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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
