On 20/08/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Now consider sentient agent motivations (and remember the analogy with
> the physics argument I gave above).
>
> *Consider an agent with a set of motivations A
> *Consider the transition of that agent to a different set of
> motivations B (ie the agent changes its mind about something)
>
> Question:  Why did agent A transition from motivation set A to
> motivation set B?
>
> Assumption:  The transition must be explicable
>
> Conclusion:  There must exist objective 'laws of value' which explain
> why there was a transition from state A to state B.
>
> And that argument (greatly fleshed out of course) basically proves
> that that such objective principles exist, given only the assumption
> that reality is explicable.

But surely the transition from A to B must be fully explained by the
laws of physics underlying physical transitions in the agent's brain,
or state transitions in an abstract machine.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to