Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Jan 2013, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/8/2013 10:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote:

In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of  
computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are  
mutually necessary.



At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary.
But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level.
Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and  
matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level.


How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of  
its neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that  
emulation done by a concrete physical machine.
This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to  
show, somehow).


When the physical is just a certain computation,


That the digital physics idea. Comp makes it wrong. The physical is a  
number hallucination bearing in part on the first person  
indeterminacy, and in part on infinities of computations.





then however that computation is realized instantiates the physical.


This never happens. No computation can simulate anything physical,  
unless partially.




The UTM can't distinguish the emulation because the emulation really  
is instantiating the physical (although it may also be necessary  
that mind be instantiated also).



No computation can emulate a mind or matter. Mind and matter are more  
global first person view of the arithmetical reality seen from inside.


Bruno





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 
.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:19, Richard Ruquist wrote:

At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle  
arithmetic

with no need for further calculations in a block universe.


I don't think so. particles are hgher level first person emergent  
phenomenon, from the symmetries brought by the Sigma_1 proposition,  
viewed with the material modalities (the probability one in the first  
person indeterminacy domain).






At a higher level it is analog
in the realm of quantum waves and fields
including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons

And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/ 
fermions


Possible. OK.


Bruno




yanniru.





On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote:

In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation.  
I think

it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary.



At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary.
But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level.
Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and  
matter

are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level.

How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its
neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation  
done by a

concrete physical machine.
This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to  
show,

somehow).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups

Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@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.


--
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 
.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-08 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote:

In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation.  
I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually  
necessary.



At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary.
But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level.
Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and  
matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level.


How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its  
neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done  
by a concrete physical machine.
This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show,  
somehow).


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-08 Thread meekerdb

On 1/8/2013 10:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote:

In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will 
turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary.



At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary.
But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level.
Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter are 
necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level.


How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its neighborhood 
(including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a concrete physical machine.

This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show, somehow).


When the physical is just a certain computation, then however that computation is realized 
instantiates the physical.  The UTM can't distinguish the emulation because the emulation 
really is instantiating the physical (although it may also be necessary that mind be 
instantiated also).


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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-08 Thread Richard Ruquist
At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic
with no need for further calculations in a block universe.

At a higher level it is analog
in the realm of quantum waves and fields
including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons

And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/fermions

yanniru.





On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote:

 In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think
 it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary.



 At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary.
 But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level.
 Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter
 are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level.

 How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its
 neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a
 concrete physical machine.
 This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show,
 somehow).

 Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



 --
 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.

-- 
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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-08 Thread Alberto G. Corona
2013/1/8 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com

 At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic
 with no need for further calculations in a block universe.

 Then it is indistinguishable from a contiuous or discrete mathematical
manifold of some kind. This manifold is anthropically selected by the mind,
and the perception of the mathematical reality by the mind at the
macroscopic level  (or microscopic-experimental level) is what makes
reality. This makes the latter a product  of the mind  which created
spots of conscience and reality in the  chaos of everything that exist in
the inexistence. And what is in this inexistent chaos?





The question is why this


 At a higher level it is analog
 in the realm of quantum waves and fields
 including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons

 And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/fermions

 yanniru.





 On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
  On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote:
 
  In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I
 think
  it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary.
 
 
 
  At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary.
  But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level.
  Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter
  are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level.
 
  How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its
  neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done
 by a
  concrete physical machine.
  This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show,
  somehow).
 
  Bruno
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
  --
  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.

 --
 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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-08 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:



 2013/1/8 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com

 At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic
 with no need for further calculations in a block universe.

 Then it is indistinguishable from a contiuous or discrete mathematical
 manifold of some kind. This manifold is anthropically selected by the mind,
 and the perception of the mathematical reality by the mind at the
 macroscopic level  (or microscopic-experimental level) is what makes
 reality. This makes the latter a product  of the mind  which created spots
 of conscience and reality in the  chaos of everything that exist in the
 inexistence. And what is in this inexistent chaos?





