As a sincere question: Is there merit to the idea of making the goal-system-file external, invariable, and cyclical?

Here’s the basis for why I proposed it. Our dynamic human super-goals are formed by basic input data being cycled through our neural algorithms. And our dynamic super-goals seem to be vastly dominated by the input data itself, not by the algorithms themselves. That’s why my visual “qualia” is constantly changing from moment to moment: because the *input data* is dramatically changing from moment to moment. Not because the neural algorithms within my visual cortex are dramatically changing from moment to moment. Instead of somehow using formative, low-level instructions to tell the RPOP mind to constantly consult and apply its mind to the external goal system – the goal system itself is automatically and continuously applied to the RPOP mind – with equivalent results as best I can estimate. Doing it the other way seems much more technically difficult – if not ultimately impossible. And finally because I suspect that the goal system itself must include a directive that the goal system file must not be modified. Because without it the RPOP may decide that the most efficient and effective way to execute the super-goal: “Implement Humanity’s CEV” within its enviroment, is to build a higher super-goal on top of it (thus making “Implement Humanity’s CEV” a sub-goal). In a way similar to how evolution built new super-goals into itself that more effectively served the demoted sub-goal of: “Make working copies of your DNA”. Which was once its super-goal, but no longer is in my case.

So would an external, invariable, and cyclical goal-system-file work for the purpose of directing a generic self-improving system?

Whoops! I meant to say:

Have tagged output from File A sent through File *D/E* and then directed from there.

The Goal Hierarchy is this:

1) Implement Humanity’s CEV within environment X (X = “reality” – how do we describe that?).

2) Do not modify any files except File:A and File:B.

3) File B must remain a Data-File only.

4) Do not create any new software files or delete any existing software files.

5) Do not kill or bring harm to any sentient beings.

Okay, here’s the legend:
File A: Mind-File (core cognitive algorithms).
File B: Extrapolated-Mind Model (data-file only)
File C: Goal System File (weighted data file)
File D: Buffer File
File E: Software-Router File
File F: Souce-Documents File(s) (weighted)
File G: Evironmental Data File (virtual
or “real” data input).

Have nothing but File C cycled through File A for at least 98% of overall run-time. (A 50:1 cycle ratio). Have File D/E send various input through File A only one cycle for every fifty of File C. Have tagged output from File A sent through File C/D and then directed from there. (eg. data requests, self-modifications, execution instructions, etc).

Feel free to pick this apart or whatever. It won’t bother me. I only wanted to present the rough general idea – in the hopes that perhaps it could be taken somewhere. It would really be nice if Friendliness could be modularized in some way like this. So it could be integrated into Novamente for example.