Tom_Breton comments on Adaptation-Executers, not Fitness-Maximizers - Less Wrong

42 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 11 November 2007 06:39AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (32)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Tom_Breton 11 November 2007 08:12:26PM 0 points [-]

The atoms of a screwdriver don't have tiny little XML tags inside describing their "objective" purpose. The designer had something in mind, yes, but that's not the same as what happens in the real world. If you forgot that the designer is a separate entity from the designed thing, you might think, "The purpose of the screwdriver is to drive screws" - as though this were an explicit property of the screwdriver itself, rather than a property of the designer's state of mind. You might be surprised that the screwdriver didn't reconfigure itself to the flat-head screw, since, after all, the screwdriver's purpose is to turn screws.

This is the distinction Daniel Dennett makes between the intentional stance and the design stance. I consider it a useful one. He also distinguishes the physical stance, which you touch on.