 The question is why this

A mind is not needed in a Block Universe following MWI if
 the perception of the mathematical reality by the mind
at the macroscopic level  (or microscopic-experimental level)
is included, as convoluted  as that sounds.
richard



Perhaps the analog level occupies most of the mind right up to EM waves.

and all the way down to the digital bottom layer.



 At a higher level it is analog
 in the realm of quantum waves and fields
 including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons

 And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/fermions

 yanniru.





 On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 
  On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote:
 
  In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I
  think
  it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary.
 
 
 
  At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary.
  But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level.
  Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and
  matter
  are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level.
 
  How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its
  neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done
  by a
  concrete physical machine.
  This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show,
  somehow).
 
  Bruno
 
  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
 
 
 
  --
  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.

 --
 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.

-- 
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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-07 Thread Alberto G. Corona
In the case of multigroup collaboration, where each group in made by
smaller groups that collaborate in a lesser degree than in each group
internally, the survival program to ascertain what is truth or not would be
as follows: (IMHO).

Any comunication has two main components of truth: The first is about the
truth value of this comunication for  the knowledge of  reality the
phisical medium or knowledge of the world.

The other component is a instinctive evaluation about in which way
this communication modifies the position of each actor in the group:  in
terms of power, righteousness, respect, status,  This also depends on  the
way in which this comunication modifies the status of our core groups from
which we take part formally or informally in the whole society.  I name
this element social capital.

The truth of something, as perceived in the heart take both components. A
social robot would take into account both too.

 It is not very difficult to know that , by evolutionary reasons, without
a favourable value in the second evaluation, the first truth can not be
accepted

Apparently both evaluations are very different.  The first is the factual
or objective. The second is the subjective or moral, that may be egoistic
or altruistic. It can be said that the second depends on interests,
values, ascriptions etc, while the first is not. but the first is subject
to values too, and the second depends on the factual knowledge.

Except the innate knowdledge and/or the one observed with the own eyes
(stones tend to fall).  to hold something as objective  is a matter of
having very strong values and beliefs. For example, because I strongly
believe in certain institutions and methods, I accept as factual that there
are something called electrons.

If I have other beliefs or values, I would not accept that as a fact.
factual knowledge is like any knowledge,* it has to be positive in the
second sense* before being accepted as truth. That is, every objective
accepted knowledge implies an acceptation ny the side of the subjective
filters.

In the other side if I demonstrate by game theorethical reasoning or
whatever that something , although bad for you in the short term, is good
for the whole society,and thus good for you and for your group in the long
term then this something becomes factual. because this truth pass the two
filters (objective and subjective) filter that you have to accept something
as truth..


The fact is that the verification of what values and beliefs are good for
you have been verified by evolution countless times. You are the descent of
the people that hold instinctively what was good for you. But what is good
has different components: There is what is good for you and your group of
interests and bad for the rest and there are what is good for the whole
society and for you in the long term but that imposes to you a charge in
the short term. The sucessful religions invokes these second set of
instincts.

Then, there is another way to make you to accept something as truth:
instead of making you see rationally what is good for you (if you believe
in reason) and pass trough your  two filters,  I can invoque your egotistic
or altruistic instincts that i mentioned in  the first paragraph, to make
you accept my truth. the first (egoistinc way) is called corruption, the
second (altruistic), conversion.

NOTE: I´m not being materialist. natural selection is not an  agent of
causation on the deep, meither matter is. they are a sustrate, the sensible
part that we perceived, colored by the mind, of a anthropically selected
mathematics. natural selection exist for beings living in time.

From a timeless view, from above, the universe has spacetime locations
where there is existence, good spacetime trajectories that diverge and
flourish and bad ones that are death paths these paths have precise
phisiological, social in the same whay that they have phisical laws, that
are derived from  the mathematical structure of reality that indeed IMHO
are a consequence of the antrophic principle of existence of the mind. It
seems that the mind is computation, but the phisical substrate, which is
ultimately mathematthic reflect this computation as well as the mind, but
matter as a product of the mind can *not  be *the causation of the mind.

