Question: Robotic truth

[Alberto G. Corona]

Suppose that you are in charge of the software of a social robot. I mean a robot that live with other robots that collaborate to solve problems. These robots must repair themselves, with pieces that are located in the field. these pieces are scarce or they are not for free, and some groups of robots want your own pieces for them, so finally the robots arrange themselves in groups of collaborators that try to fabricate pieces and protect them from the attacks of other groups. Things become more complicated, since, for better defense and/or fabrication and/or attack the groups become bigger, and some subgroups are formed iinside, in order to have privileged access to valuable pieces in detriment of the other members of the big group.

At a point in the programing, you have to deal with comunication of each robot with the fellow robots. As a result of this comunication, you must evaluate if what is communicated to you is true of false. If true it is hold in the list of true statements.  If not, it is rejected.  The true statements will be used for the elaboration of social behaviours intended to obtain pieces and to maintain the group of collaborators, the fabrication, ownership, and maybe robbery of new pieces for the future. Or else, the group will die, the robot will die and its lists of truths too.

Since you know that finally the social robots will end in arrangements of collaborators in the way I described above, T How would you design the evaluator iof true and false statements.?

--
Alberto.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Alberto G. Corona

 

I'd rather just take a poll.

I feel more comfortable with data.

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

12/18/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

 

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Alberto G. Corona

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-12-18, 11:05:46

Subject: Question: Robotic truth

Suppose that you are in charge of the software of a social robot. I mean a robot that live with other robots that collaborate to solve problems. These robots must repair themselves, with pieces that are located in the field. these pieces are scarce or they are not for free, and some groups of robots want your own pieces for them, so finally the robots燼rrange爐hemselves in groups of collaborators that try to fabricate pieces and protect them from the attacks of爋ther爂roups. Things become more complicated, since, for better defense and/or fabrication and/or attack the groups become bigger, and some subgroups are formed iinside, in order to have privileged access to valuable pieces in detriment of the other members of the big group.

At a point in the programing, you have to deal with comunication of each robot with the fellow robots. As a result of this comunication, you must evaluate if what is communicated to you is true of false. If true it is hold in the list of true statements. 營f not, it is rejected. 燭he true statements will be used for the爀laboration爋f social behaviours intended to obtain pieces and to maintain the group of collaborators, the fabrication, ownership, and maybe robbery of new pieces for the future. Or else, the group will die, the robot will die and its lists of truths too.

Since you know that finally the social robots will end in燼rrangements爋f燾ollaborators爄n the way I described above, T燞ow would you design the evaluator iof true and false statements.?

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Alberto G. Corona]

It just want te people to argue about what must be true for these robots.  I suppose that the truth about fabrication of pieces are know and accepted by all, so the only remaining things to communicate and hold as trur are the ones related with the location of available pieces  or things related with truths about other robots or groups of robots.

2012/12/18 Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net>

--
Alberto.

[Alberto G. Corona]

2012/12/18 Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>

--
Alberto.

2012/12/18 Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>

--
Alberto.

[meekerdb]

An interesting and complex problem. You wouldn't just evaluate some as 'true' and discard
the others. You'd keep all (or at least many) of them and assign them degrees of credence
according to criterea like: Who said it? Has he been truthful before? Who would belief in
the statement help or hurt? How does it comport with other statements? Can I check any
part of it independently?...

Brent

[Alberto G. Corona]

But you can not devote yourself to evaluate truth A solipsist robot is a dead robot. an exceptic robot is a almost dead robot. The other robots will not collaborate with a robot that spend so much time and is unreliable for collaboration.  other robots will break the robot apart while it is evaluating the certainty of the first truth.. 

Your truths must be operational from the first moment in order to create plans for coordination with other robots. You as programmer know that your robot will be involved in circles, some of them very intimate  others not so intimate. The game to play is survival, not accuracy.

2012/12/18 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

--
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@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
Alberto.

[meekerdb]

I don't know what you're replying - it doesn't seem to have any connection to what I wrote.  Where did I would devote myself to eveluating what's true.  Where did I say anything about solipism.  You asked how to program a robot to evaluate what's true in interaction with other self-interested robots, and I gave an outline of it.

Are you now changing the problem, saying that I cannot program my robot to learn from its interactions - that it must have a fixed evaluation critereon from the very beginning?

