Good point. That's partly what I'm trying to figure out.
My internal argument goes something like this: on one hand, if the behaviour is the same how can you claim the intent is different? But on the other hand, how do you define deceptive behaviour without intent?
Here's a thought experiment: suppose someone had no short-term memory but had a dog who was trained to ask (as dogs do) for his meal each day. If the dog decided one day to ask for an extra meal, is he lying, or is he responding to a reward? And if the answer is that he isn't lying, because the dog doesn't differentiate indicating he hasn't eaten (which would be a lie) and asking for a meal (which wouldn't), isn't this true of any way that a dog could "lie"?
Consider also the example of a cuckoo's chick. These things obviously have no "training". Genetics is the only thing they have to work with. And they "convince" doting mother birds to feed them extremely well (apparently, so well that other birds, just flying past the nest will sometimes give them food they were carrying back the their young). Is this a "lie" ?
Comments
I don't think it's obvious that something having "intent" is distinct from something having a sufficiently complex cause/effect memory engine.
Good point. That's partly what I'm trying to figure out.
My internal argument goes something like this: on one hand, if the behaviour is the same how can you claim the intent is different? But on the other hand, how do you define deceptive behaviour without intent?
Here's a thought experiment: suppose someone had no short-term memory but had a dog who was trained to ask (as dogs do) for his meal each day. If the dog decided one day to ask for an extra meal, is he lying, or is he responding to a reward? And if the answer is that he isn't lying, because the dog doesn't differentiate indicating he hasn't eaten (which would be a lie) and asking for a meal (which wouldn't), isn't this true of any way that a dog could "lie"?
Consider also the example of a cuckoo's chick. These things obviously have no "training". Genetics is the only thing they have to work with. And they "convince" doting mother birds to feed them extremely well (apparently, so well that other birds, just flying past the nest will sometimes give them food they were carrying back the their young). Is this a "lie" ?
Its sounds more like a clever hack. "Multi-mother food source". It'll be fixed in the next patch. Just keep logging on to steam.