On 1/15/2012 1:07 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/14/2012 6:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/14/2012 4:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/14/2012 10:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I suppose that that is the case, but how do mathematical
entities implement themselves other than via physical processes? We
seem to be thinking that this is a solvable "Chicken and Egg"
problem and I argue that we cannot use the argument of reduction to
solve it. We must have both the physical and the mental, not at the
primitive level of existence to be sure, but at the level where
they have meaning.
Suppose there are characters in a computer game that have very
sophisticated AI. Don't events in the game have meaning for them?
The meaning is implicit in the actions and reactions.
Let us consider your idea carefully as you are asking an
important question, I think. Those NPC (non-player characters), is
their behavior the result of a finite list of if X then Y statements
Dunno. If I were writing it I'd probably throw in a little randomness
as well as functions with self-modification to allow learning.
How would these not included in the finite list of If - then rules?
Where does the possibility of "to whom-ness" lie for that list of if
I don't know what "to whom-ness" means.
Speculate what I might mean...
How does a per-specified list of properties encode a "sense of self"?
I'm not sure what you mean by "sense of self". The AI would encode
the position and state of the character, including values, plans, self
How do you encode a map of L has M properties including location in
a way that is updatable, or equivalently, for the fixed (with respect to
virtual location) how do you encode changes in the environment with
respect to the system such that there is a finite upper bound on the
recursions of maps within maps? It seems to me that a "sense of self" is
at least some form of model that quantifies the distinctions of what it
is versus what it is not. Some set membership function would work,
maybe. But this too seems to be encodable in if then rules...
Forget the anthropomorphic stuff, lets focus on the 1p stuff here.
How do we bridge between the per-specified list of if then's to a
coherent notion of 1p?
By making the AI behave like a person. How do you know there's a gap
to be bridged?
What is a "person? Beware of circular definitions! I am not
assuming a gap, I am just trying to reason through this thought
experiment with you.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at