On 12/18/2012 2:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

But you can not devote yourself to evaluate truth A solipsist robot is a dead robot. an exceptic robot is a almost dead robot. The other robots will not collaborate with a robot that spend so much time and is unreliable for collaboration.  other robots will break the robot apart while it is evaluating the certainty of the first truth.. 

Your truths must be operational from the first moment in order to create plans for coordination with other robots. You as programmer know that your robot will be involved in circles, some of them very intimate 

What does 'intimate' mean in this context?

others not so intimate. The game to play is survival, not accuracy.

You wrote, "If true it is hold in the list of true statements.  If not, it is rejected.  The true statements will be used for the elaboration of social behaviours intended to obtain pieces and to maintain the group of collaborators, the fabrication, ownership, and maybe robbery of new pieces for the future."  I assumed that you meant "If it is assessed as true it is held..."  Surely you didn't mean the the true was known with certainty - by magic?  Then your implication is that these true statements with be used to enhance survival.  But of course knowing true things is not the same as saying true things to enhance your survival.  Knowing what's true can help you lie effectively too. But it is still advantageous in general to know what is true in order to predict the outcome of contemplated actions.

Brent

2012/12/18 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

On 12/18/2012 8:05 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Suppose that you are in charge of the software of a social robot. I mean a robot that live with other robots that collaborate to solve problems. These robots must repair themselves, with pieces that are located in the field. these pieces are scarce or they are not for free, and some groups of robots want your own pieces for them, so finally the robots arrange themselves in groups of collaborators that try to fabricate pieces and protect them from the attacks of other groups. Things become more complicated, since, for better defense and/or fabrication and/or attack the groups become bigger, and some subgroups are formed iinside, in order to have privileged access to valuable pieces in detriment of the other members of the big group.

At a point in the programing, you have to deal with comunication of each robot with the fellow robots. As a result of this comunication, you must evaluate if what is communicated to you is true of false. If true it is hold in the list of true statements.  If not, it is rejected.  The true statements will be used for the elaboration of social behaviours intended to obtain pieces and to maintain the group of collaborators, the fabrication, ownership, and maybe robbery of new pieces for the future. Or else, the group will die, the robot will die and its lists of truths too.

Since you know that finally the social robots will end in arrangements of collaborators in the way I described above, T How would you design the evaluator iof true and false statements.?

An interesting and complex problem.  You wouldn't just evaluate some as 'true' and discard the others.  You'd keep all (or at least many) of them and assign them degrees of credence according to criterea like: Who said it? Has he been truthful before? Who would belief in the statement help or hurt? How does it comport with other statements? Can I check any part of it independently?...

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5968 - Release Date: 12/18/12

[Roger Clough]

Hi Alberto,

 

Don't forget that mirror neurons in our brains

tends to make us copy cats.

 

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

12/19/2012

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

 

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: meekerdb

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2012-12-18, 18:07:11

Subject: Re: Question: Robotic truth

[Alberto G. Corona]

Your robot do not have time to know the true truth. He would not speculate on the nature of his programmer, or why he is here. At least until the problems of survival are solved by means of a stable collaboration. Even so, he never could have the opportunity to know the programmer. He don´t know the nature of other robots except that they need the same things. He must choose the truth to know and how deep need to know it to have collaboration. He as to focus on obtaining collaboration.

In game experiments, collaboration appear spontaneously when the actors remember the other's actions individually. 

Le me give my starting assumptions: The first truth algoritm in this context, (in the absence of comunication),  "if this actor collaborated with me in the past, he is faithful and will collaborate with me in the future".  if we confront automata with different programs playing the prisoner dilemma, The outcome of this game was discovered by Axelrod: the tit-for-that was the simplest sucessful collaborator that was not depredated by others. TFT collaborate with these who collaborate and defect with these that don´t. But in the presence of noise or imperfect information, if a TFT don´t collaborate for whatever reason one single time, he is abandoned by the rest. For this reason a forgetting TFT that don't take into account random non collaboration becomes more sucessful.

With time, if ia form of variation and selection is incorporated in the game, more sophisticated evaluations of others appear. Still the truths to be know for the actor are the relevant for his survival: that is the truths about either if their fellow actors will collaborate or not.

My question is , in presence of communication, where the actors can lie or tell the truth, how the game is modified and how the algoritms that obtain data for action change?.

Because this is a form of guided question, I will not hide my cards and I will say my conclussions:  

Once some actor (call it robot) collaborates with my robot I would mark it as faitful. therefore I will believe in what it says. 

If I detect that what He says is false, I will mark this event as an act of non collaboration. Therefore  this will influence my next collaboration with him. he will know it, so therefore he will not lie my robot next time if not for a good reason, or , else, he will loose the valuable collaboration of my robot. 

But in situations of scarcity, when collaboration is more necessary, it is the moment where non collaboration may be egoistically profitable, he would say for example that there is a piece somewhere, that he will take care of my pieces, so may steal them. I can returm and revenge, producing in it a damage such that further actions of this type would be non profitable for him. 

The dynamic of retaliation is know, it deter future offenses in the middle term, but at the short term the cost will be that, after the revenge, both will be in a situation much worse than at the beginning.

What can my robot and the many robots that usually collaborate to avoid such lies, revenges, misunderstandings etc?. 

To aleviate the cost of punishing individually non collaborators, the best way is to collaborate to punish them. But they must offense a common good. The common good may be material, but also can be a rule. The rules would be of course, the rules of collaboration: In what situations it is mandatory to help a member. All of these rules  of the group are to be admitted as unquestionable truths by all members.

Then, the problem becomes how to be a member . That delimitation of membership is very important, because every new member will receive the benefits of our robot, and must be willing to incur in the cost of helping others with as low cost of punishment as possible.

Membership in a group works like a assurance company.  A robot could not enter the group when he need a repair to leave when he has received the benefit. This would destroy the group collaboration. membership must be for  a long time, enough to reciprocate many times. To avoid deception after benefited, an initial investment in the group is necessary. For example some pieces. Or a sacrifice (give one of his hands to the list of group pieces) until something else for the group has been done.

The rules of group membership are added to the list of truths to be defended and enforced.

We have a long list of rules, that every robot member must know and accept (and refresh). Also it is necessary a sort of periodic show of commitment where the group members refrest their memories about the rules, recognize themseves and show the willingness to defend the rules and castigate the offenders. This is a synchronization not only of knowledge, but also on intentions. A sort of visual rites are necessary, where some clues, perhaps a red light in top of each robot, goberned by a well know ROM program that verifies the list of truths of the group. It can be substituted by a a remote communication protocol , but some robots may prefer to see the red lights from themselves because maybe they don´t trust the communication protocol.

The verifier ROM program becomes a guaranty but slightly different rules are in dfifferent groups, and I dont know in advance what the rules will be.  So the ROM will not carry out the ruies, but the verification of rules. Hence, the rite is necessary.

Probably the first groups of collaborators where around robots specially cooperative and, for that matter, specially valuable, that for the first rule, specially credible, that enunciated a set of rules around wich the group was created. undoubtably  to show a high appreciation of this robot was indeed a sign of agreement with these rules, so therefore rites of appreciation of this founder robot would be the first form of rule synchronization and group formation. 

Another groups may have been around sceptionally aggresive robots that promise pieces to their followers. 

I still did not reach the society of collaborating groups, but they are formed probably by acretion in agressive and/or peaceful interactions. Finally, the "psychology" of these robots will be really complex. 

Truth as truth is important per se, because it helps with prediction of the future but collaboration  or social truths are equally important and sometimes both collide. At first sight they are very different. but I will sow that they are not so much after all. social truth are like the goods used for interchange: the are goods and they are money. A group may base its collaboration in lies, like a society can print arbitrary paper money without backing in a valuable good like the gold. But in the long therm their values, either monetary or social, dissapear.

2012/12/19 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

of course knowing true things is not the same as saying true things to enhance

--
Albe

[meekerdb]

On 1/6/2013 5:47 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Because this is a form of guided question, I will not hide my cards and I will say my conclussions:  

Once some actor (call it robot) collaborates with my robot I would mark it as faitful. therefore I will believe in what it says. 

If I detect that what He says is false, I will mark this event as an act of non collaboration. Therefore  this will influence my next collaboration with him. he will know it, so therefore he will not lie my robot next time if not for a good reason, or , else, he will loose the valuable collaboration of my robot. 

But in situations of scarcity, when collaboration is more necessary, it is the moment where non collaboration may be egoistically profitable, he would say for example that there is a piece somewhere, that he will take care of my pieces, so may steal them. I can returm and revenge, producing in it a damage such that further actions of this type would be non profitable for him. 

