From: Peter de Blanc (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 22:19:48 MDT
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 20:14 -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Really? Michael's message didn't look much like that was what was
> being said to me.
Michael, I apologize if I was reading my own ideas into your message.
In any case, I don't think that the absence of a "self" concept is a
problem for an RPOP with an integrated, non-observer-centric goal
system. The RPOP views the RPOP as just another system which can be
optimized to achieve the supergoal.
The lack of a self concept is a problem when the supergoal involves the
self, as in the "figure out X but don't DO anything" example. In this
case, when we say "don't do anything." we might mean something like
"minimize the effect of yourself on everything which is not part of
yourself," which requires "yourself" to be defined.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:51 MDT