From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sol.acs.unt.edu!mips.mitek.com!spssig!markrose Tue Jan 28 12:17:21 EST 1992
Article 3117 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sol.acs.unt.edu!mips.mitek.com!spssig!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Table-lookup Chinese speaker
Message-ID: <1992Jan24.182738.7804@spss.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1992 18:27:38 GMT
References: <11828@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com
Organization: SPSS, Inc.
Lines: 17

In article <11828@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>No it isn't a good point.  "Repeated runs" are not part of the
>experiement.  If you want to experiment today and again tomorrow, then
>you have to come back tomorrow and start at the point where the
>conversation left off.  Even if that point is "good bye", it will
>still have a history of what has happened before.

This prohibition of repeated runs seems to have no motivation besides 
to allow the table-lookup machine.  If I had an intelligent algorithm in
hand, I'd have no objection to repeated runs, to running multiple instances
of the program, etc.  

If you want to do the same thing with a human, just run him through the
matter duplicator now being discussed on another thread.  I am confident
that the conversations of the duplicates will not be identical (due to the
accumulation of different experiences starting from the moment of
duplication).