The dynamic of retaliation is know, it deter future offenses in the middle term, but at the short term the cost will be that, after the revenge, both will be in a situation much worse than at the beginning.

What can my robot and the many robots that usually collaborate to avoid such lies, revenges, misunderstandings etc?. 

Herbert Ginitis has addressed many of these questions mathematically in "The Bounds of Reason" and "Game Theory Evolving".

Brent

[Alberto G. Corona]

I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up when things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and cooperation and their mechanisms is an field which has not even started. They do not study the vital role of public cult and rites, for example that are critical for an efficient group.

And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored. Because this  has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is true or not.  The first of then is that whatever people say  have two meanings: one the pure truth content, the other the implication of this truth for the prominence and cohesion of his group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot at the time to communicate it and at the time of evaluating them.

2013/1/6 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

refore I will believe in what it says. 

If I detect that what He says is

--
Alberto.

[meekerdb]

On 1/6/2013 12:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up when things
> get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and cooperation and their mechanisms is
> an field which has not even started. They do not study the vital role of public cult and
> rites, for example that are critical for an efficient group.
>
> And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored. Because this
> has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is true or not.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' consequence (isn't this what
deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but the more practical
consequences are *very* extensively studied and the results are applied - in advertising
and in political campaigns.

Brent

[Alberto G. Corona]

The expression "Socila construction of reality" is an expression that hold any kind or relativism. This is nor that. This is a algorithmical study founded in game theory, and resource optimization with a narrow set of possibilities and a harwired nature of any social being (the ROM element). 

Social construction of reality theories assumes that there is a deeper reality hidden by a evil society. This is a gnostic belief. There is no deeper reality. and the reality neither the society is evil per se. 

Yes, politics and advertising make use of this, like any of us in any activity. we do it by instinct and by experience, but not fbased on a well founded  theory. This is so because we have a a innate ability for manipulation and an innate resistance to manipulation. This must be part of a social cooperator subsumed in a process of variation and selection.

The knowledge of this limitation in our knowledge and the flawed nature of our communications have moral, epistemological and in general philosophical implications.

2013/1/6 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

--
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@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
Alberto.

[Alberto G. Corona]

In the case of multigroup collaboration, where each group in made by smaller groups that collaborate in a lesser degree than in each group internally, the survival program to ascertain what is truth or not would be as follows: (IMHO). 

Any comunication has two main components of truth: The first is about the truth value of this comunication for  the knowledge of  "reality" the "phisical medium" or knowledge of the "world". 

 

The other component is a instinctive evaluation about in which way this communication modifies the position of each actor in the group:  in terms of power, righteousness, respect, status,  This also depends on  the way in which this comunication modifies the status of our core groups from which we take part formally or informally in the whole society.  I name this element "social capital".  

The truth of something, as perceived "in the heart" take both components. A social robot would take into account both too.

 It is not very difficult to know that , by evolutionary reasons, without a favourable value in the second evaluation, the first truth can not be accepted

Apparently both evaluations are very different.  The first is the factual or objective. The second is the subjective or moral, that may be egoistic or altruistic. It can be said that the second depends on interests, values, ascriptions etc, while the first is not. but the first is subject to values too, and the second depends on the factual knowledge.

Except the innate knowdledge and/or the one observed with the own eyes (stones tend to fall).  to hold something as objective  is a matter of having very strong values and beliefs. For example, because I strongly believe in certain institutions and methods, I accept as factual that there are something called "electrons". 

If I have other beliefs or values, I would not accept that as a fact. factual knowledge is like any knowledge, it has to be positive in the second sense before being accepted as truth. That is, every objective accepted knowledge implies an acceptation ny the side of the subjective filters.

In the other side if I demonstrate by game theorethical reasoning or whatever that something , although bad for you in the short term, is good for the whole society,and thus good for you and for your group in the long term then this something becomes factual. because this truth pass the two filters (objective and subjective) filter that you have to accept something as truth..

The fact is that the verification of what values and beliefs are good for you have been verified by evolution countless times. You are the descent of the people that hold instinctively what was good for you. But what is good has different components: There is what is good for you and your group of interests and bad for the rest and there are what is good for the whole society and for you in the long term but that imposes to you a charge in the short term. The sucessful religions invokes these second set of instincts.

