[FRIAM] alternative response

[Marcus Daniels]

Sure, ok.   I don’t know what any of this has to do with Russ’ lecture on free will.
I was just responding in the affirmative to the apparently underlying question of if we are all reactive machines.  Of course we are.  While the reaction could be complicated, or the stimulus could be communicated over a faulty channel and thus result in a response that is inappropriate, how *could* it be any other way?    I didn’t say anything about the taxonomy of machines being limited or any individual instance being simplistic.  That’s just a straw man.

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 4:30 PM
To: "friam at redfish.com" <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response


playing "the Imp(uter)" I think that is similar to what Glen has asserted/suggested/implied/offered?


On 6/14/20 4:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

Steve writes:

< To some (many?) that might be what our collective "rattling on" looks/sounds like.  >

I’m claiming all conversations are like that.   Maybe the agents have a little more state, and the transactions are less frequent.    Same.
Marcus



- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200615/bf76faaf/attachment.html>