*Deleted*

Thread deleted

Edited by Marc_Geddes, 02 February 2007 - 09:25 AM.

Marc, this seems vacuous. It doesn’t say much more than Friendliness is Turing computable.

If I may:

What is your IQ, Marc? and yours also, Nate?

Susma

That is an extremely rude question...

Why are you so obsessed with IQ?

Can you even define what IQ is?

If not, then you are asking a question without really understanding what you're asking? In other words, you're speaking gibberish. [tung]

And by the way, your question is completely off topic.

You've been warned.

Next infraction goes to the Trash Can.

**Added to original message*** -- If you have any personal questions or comments take it to PM.

Edited by DonSpanton, 21 January 2005 - 03:19 PM.

I apologize, Marc, if I didn’t appreciate its significance at the outset. I realize now that you’re laying some groundwork. I probably shouldn’t have had certain expectations at this stage. However, since there are other utility functions with prospective attributes, and since there aren’t any stipulations of prospective Friendliness principles in your summary, it had seemed to me that the title of this thread could've just as easily been “My technical definition of ‘Beauty’” or, perhaps more accurately, “My technical definition of ‘utility functions with prospective attributes’.”

Besides that, I also wonder why you would believe that concepts are utility functions. They are instances of inert devices available for cognitive syntheses, which may or may not have goal content. If this is so, it does not follow that Friendliness, however it’s stipulated, will necessarily turn out to be a utility function. Of course, that makes for a good engineering challenge.

Alright. I shalln't interfere anymore, then.

Marc Does this clear things up for you?

Yes it does. Thanks for your time, Marc.

Marc The very word 'Concept' is itself a concept. It is only meaningful in so far as it means something to a mind which understands it. So in what sense can anything be said to really be 'inert'?

Just to be clear, I meant that a universal description of concepts can’t consist of the attribute that they have intrinsic motivational content. I could be mistaken, but you seem to imply that it can. For instance, just because I have a neurological representation of a state of affairs that there are a million dollars on my doorstep, that representation alone doesn’t compel me to give a rat’s ass.

Susma, my only credential is that I’m really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really stupid with hopes that I’m not stupid enough to progress any slower in achieving transhuman intelligence.

Please note, Marc, my usage of the term “universal description” and my careful inclusion of the word “alone” in the phrase “… that representation alone doesn’t…” The universal description of “concepts” is only that which one can say about concepts and it would aptly apply to all of them. In the universal description of concepts, one thing we can’t say is that they have intrinsic motivational content.

Concepts are abstract components, i.e., the function of every concept is that it can both be a building block of more abstract concepts or be made up of lesser abstract concepts. But the key attribute is that a concept never changes, i.e., they don’t have surviving essences. When its services are slighted, it is either ignored or disposed of or replaced. A concept is an isolated module. As such, not all concepts, being isolated modules, have intrinsic motivational content.

Having a neurological representation (i.e., a concept) of a state of affairs that there are a million dollars on my doorstep doesn’t compel me to give a rat’s ass until, if and only if, I evoke enough neurological representations necessary to where I can’t resist responding to that particular state of affairs. Consequently, by calling concepts utility functions is to presume that’s its universal description, although it can’t be, since utility functions necessarily contain motivational content whereas not all concepts have this property.