 
Then, there is another way to make you to accept something as truth: instead of making you see rationally what is good for you (if you believe in reason) and pass trough your  two filters,  I can invoque your egotistic or altruistic instincts that i mentioned in  the first paragraph, to make you accept my truth. the first (egoistinc way) is called corruption, the second (altruistic), conversion.

NOTE: I´m not being materialist. natural selection is not an  agent of causation on the deep, meither matter is. they are a sustrate, the sensible part that we perceived, colored by the mind, of a anthropically selected mathematics. natural selection exist for beings living in time.

From a timeless view, from above, the universe has spacetime locations where there is existence, good spacetime trajectories that diverge and flourish and bad ones that are death paths these paths have precise phisiological, social in the same whay that they have phisical laws, that are derived from  the mathematical structure of reality that indeed IMHO are a consequence of the antrophic principle of existence of the mind. It seems that the mind is computation, but the phisical substrate, which is ultimately mathematthic reflect this computation as well as the mind, but matter as a product of the mind can not  be the causation of the mind.

For that matter,  a product of the mind,  and is a proxy for the study of the mind. trough natural selection.. Because NS is how we, as temporal beings perceive the very long term coherence between the mind and the anthropicallly selected mathematical reality

2013/1/6 Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>

--
Alberto.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Alberto G. Corona

 

Wiords are socially constructed, so anything in words is suspect.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/7/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Alberto G. Corona

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-06, 17:53:05

Subject: Re: Question: Robotic truth

The expression "Socila construction of reality" is an expression that hold any kind or relativism. This is nor that. This is a algorithmical study founded in game theory, and resource optimization with a narrow set of possibilities and a harwired nature of any social being (the ROM element).�

Social construction of reality theories assumes that there is a deeper reality hidden by a evil society. This is a gnostic belief. There is no deeper reality. and the reality neither the society is evil per se.�

Yes, politics and advertising make use of this, like any of us in any activity. we燿o it by instinct and by experience, but not fbased on a well founded 爐heory. This is so because we have a a innate ability for manipulation and an innate resistance to manipulation. This must be part of a social cooperator subsumed in a process of variation and selection.

The knowledge of this limitation in our knowledge and the flawed nature of our communications have moral, epistemological and in general philosophical implications.

2013/1/6 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

On 1/6/2013 12:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up when things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and cooperation and their mechanisms is an field which has not even started. They do not study the vital role of public cult and rites, for example that are critical for an efficient group.

And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored. Because this 爃as profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is true or not.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' consequence (isn't this what deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but the more practical consequences are *very* extensively studied and the results are applied - in advertising and in political campaigns.

Brent

The first of then is that whatever people say 爃ave two meanings: one the pure truth content, the other the implication of this truth for the prominence and cohesion of his group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot at the time to communicate it and at the time of evaluating them.

--
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@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

[meekerdb]

On 1/7/2013 3:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

In the case of multigroup collaboration, where each group in made by smaller groups that collaborate in a lesser degree than in each group internally, the survival program to ascertain what is truth or not would be as follows: (IMHO). 

Any comunication has two main components of truth: The first is about the truth value of this comunication for  the knowledge of  "reality" the "phisical medium" or knowledge of the "world". 

 

The other component is a instinctive evaluation about in which way this communication modifies the position of each actor in the group:  in terms of power, righteousness, respect, status,  This also depends on  the way in which this comunication modifies the status of our core groups from which we take part formally or informally in the whole society.  I name this element "social capital".  

The truth of something, as perceived "in the heart" take both components. A social robot would take into account both too.

Yes, that is a useful way to look at it.  And the relative weight given the two valuations will also depend on circumstances, e.g. if you must act on the valuation you will probably give more weight to the objective valuation, whereas if you are just discussing it you may incline to the social valuation.

 It is not very difficult to know that , by evolutionary reasons, without a favourable value in the second evaluation, the first truth can not be accepted

I'm not so sure about that; people certainly accept very unpleasant facts.  I have a friend who was just diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.   Acceptance has very negative implications, both personal and social.

Apparently both evaluations are very different.  The first is the factual or objective. The second is the subjective or moral, that may be egoistic or altruistic. It can be said that the second depends on interests, values, ascriptions etc, while the first is not. but the first is subject to values too, and the second depends on the factual knowledge.

