On 20/08/07, marc.geddes.domain.name.hidden <marc.geddes.domain.name.hidden.com> wrote:
> Now consider sentient agent motivations (and remember the analogy with
> the physics argument I gave above).
>
> *Consider an agent with a set of motivations A
> *Consider the transition of that agent to a different set of
> motivations B (ie the agent changes its mind about something)
>
> Question: Why did agent A transition from motivation set A to
> motivation set B?
>
> Assumption: The transition must be explicable
>
> Conclusion: There must exist objective 'laws of value' which explain
> why there was a transition from state A to state B.
>
> And that argument (greatly fleshed out of course) basically proves
> that that such objective principles exist, given only the assumption
> that reality is explicable.
But surely the transition from A to B must be fully explained by the
laws of physics underlying physical transitions in the agent's brain,
or state transitions in an abstract machine.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Aug 20 2007 - 05:46:12 PDT