I don't know what you're replying - it doesn't seem to have any connection to what I wrote. Where did I would devote myself to eveluating what's true. Where did I say anything about solipism. You asked how to program a robot to evaluate what's true in interaction with other self-interested robots, and I gave an outline of it.

Are you now changing the problem, saying that I cannot program my robot to learn from its interactions - that it must have a fixed evaluation critereon from the very beginning?

On 12/18/2012 2:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But you can not devote yourself to evaluate truth A solipsist robot is a dead robot. an exceptic robot is a almost dead robot. The other robots will not collaborate with a robot that spend so much time and is unreliable for collaboration. other robots will break the robot apart while it is evaluating the certainty of the first truth..

Your truths must be operational from the first moment in order to create plans for coordination with other robots. You as programmer know that your robot will be involved in circles, some of them very intimate

What does 'intimate' mean in this context?

others not so intimate. The game to play is survival, not accuracy.

You wrote, "If true it is hold in the list of true statements. If not, it is rejected. The true statements will be used for the elaboration of social behaviours intended to obtain pieces and to maintain the group of collaborators, the fabrication, ownership, and maybe robbery of new pieces for the future." I assumed that you meant "If it is assessed as true it is held..." Surely you didn't mean the the true was known with certainty - by magic? Then your implication is that these true statements with be used to enhance survival. But of course knowing true things is not the same as saying true things to enhance your survival. Knowing what's true can help you lie effectively too. But it is still advantageous in general to know what is true in order to predict the outcome of contemplated actions.

Brent



2012/12/18 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

    On 12/18/2012 8:05 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

        Suppose that you are in charge of the software of a social robot. I 
mean a robot
        that live with other robots that collaborate to solve problems. These 
robots
        must repair themselves, with pieces that are located in the field. 
these pieces
        are scarce or they are not for free, and some groups of robots want 
your own
        pieces for them, so finally the robots arrange themselves in groups of
        collaborators that try to fabricate pieces and protect them from the 
attacks of
        other groups. Things become more complicated, since, for better defense 
and/or
        fabrication and/or attack the groups become bigger, and some subgroups 
are
        formed iinside, in order to have privileged access to valuable pieces in
        detriment of the other members of the big group.

        At a point in the programing, you have to deal with comunication of 
each robot
        with the fellow robots. As a result of this comunication, you must 
evaluate if
        what is communicated to you is true of false. If true it is hold in the 
list of
        true statements.  If not, it is rejected.  The true statements will be 
used for
        the elaboration of social behaviours intended to obtain pieces and to 
maintain
        the group of collaborators, the fabrication, ownership, and maybe 
robbery of new
        pieces for the future. Or else, the group will die, the robot will die 
and its
        lists of truths too.

        Since you know that finally the social robots will end in arrangements 
of
        collaborators in the way I described above, T How would you design the 
evaluator
        iof true and false statements.?


    An interesting and complex problem.  You wouldn't just evaluate some as 
'true' and
    discard the others.  You'd keep all (or at least many) of them and assign 
them
    degrees of credence according to criterea like: Who said it? Has he been 
truthful
    before? Who would belief in the statement help or hurt? How does it comport 
with
    other statements? Can I check any part of it independently?...

    Brent


-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "Everything List" group.
    To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




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

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5968 - Release Date: 12/18/12


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

Reply via email to