For that matter,  a product of the mind,  and is a proxy for the study of
the mind. trough natural selection.. Because NS is how we, as temporal
beings perceive the very long term coherence between the mind and the
anthropicallly selected mathematical reality


2013/1/6 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com

 The expression Socila construction of reality is an expression that hold
 any kind or relativism. This is nor that. This is a algorithmical study
 founded in game theory, and resource optimization with a narrow set of
 possibilities and a harwired nature of any social being (the ROM element).

 Social construction of reality theories assumes that there is a deeper
 reality hidden 

Re: Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-07 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Wiords are socially constructed, so anything in words is suspect.


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
1/7/2013 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2013-01-06, 17:53:05
Subject: Re: Question: Robotic truth


The expression Socila construction of reality is an expression that hold any 
kind or relativism. This is nor that. This is a algorithmical study founded in 
game theory, and resource optimization with a narrow set of possibilities and a 
harwired nature of any social being (the ROM element).?


Social construction of reality theories assumes that there is a deeper reality 
hidden by a evil society. This is a gnostic belief. There is no deeper reality. 
and the reality neither the society is evil per se.?



Yes, politics and advertising make use of this, like any of us in any activity. 
we?o it by instinct and by experience, but not fbased on a well founded ?heory. 
This is so because we have a a innate ability for manipulation and an innate 
resistance to manipulation. This must be part of a social cooperator subsumed 
in a process of variation and selection.




The knowledge of this limitation in our knowledge and the flawed nature of our 
communications have moral, epistemological and in general philosophical 
implications.







2013/1/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

On 1/6/2013 12:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up when 
things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and cooperation and 
their mechanisms is an field which has not even started. They do not study the 
vital role of public cult and rites, for example that are critical for an 
efficient group.

And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored. 
Because this ?as profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is true or 
not.



I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' consequence (isn't this what 
deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but the more 
practical consequences are *very* extensively studied and the results are 
applied - in advertising and in political campaigns.

Brent



The first of then is that whatever people say ?ave two meanings: one the pure 
truth content, the other the implication of this truth for the prominence and 
cohesion of his group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot at the time to 
communicate it and at the time of evaluating them.



-- 
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.

-- 
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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-07 Thread meekerdb

On 1/7/2013 3:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
In the case of multigroup collaboration, where each group in made by smaller groups that 
collaborate in a lesser degree than in each group internally, the survival program to 
ascertain what is truth or not would be as follows: (IMHO).


Any comunication has two main components of truth: The first is about the truth value of 
this comunication for  the knowledge of  reality the phisical medium or knowledge of 
the world.
The other component is a instinctive evaluation about in which way 
this communication modifies the position of each actor in the group:  in terms of power, 
righteousness, respect, status,  This also depends on  the way in which this 
comunication modifies the status of our core groups from which we take part formally or 
informally in the whole society.  I name this element social capital.


The truth of something, as perceived in the heart take both components. A social robot 
would take into account both too.


Yes, that is a useful way to look at it.  And the relative weight given the two valuations 
will also depend on circumstances, e.g. if you must act on the valuation you will probably 
give more weight to the objective valuation, whereas if you are just discussing it you may 
incline to the social valuation.




 It is not very difficult to know that , by evolutionary reasons, without 
a favourable value in the second evaluation, the first truth can not be accepted


I'm not so sure about that; people certainly accept very unpleasant facts.  I have a 
friend who was just diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.   Acceptance has very negative 
implications, both personal and social.




Apparently both evaluations are very different.  The first is the factual or objective. 
The second is the subjective or moral, that may be egoistic or altruistic. It can be 
said that the second depends on interests, values, ascriptions etc, while the first is 
not. but the first is subject to values too, and the second depends on the factual 
knowledge.


Except the innate knowdledge and/or the one observed with the own eyes (stones tend to 
fall).  to hold something as objective  is a matter of having very strong values and 
beliefs. For example, because I strongly believe in certain institutions and methods, I 
accept as factual that there are something called electrons.


If I have other beliefs or values, I would not accept that as a fact. factual knowledge 
is like any knowledge,/it has to be positive in the second sense/ before being accepted 
as truth. That is, every objective accepted knowledge implies an acceptation ny the side 
of the subjective filters.


But then you need an account of what gains acceptance on subjective side.  Does the fact 
have to be pleasant?  socially shared?




In the other side if I demonstrate by game theorethical reasoning or whatever that 
something , although bad for you in the short term, is good for the whole society,and 
thus good for you and for your group in the long term then this something becomes factual.


I'd say it is still theoretical - but I take you point that I would probably act on it (if 
it weren't too far in the future).


because this truth pass the two filters (objective and subjective) filter that you have 
to accept something as truth..




No, that's exactly what you *don't* have to do.  You may have to act, but often you don't; 
you're just theorizing and discussing what might be true - as on this list.  Scientists, 
as scientists, never accept something as true, except in the provisional sense of 
designing an experiment that depends on it.




The fact is that the verification of what values and beliefs are good for you have been 
verified by evolution countless times. You are the descent of the people that hold 
instinctively what was good for you. But what is good has different components: There is 
what is good for you and your group of interests and bad for the rest and there are what 
is good for the whole society and for you in the long term but that imposes to you a 
charge in the short term. The sucessful religions invokes these second set of instincts.


The problem is that your instinctive valuations evolved to work within a tribe of a few 
hundred people in the same culture.  But small tribes are conquered by large coalitions of 
tribes which are conquered by nation states, etc.  So then we need laws and public 
institutions to align our relations with strangers so they satisfy our instincts insofar 
as possible.  Religion has played a part in all sizes of cultures, but it been divisive 
and oppressive as well as unifying and satisfying.




Then, there is another way to make you to accept something as truth: instead of making 
you see rationally what is good for you (if you believe in reason) and pass trough your 
 two filters,  I can invoque your egotistic or altruistic instincts that i mentioned in 
 the first paragraph, to make you accept my truth. the first (egoistinc 

Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona
Your robot do not have time to know the true truth. He would not speculate
on the nature of his programmer, or why he is here. At least until the
problems of survival are solved by means of a stable collaboration. Even
so, he never could have the opportunity to know the programmer. He don´t
know the nature of other robots except that they need the same things. He
must choose the truth to know and how deep need to know it to have
collaboration. He as to focus on obtaining collaboration.

In game experiments, collaboration appear spontaneously when the actors
remember the other's actions individually.

Le me give my starting assumptions: The first truth algoritm in this
context, (in the absence of comunication),  if this actor collaborated
with me in the past, he is faithful and will collaborate with me in the
future.  if we confront automata with different programs playing the
prisoner dilemma, The outcome of this game was discovered by Axelrod: the
tit-for-that was the simplest sucessful collaborator that was not
depredated by others. TFT collaborate with these who collaborate and defect
with these that don´t. But in the presence of noise or imperfect
information, if a TFT don´t collaborate for whatever reason one single
time, he is abandoned by the rest. For this reason a forgetting TFT that
don't take into account random non collaboration becomes more sucessful.

With time, if ia form of variation and selection is incorporated in the
game, more sophisticated evaluations of others appear. Still the truths to
be know for the actor are the relevant for his survival: that is the truths
about either if their fellow actors will collaborate or not.

My question is , *in presence of communication,* where the actors can lie
or tell the truth, how the game is modified and how the algoritms that
obtain data for action change?.

Because this is a form of guided question, I will not hide my cards and I
will say my conclussions:

Once some actor (call it robot) collaborates with my robot I would mark it
as faitful. therefore I will believe in what it says.

If I detect that what He says is false, I will mark this event as an act of
non collaboration. Therefore  this will influence my next collaboration
with him. he will know it, so therefore he will not lie my robot next time
if not for a good reason, or , else, he will loose the valuable
collaboration of my robot.

But in situations of scarcity, when collaboration is more necessary, it is
the moment where non collaboration may be egoistically profitable, he would
say for example that there is a piece somewhere, that he will take care of
my pieces, so may steal them. I can returm and revenge, producing in it a
damage such that further actions of this type would be non profitable for
him.

The dynamic of retaliation is know, it deter future offenses in the middle
term, but at the short term the cost will be that, after the revenge, both
will be in a situation much worse than at the beginning.

