[FRIAM] alternative response

[Marcus Daniels]

Reactive in the sense of, say, https://www.manning.com/books/functional-reactive-programming
Russ was asking how I thought about constructing responses like this.

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 5:40 PM
To: "friam at redfish.com" <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response



On 6/14/20 6:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
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.
... and I was just... being "reactive"?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200615/018c22f8/attachment.html>