From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Tue Apr  7 23:23:44 EDT 1992
Article 4875 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A rock implements every FSA
Message-ID: <495@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 1 Apr 92 19:44:39 GMT
References: <1992Mar27.145107.12415@oracorp.com> <1992Mar30.090841.15015@nuscc.nus.sg>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 18

In article <1992Mar30.090841.15015@nuscc.nus.sg> smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes:
|
|Unfortunately, this argument seems to rest on the assumption that you cannot
|have machines which do not reference their environment;  yet Minsky's approach
|seems to be based on the assumption that Tinbergen's "instinct mechanisms" are,
|indeed, such machines.

What???  'Instinct mechanisms' do not reference their environment??

This sounds totally absurd to me.  As far as I am aware, every 'instinct
mechanism' exists soley for the purpose of mapping environmental cues
into behavioral response patterns with a minimum of overhead.

Or does 'do not reference their environment' mean something else than
I think it does?
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)


