only has a well done button, this button has some impact on what programs will survive and the internal programs will drive it to. If we are lucky and have done our initital program building right, a coherent goal seeking entity will form. Depending upon how the "well done" button is pushed it will have a different purpose. You could hook it up to a 2-bitser and have it seek people to feed it quarters or quarter balboas. Depending upon where it was placed. Will Pearson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
