OK - so I take it that having a goal is necessary for agent autonomy. Is it
sufficient?
[Alan Penn]
>
> In the mail "Re: [SIMSOC] Newbie on the list - working on emergence of n",
> Alan Penn wrote:
> >A quick question. For an agent to be autonomous must it have a goal? In
> >other words is it possible to imagine a simulation with autonomous social
> >agents in which individual agents do not possess 'goals'.
>
>
> Alan,
>
> But what would "autonomous" mean in that context ?
>
> Briefly, it seems to me impossible to define "autonomy" as an objective
> and
> absolute notion. One cannot be autonomous per se, but only with respect to
> a given set of dependencies (relativity), and an observer (subjectivity).
>
> These dependencies can be broken down in two sub-categories : constraints
> and objects. Constraints can be seen as the "laws" of the environment in
> which the subject acts ("Autonomy is freedom under laws", Jean-Jacques
> Rousseau), and may include as well other agents' actions. Objects are the
> "things" with respect to which the subject (or the agent) can be described
> as autonomous by the observer. And these "things" can either be goals (if
> they are explicitly manipulated by the agent) or "tasks" (in which case,
> the goal might be implicit and buried in the definition of the task, but
> nonetheless still exist).
>
> Don't know if I made myself clear enough. Anyway, the sentence "this agent
> is autonomous" (or not) does not possess any meaning by itself. The
> correct
> way to put it would be : "under these constraints, and with respect to
> this
> goal/task, this agent can be described by this observer as autonomous".
> So,
> defining agents, for example in a social simulation, as autonomous,
> without
> defining their goals appears to me as an ontological impossibility (but I
> can be wrong).
>
> Cheers
> Alexis
|