What can my robot and the many robots that usually collaborate to avoid
such lies, revenges, misunderstandings etc?.

To aleviate the cost of punishing individually non collaborators, the best
way is to collaborate to punish them. But they must offense a common good.
The common good may be material, but also can be a rule. The rules would be
of course, the rules of collaboration: In what situations it is mandatory
to help a member. All of these rules  of the group are to be admitted as
unquestionable truths by all members.

Then, the problem becomes how to be a member . That delimitation of
membership is very important, because every new member will receive the
benefits of our robot, and must be willing to incur in the cost of helping
others with as low cost of punishment as possible.

Membership in a group works like a assurance company.  A robot could not
enter the group when he need a repair to leave when he has received the
benefit. This would destroy the group collaboration. membership must be for
 a long time, enough to reciprocate many times. To avoid deception
after benefited, an initial investment in the group is necessary. For
example some pieces. Or a sacrifice (give one of his hands to the list of
group pieces) until something else for the group has been done.

The rules of group membership are added to the list of truths to be
defended and enforced.

We have a long list of rules, that every robot member must know and accept
(and refresh). Also it is necessary a sort of periodic show of commitment
where the group members refrest their memories about the rules, recognize
themseves and show the willingness to defend the rules and castigate the
offenders. This is a synchronization not only of knowledge, but also on
intentions. A sort of visual rites are necessary, where some clues, perhaps
a red light in top of each robot, goberned by a well know ROM program that
verifies the list of truths of the group. It can be substituted by a a
remote communication protocol , but 

Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-06 Thread meekerdb

On 1/6/2013 5:47 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Because this is a form of guided question, I will not hide my cards and I will say my 
conclussions:


Once some actor (call it robot) collaborates with my robot I would mark it as faitful. 
therefore I will believe in what it says.


If I detect that what He says is false, I will mark this event as an act of non 
collaboration. Therefore  this will influence my next collaboration with him. he will 
know it, so therefore he will not lie my robot next time if not for a good reason, or , 
else, he will loose the valuable collaboration of my robot.


But in situations of scarcity, when collaboration is more necessary, it is the moment 
where non collaboration may be egoistically profitable, he would say for example that 
there is a piece somewhere, that he will take care of my pieces, so may steal them. I 
can returm and revenge, producing in it a damage such that further actions of this type 
would be non profitable for him.


The dynamic of retaliation is know, it deter future offenses in the middle term, but at 
the short term the cost will be that, after the revenge, both will be in a situation 
much worse than at the beginning.


What can my robot and the many robots that usually collaborate to avoid such lies, 
revenges, misunderstandings etc?.


Herbert Ginitis has addressed many of these questions mathematically in The Bounds of 
Reason and Game Theory Evolving.


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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona
I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up
when things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and
cooperation and their mechanisms is an field which has not even started.
They do not study the vital role of public cult and rites, for example that
are critical for an efficient group.

And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored.
Because this  has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is
true or not.  The first of then is that whatever people say  have two
meanings: one the pure truth content, the other the implication of this
truth for the prominence and cohesion of his group, and both appreciations
are mixed, bot at the time to communicate it and at the time of evaluating
them.

2013/1/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

 refore I will believe in what it says.

  If I detect that what He says is




-- 
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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-06 Thread meekerdb

On 1/6/2013 12:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up when things 
get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and cooperation and their mechanisms is 
an field which has not even started. They do not study the vital role of public cult and 
rites, for example that are critical for an efficient group.


And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored. Because this 
 has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is true or not.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' consequence (isn't this what 
deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but the more practical 
consequences are *very* extensively studied and the results are applied - in advertising 
and in political campaigns.


Brent

The first of then is that whatever people say  have two meanings: one the pure truth 
content, the other the implication of this truth for the prominence and cohesion of his 
group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot at the time to communicate it and at the 
time of evaluating them.


--
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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2013-01-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona
The expression Socila construction of reality is an expression that hold
any kind or relativism. This is nor that. This is a algorithmical study
founded in game theory, and resource optimization with a narrow set of
possibilities and a harwired nature of any social being (the ROM element).