Except the innate knowdledge and/or the one observed with the own eyes (stones tend to fall).  to hold something as objective  is a matter of having very strong values and beliefs. For example, because I strongly believe in certain institutions and methods, I accept as factual that there are something called "electrons". 

If I have other beliefs or values, I would not accept that as a fact. factual knowledge is like any knowledge, it has to be positive in the second sense before being accepted as truth. That is, every objective accepted knowledge implies an acceptation ny the side of the subjective filters.

But then you need an account of what gains acceptance on subjective side.  Does the fact have to be pleasant?  socially shared? 

In the other side if I demonstrate by game theorethical reasoning or whatever that something , although bad for you in the short term, is good for the whole society,and thus good for you and for your group in the long term then this something becomes factual.

I'd say it is still theoretical - but I take you point that I would probably act on it (if it weren't too far in the future).

because this truth pass the two filters (objective and subjective) filter that you have to accept something as truth..

No, that's exactly what you *don't* have to do.  You may have to act, but often you don't; you're just theorizing and discussing what might be true - as on this list.  Scientists, as scientists, never accept something as true, except in the provisional sense of designing an experiment that depends on it.

The fact is that the verification of what values and beliefs are good for you have been verified by evolution countless times. You are the descent of the people that hold instinctively what was good for you. But what is good has different components: There is what is good for you and your group of interests and bad for the rest and there are what is good for the whole society and for you in the long term but that imposes to you a charge in the short term. The sucessful religions invokes these second set of instincts.

The problem is that your instinctive valuations evolved to work within a tribe of a few hundred people in the same culture.  But small tribes are conquered by large coalitions of tribes which are conquered by nation states, etc.  So then we need laws and public institutions to align our relations with strangers so they satisfy our instincts insofar as possible.  Religion has played a part in all sizes of cultures, but it been divisive and oppressive as well as unifying and satisfying.

 
Then, there is another way to make you to accept something as truth: instead of making you see rationally what is good for you (if you believe in reason) and pass trough your  two filters,  I can invoque your egotistic or altruistic instincts that i mentioned in  the first paragraph, to make you accept my truth. the first (egoistinc way) is called corruption, the second (altruistic), conversion.

A use of loaded terms.  One might appeal to self-interest as motivation to help others as a way to strengthen community bonds and trust which will make your life better in the future.  I wouldn't call that "corruption".

NOTE: I´m not being materialist. natural selection is not an  agent of causation on the deep, meither matter is. they are a sustrate, the sensible part that we perceived, colored by the mind, of a anthropically selected mathematics. natural selection exist for beings living in time.

From a timeless view, from above, the universe has spacetime locations where there is existence, good spacetime trajectories that diverge and flourish and bad ones that are death paths these paths have precise phisiological, social in the same whay that they have phisical laws, that are derived from  the mathematical structure of reality that indeed IMHO are a consequence of the antrophic principle of existence of the mind. It seems that the mind is computation, but the phisical substrate, which is ultimately mathematthic reflect this computation as well as the mind, but matter as a product of the mind can not  be the causation of the mind.

For that matter,  a product of the mind,  and is a proxy for the study of the mind. trough natural selection.. Because NS is how we, as temporal beings perceive the very long term coherence between the mind and the anthropicallly selected mathematical reality

In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary.

Brent

2013/1/6 Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com>

The expression "Socila construction of reality" is an expression that hold any kind or relativism. This is nor that. This is a algorithmical study founded in game theory, and resource optimization with a narrow set of possibilities and a harwired nature of any social being (the ROM element). 

Social construction of reality theories assumes that there is a deeper reality hidden by a evil society. This is a gnostic belief. There is no deeper reality. and the reality neither the society is evil per se. 

Yes, politics and advertising make use of this, like any of us in any activity. we do it by instinct and by experience, but not fbased on a well founded  theory. This is so because we have a a innate ability for manipulation and an innate resistance to manipulation. This must be part of a social cooperator subsumed in a process of variation and selection.

The knowledge of this limitation in our knowledge and the flawed nature of our communications have moral, epistemological and in general philosophical implications.

2013/1/6 meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net>

On 1/6/2013 12:42 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

I read some workd of Gintis,. but the experimental game theorists give up when things get complicated. The dynamic of groups stability and cooperation and their mechanisms is an field which has not even started. They do not study the vital role of public cult and rites, for example that are critical for an efficient group.

