> 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
"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