> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh come on. Use (American) football as a metaphor for human behavior.
> > If you want to instantiate *all* of the possible states and
> > responses, I would agree that it gets very large. But you can
>
> Of course, I thought that was the assumption when people say "lookup
> table". I.e. something which maps all sensorics to all motorics, including
> the inner state. All of it, for all cases which can occur in human life.
>
> > sharply constrain this with range-constrained lookup tables,
> > e.g. "if player X goes left from 5-10 yards" then I block "here".
>
> Ahh, you're cheating. Introducing conditionals, and things. A lookup table
> is just a dictionary, assigning some very large binary vector to another
> very large binary vector.
>
Too true... if you start using heuristics to chop out chunks of the table,
you move back toward an imperative algorithm for consciousness, which
undermines your argument. The argument concerned a pure lookup table, which
did not have any iterative processing involved...
Emlyn James O'Regan - Managing Director
Wizards of AU
http://www.WizardsOfAU.com
emlyn@WizardsOfAU.com
"Australian IT Wizards - US Technology Leaders
Pure International Teleworking in the Global Economy"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:43 MDT