Hi Alberto,

Don't forget that mirror neurons in our brains 
tends to make us copy cats.
 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/19/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-18, 18:07:11
Subject: Re: Question: Robotic truth


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>

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.
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.







-- 
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
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