From: Cliff Stabbert (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Aug 25 2002 - 12:33:58 MDT
Sunday, August 25, 2002, 10:29:09 AM, Gordon Worley wrote:
GW> Well, while Eliezer does have a rather odd way of getting around
GW> to all of this, the point is that rationality is possible for
GW> everything in the universe. The difference between humans and
GW> everything else that we now about is that humans can take out the
GW> irrationality that has been introduced into them.
I think Eliezer is saying that Mind manifests throughout the universe
-- all complex systems tending towards Mindness over time.
I might try addressing the "rationality" vs. "that other stuff" point
one more time in another post (I fear I may already have crossed
Eliezer's Repetetiveness line).
GW> In other words, everything follows roughly the same decision
GW> making process and it's how you assign the weights and what
GW> decisions you try to assign weights to that makes all the
OK, this is at least a new approach. Without addressing the question
of whether everything can be reduced to the BPT, I'll point out that
all you've done is shift the burden of the problem: now "how we assign
the weights" is apparently what makes for more or less intelligence.
Which means that there is *some* sort of intelligence involved in
those decisions. Ben Goertzel (jump in if I'm wrong) believes this
rests on sub-/non-/pre-rational substrates. And he points out that if
you want this, too, to be a rational process you're stuck in an
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT