Seems odd: this is number 70 in this thread, all to explain automata?
Really?! My guess is the book is not the best start on understanding Turing
Machines, but heck, its not a book about religion, right?

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 9:18 AM, glen ☢ <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Yes, I think so; except the goals need not be underspecified or
> contradictory.  The condition (or action or assertion) made by one of the
> anticipatory agents within the system can be an unambiguous member of the
> set defined by the policy.  The loopiness comes in because that condition
> is defined in reference to the policy that defines it.  Perhaps an example
> would be "A staff member is an employee (not a contractor) iff that staff
> member has all the properties generally thought to belong to employees (as
> opposed to contractors)."  This is a common ploy used by state tax agencies
> to extract extra taxes from corporations.  A book keeper in such a company
> might assert that some staffer should not be paid as an employee because
> they're the only employee who, say, telecommutes.
>
> The binding/grounding/meaning in such a circular system can be volatile.
> But it's not (necessarily) due to being unspecified/vague.  I suppose it's
> technically ambiguity, multi-valued.  The underlings, including _any_
> member of the corporation like owners, board members, *EOs, etc., can use
> their influence to knead the corporation-level grounding of the policy in
> whatever way they can.  And it stays this way until the corporation
> officially files a request with the state agency to get a ruling on that
> particular condition (telecommuting).  Once the state makes the ruling,
> then that property (telecommuting) is "hard" bound/grounded one way or the
> other.
>
>
> On 07/13/2016 06:58 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is what you are getting at, but would the following
> scenario also be an instance of this:   An organization has a set of goals
> and let's say they are underspecified or the goals compete with one
> another.  Now, whenever someone  is upset about whatever they might be
> upset about (or sees some opportunity to schmooze to their superiors), they
> make an appeal, and, in some circumstances, their superiors make reference
> to the policies to bring order.    In doing so, they produce something of
> the form of an inverse problem.   "You all should see this is in an
> instance of a class of policy X."   Let's just say, for the sake of
> argument, that is not at all clear or is debatable.   Where does that leave
> the reader?   One probably does not question the superior court, as it
> were, because it is stated as fact.   Instead I think what happens is that
> the underlings search for generating functions to fit the set of
> constraints and then socialize the solutions to reduce future r
> >  isk.   That is, they seek (effective) unification that is
> deterministic.   1 answer, not 0, not more than 1.    But it isn't
> unification in the logic programming sense, it just looks that way.
> >
> > This sort of system leads to each agent making a sort of master equation
> of the environment and using it to predict risk (and reward) from above.
>  Meaning does not exist until the underlings scurry around filling in the
> free variables with a self-consistent (and consensus) set of values.   I
> would claim that in the real world there is usually no shared typing system
> except in exceptional cases like the U.S. Judicial system.   Mostly it is
> just the evolution of anticipatory behaviors from high or low fitness.
> Mommy and the kids just try to keep Daddy the tyrant from losing his cool,
> and in doing so evolve an effective control system.
>
>
> --
> ☢ glen
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Reply via email to