I like the approach of defining these common properties in a disjunct and non-cyclic way. I think we need to define these concepts around agency in a grounded way, i.e., without cyclic or vague references and by referring to the physical world (game theory is crisp, but it lacks this connection, dealing only with symbols and numbers).
Thanks @Gunnar_Zarncke , I appreciate your comment! You correctly identified my goal, I am trying to ground the concepts and build relationships “from the top to the bottom”, but I don’t think I can succeed alone.
I kindly ask you to provide some challenges: is there any area that you feel “shaky”? Any relation in particular that is too much open to interpretation? Anything obviously missing from the discussion?
If you want to see more examples where we apply this methodology, check out the Tools post, the recent Corrigibility post, and (less explicitly) the Interoperable Semantics post.
I like the approach of defining these common properties in a disjunct and non-cyclic way. I think we need to define these concepts around agency in a grounded way, i.e., without cyclic or vague references and by referring to the physical world (game theory is crisp, but it lacks this connection, dealing only with symbols and numbers).
Thanks @Gunnar_Zarncke , I appreciate your comment! You correctly identified my goal, I am trying to ground the concepts and build relationships “from the top to the bottom”, but I don’t think I can succeed alone.
I kindly ask you to provide some challenges: is there any area that you feel “shaky”? Any relation in particular that is too much open to interpretation? Anything obviously missing from the discussion?
Have you seen 3C’s: A Recipe For Mathing Concepts? I think it has some definitions for you to look into, esp. the last sentence: