2008/8/10 Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Will, > > Maybe I should have explained the distinction more fully. A totalitarian > system is one with an integrated system of decisionmaking, and unified > goals. A "democratic", "conflict system is one that takes decisions with > opposed, conflicting philosophies and goals (a la Democratic vs Republican > parties) , fighting it out. Cog sci treats humans as if we are rational, > consistent thinkers/ computers. AGI-ers AFAIK try to build rational, > consistent (& therefore "totalitarian") computer systems. Actually, humans > are very much conflict systems and to behave consistently for any extended > period in any area of your life is a supreme and possibly heroic > achievement. A conflicted, non-rational system is paradoxically better > psychologically as well as socially - and I would argue, absolutely > essential for dealing with AGI decisions/problems as (most of us will agree) > it is for social problems.. But it requires a whole new paradigm. Two minds > (and two hearts) (and two cores?) are better than one. (And it's the > American way).
I thought you meant rational as applied to the system builder :P Consistency of systems is overrated, as far as I am concerned. Consistency is only important if it ever the lack becomes exploited. A system that alter itself to be consistent after the fact is sufficient. Do you remember when I wrote this? http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07233.html What parts of it suggest a fixed and totalitarian system to you? Will ------------------------------------------- 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=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
