From: Smigrodzki, Rafal (SmigrodzkiR@MSX.UPMC.EDU)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2001 - 22:04:07 MDT
Hal Finney wrote:
One problem is that you describe them as being relative to a given mind.
But goals are a property of systems without minds as well.
### I don't think so. We use the word goal to facilitate description, as a
mental shortcut, but when applied to stones and (simple) computers it has a
different meaning than when applied to humans.
Animals,
even very primitive ones, plants, bacteria can all be said to have goals.
### No, they just are, hardly more than stones.
Do you mean to claim that the goal structure for mindless creatures does
not have super and subgoals? Why is it that when something evolves a
mind, suddenly some goals have "inherent" desirability and others are
only a means to an end?
### Yes. No mind, no desire. There are very few animist tribes left.
Rafal Smigrodzki MD-PhD
Dept Neurology University of Pittsburgh
smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:02 MST