For sanity's sake I greatly appreciate the indiscriminate application of the system to both self and world. I am not completely convinced this is how humans function as we definitely have certain delf-oriented instincts, but it will be interesting with this more "objecective" structure what kind of behaviors emerge. As for the "others" argument, I think it depends on how much we want to preteach it. If we truly wanted it to rely on structures gathered from pattern matching, then we should not discriminate between others and world, heck we don't even really need to distinguish between between self and world at least as far as design philosophy is concerned.
Sure at first with simple systems, its "self" is easy to distinguish, its body, its host machine, etc. But as we drive integration, the lines could easily blur, especially as it develops new methods of interacting with the world. E. g. if it matched patterns in markets and learned to create accounts to link into market APIs which it directly interacted with, then one could argue that that integration system it developed and uses is a part of its "self." If it were able to match market patterns well enough to get high accuracy and control, that could arguably be considered an extension of "self." With a system built on the concepts opencogprime is, yes there is an incredible cleanliness and simplicity to it, but a lot of our human concepts don't apply cleanly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opencog+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to opencog@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/d9638368-00e7-4eca-b307-dd625b1f7267%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
