> 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 

Reply via email to