Effective deciding of these "should" questions has two major elements:
(1) understanding of the "evaluation-function" of the assessors with
respect to these specified "ends", and (2) understanding of principles
(of nature) supporting increasingly coherent expression of that
evolving "evaluation function".
So how do I get to be an assessor and decide?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jef Allbright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] Religion-free technical content
On 10/2/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A quick question for Richard and others -- Should adults be allowed to
drink, do drugs, wirehead themselves to death?
A correct response is "That depends."
Any "should" question involves consideration of the pragmatics of the
system, while semantics may be not in question. [That's a brief
portion of the response I owe Richard from yesterday.]
Effective deciding of these "should" questions has two major elements:
(1) understanding of the "evaluation-function" of the assessors with
respect to these specified "ends", and (2) understanding of principles
(of nature) supporting increasingly coherent expression of that
evolving "evaluation function".
And there is always an entropic arrow, due to the change in
information as decisions now incur consequences not now but in an
uncertain future. [This is another piece of the response I owe
Richard.]
[I'm often told I make everything too complex, but to me this is a
coherent, sense-making model, excepting the semantic roughness of it's
expression in this post.]
- Jef
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=48955662-36b85e