And when started, the philosophical consequences have not been explored. Because this  has profound implicatiopns for what people believe that is true or not.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'philosophical' consequence (isn't this what deconstructionists study - the social construction of 'truth'); but the more practical consequences are *very* extensively studied and the results are applied - in advertising and in political campaigns.

Brent

The first of then is that whatever people say  have two meanings: one the pure truth content, the other the implication of this truth for the prominence and cohesion of his group, and both appreciations are mixed, bot at the time to communicate it and at the time of evaluating them.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
Alberto.

--
Alberto.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6007 - Release Date: 01/03/13

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote:

In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary.

At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary.

But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level.

Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level. 

How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a "concrete physical machine".

This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show, somehow).

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[meekerdb]

When the physical is just a certain computation, then however that computation is realized instantiates the physical.  The UTM can't distinguish the emulation because the emulation really is instantiating the physical (although it may also be necessary that mind be instantiated also).

Brent

[Richard Ruquist]

At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic
with no need for further calculations in a block universe.

At a higher level it is analog
in the realm of quantum waves and fields
including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons

And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/fermions

yanniru.

[Alberto G. Corona]

2013/1/8 Richard Ruquist <yan...@gmail.com>

At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic
with no need for further calculations in a block universe.

Then it is indistinguishable from a contiuous or discrete mathematical manifold of some kind. This manifold is anthropically selected by the mind,

and the perception of the mathematical reality by the mind at the macroscopic level  (or microscopic-experimental level) is what makes "reality". This makes the latter a product  of the mind  which created spots of conscience and reality in the  chaos of everything that exist in the inexistence. And what is in this inexistent chaos?

The question is why this 

--
Alberto.

[Richard Ruquist]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Alberto G. Corona <agoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/1/8 Richard Ruquist <yan...@gmail.com>
>>
>> At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle arithmetic
>> with no need for further calculations in a block universe.
>>
> Then it is indistinguishable from a contiuous or discrete mathematical
> manifold of some kind. This manifold is anthropically selected by the mind,
> and the perception of the mathematical reality by the mind at the
> macroscopic level (or microscopic-experimental level) is what makes
> "reality". This makes the latter a product of the mind which created spots
> of conscience and reality in the chaos of everything that exist in the
> inexistence. And what is in this inexistent chaos?
>
>
>
>
>
> The question is why this

A mind is not needed in a Block Universe following MWI if

"the perception of the mathematical reality by the mind
at the macroscopic level (or microscopic-experimental level)"

is included, as convoluted as that sounds.
richard



Perhaps the analog level occupies most of the mind right up to EM waves.

and all the way down to the digital bottom layer.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2013, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/8/2013 10:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Jan 2013, at 23:57, meekerdb wrote:

In Bruno's theory both mind and matter are products of computation. I think it will turn out, as you say, that they are mutually necessary.

At *our level* I grant that they are both necessary.

But this does not mean they are necessarily necessary at all level.

Indeed, with computationalism (in cognitive science) both mind and matter are necessarily NOT necessary at the fundamental level. 

How could a universal Turing machine distinguish an emulation of its neighborhood (including itself) by arithmetic, and that emulation done by a "concrete physical machine".

This does not make sense (and that's what the MGA is supposed to show, somehow).

When the physical is just a certain computation,

That the digital physics idea. Comp makes it wrong. The physical is a number hallucination bearing in part on the first person indeterminacy, and in part on infinities of computations.

then however that computation is realized instantiates the physical. 

This never happens. No computation can simulate anything physical, unless partially.

The UTM can't distinguish the emulation because the emulation really is instantiating the physical (although it may also be necessary that mind be instantiated also).

No computation can emulate a mind or matter. Mind and matter are more global first person view of the arithmetical reality seen from inside.

Bruno

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:19, Richard Ruquist wrote:

> At the most basic level reality is a discrete digital particle
> arithmetic
> with no need for further calculations in a block universe.

I don't think so. particles are hgher level first person emergent
phenomenon, from the symmetries brought by the Sigma_1 proposition,
viewed with the material modalities (the probability one in the first
person indeterminacy domain).

>
> At a higher level it is analog
> in the realm of quantum waves and fields
> including the electromagnetic field and perhaps some bosons
>
> And at the highest/physical level reality goes back to particles/
> fermions

Possible. OK.


Bruno

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/