Thanks Glen. For me even the state machine isn't quite enough. A state machine version wouldn't even in principle distinguish between a robot/zombie and a living being. One might argue that there is no difference, but I'm not ready to go there.
Also, I liked my square-root-of-2 analogy. I hope someone comments on it. I also liked my question about whether a convincing drawing of a cartoon character in pain creates pain. I hope someone comments on that one also. On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:36 AM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems fairly clear to me that we have 2 competing ways to estimate > future behavior: > > 1) track and collate past inputs and outputs of the person, versus > 2) represent the state machine of the person. > > The state of the person is a function of its past inputs (and outputs, > assuming cycles). So, in essence, representing the state and state > transitions does just enough of (1) to solve the problem. The question > ensues which of (1) or (2) is the more difficult task. > > Russ is asking about (2). Eric is answering with (1). > > On 03/02/2016 10:55 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > > The behaviorist asserts that your question can be answered completely, > and > > without remainder, by explaining how your child’s behavior becomes a > > function of things that happened in the past. > > -- > ⇔ glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