Social construction of reality theories assumes that there is a deeper
reality hidden by a evil society. This is a gnostic belief. There is no
deeper reality. and the reality neither the society is evil per se.

Yes, politics and advertising make use of this, like any of us in any
activity. we do it by instinct and by experience, but not fbased on a well
founded  theory. This is so because we have a a innate ability for
manipulation and an innate resistance to manipulation. This must be part of
a social cooperator subsumed in a process of variation and selection.


The knowledge of this limitation in our knowledge and the flawed nature of
our communications have moral, epistemological and in general philosophical
implications.




2013/1/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

 On 1/6/2013 12:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up
 when things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and
 cooperation and their mechanisms is an field which has not even started.
 They do not study the vital role of public cult and rites, for example that
 are critical for an efficient group.

 And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored.
 Because this  has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is
 true or not.


 I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' consequence (isn't this what
 deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but the
 more practical consequences are *very* extensively studied and the results
 are applied - in advertising and in political campaigns.

 Brent


  The first of then is that whatever people say  have two meanings: one the
 pure truth content, the other the implication of this truth for the
 prominence and cohesion of his group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot
 at the time to communicate it and at the time of evaluating them.


 --
 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
 **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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.



Re: Re: Question: Robotic truth

2012-12-19 Thread Roger Clough
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

Re: Question: Robotic truth

2012-12-18 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Alberto G. Corona 

I'd rather just take a poll.
I feel more comfortable with data.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/18/2012 
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-18, 11:05:46
Subject: Question: Robotic truth


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?rrange?hemselves in groups of 
collaborators that try to fabricate pieces and protect them from the attacks 
of?ther?roups. 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. ?f not, it is rejected. ?he true statements will be used for 
the?laboration?f 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?rrangements?f?ollaborators?n the way I described above, T?ow would you 
design the evaluator iof true and false statements.?


-- 
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.

-- 
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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2012-12-18 Thread Alberto G. Corona
It just want te people to argue about what must be true for these robots.
 I suppose that the truth about fabrication of pieces are know and accepted
by all, so the only remaining things to communicate and hold as trur are
the ones related with the location of available pieces  or things related
with truths about other robots or groups of robots.




2012/12/18 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona

 I'd rather just take a poll.
 I feel more comfortable with data.

 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net]
 12/18/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-12-18, 11:05:46
 *Subject:* Question: Robotic truth

   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燼rrange爐hemselves in groups of collaborators that try to fabricate
 pieces and protect them from the attacks of爋ther爂roups. 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. 營f not, it is rejected. 燭he true
 statements will be used for the爀laboration爋f 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燼rrangements爋f燾ollaborators爄n the way I described above, T燞ow would you
 design the evaluator iof true and false statements.?

 --
 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.

  --
 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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2012-12-18 Thread Alberto G. Corona
2012/12/18 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com

 It just want te people to argue about what must be true for these robots.
  I suppose that the truth about fabrication of pieces are know and accepted
 by all, so the only remaining things to communicate and hold as trur are
 the ones related with the location of available pieces  or things related
 with truths about other robots or groups of robots.




 2012/12/18 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona

 I'd rather just take a poll.
 I feel more comfortable with data.

 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net]
 12/18/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-12-18, 11:05:46
 *Subject:* Question: Robotic truth

   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.?

 --
 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.

  --
 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.




-- 
Alberto.


2012/12/18 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com

 It just want te people to argue about what must be true for these robots.
  I suppose that the truth about fabrication of pieces are know and accepted
 by all, so the only remaining things to communicate and hold as trur are
 the ones related with the location of available pieces  or things related
 with truths about other robots or groups of robots.




 2012/12/18 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona

 I'd rather just take a poll.
 I feel more comfortable with data.

 [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] rclo...@verizon.net]
 12/18/2012
 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen


 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-12-18, 11:05:46
 *Subject:* Question: Robotic truth

   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 

Re: Question: Robotic truth

2012-12-18 Thread meekerdb

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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2012-12-18 Thread Alberto G. Corona
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  others not
so intimate. The game to play is survival, not accuracy.


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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
 **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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.



Re: Question: Robotic truth

2012-12-18 Thread meekerdb
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