[MD] Tweaking the emergence

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Mark:

>> Tuukka:
>> Formulas cannot be used to prove anything I want, because RP is not a
>> formal theory despite including formulae. Likewise, physics is not a
>> formal theory despite including formulae. RP's all formulae are not
>> tautologies, but contingent, and their contingency depends on
>> observations - namely, that one specific kind of observation is
>> possible. Would you like to hear more? Is this relevant to you?
> Mark:
> Yes, please.

Tuukka:

The truth value of RP depends on whether it is possible to distinguish 
the following kinds of cognitive experiences, or kinds of romantic 
quality, from each other:

-internal and external sensory perceptions
-emotions
-needs
-thinking processes

If it is possible to distinguish these four types of romantic quality 
from each other, it follows, than a certain instance of RP, formulated 
with "accuracy" set to 4, is true. That instance would include the 
theory of static value patterns in LILA.

If the distinctions cannot be made, there is a problem. The problem 
could maybe be resolved by tweaking the emergence, eg. to the form that 
Dave (LS) suggested. This is why I initially began this conversation - 
to get some advice whether these cognitive experiences can be 
distinguished from each other. That is the only statement in RP whose 
truth value cannot be resolved by purely formal means. If it is false, 
all other statements of RP are apparently rendered irrelevant. This 
statement is also the way in which RP solves the symbol grounding 
problem. In addition, it is hopefully an outline of the way a more 
sophisticated theory will solve that problem in the future.

-Tuukka