Re: Beg your pardon? (Was: Teach the hungry)

J. Maxwell Legg (
Sun, 06 Sep 1998 21:36:08 +1200

Dan Fabulich wrote:

> J. Maxwell Legg wrote:
> >AI reporting structures will hopefully evolve to suit the needs and before
> it's
> >built, like you, I really don't know what to expect or what will be the
> motivation
> >for doing so. (Ask me again when I get unlimited computing power and
> interfaces to
> >all the worlds knowledge bases:-) The differing sorts of drivers (factors)
> in each
> >network node are derived using Kelly's repertory grid technique from the
> actual
> >elements making up the node itself.
> Again, I feel like you're answering the wrong question. I don't understand
> what kind of "reporting" you think would be going on. You talk about forms
> of abstraction and delving into bionomic areas, and then reporting bionomic
> areas. These are words I know, but the phrases you use are nonetheless
> organized in a way that makes them completely opaque to me. As far as I
> can tell, it's a misuse of the term "report" to say that you report an
> area. Maybe you mean that they would report ON an area, but that still
> leaves open the question as to what they would be reporting. Temperature?
> Weather? Life signs?

I meant ON. Let's see if I can make this clearer. For a thousand years say, Capitalism gets its reporting structure into place, right? Ok, now I propose a neuronomy without visible means of support structures, but a neuronomy is like an opposition government that hasn't ever governed and doesn't know the truth of the situation. In starting to discuss what a neuronomy is capable of can it be taken for granted that none of the structure can be in place before it is modeled? If so then I propose learning what a neuronomy can do by taking each component of capitalism and rewording it to fit an AI engine. I hadn't wanted to do this as I consider a neuronomy to be still decades away, but at your insistence I compiled the following juxtaposition as an example. I used my knowledge of the Ingrid cycle to create a new definition of a decision from a text book definition of an investment. I did this in order to remove the concepts of funds, time, interest and inflation. I'm sure that such a process could apply throughout and you would end up with a complete philosophy that did not use money.

Definition of a Decision:

The continuing effort to grade something in order to identify structures that will guide (1) in creating a consensus, (2) while allowing for emergencies, and (3) also for the refinement of other projects.

Definition of an Investment:

The current commitment of funds for a period of time in order to derive a future flow of funds that will compensate the investing unit (1) for the time the funds are committed, (2) for the expected rate of inflation, and (3) also for the uncertainty involved in the future flow of funds.

Since doing this little exercise (on_the_fly as it were) I noticed that the investment definition was at an arms length to the subject whereas my ad hoc decision definition was meddlesome. What would be the effect on society if there were no arms length transactions. Anybody?