Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!hobbes!earth.armory.com!rstevew
From: rstevew@armory.com (Richard Steven Walz)
Subject: Re: Minsky's new article
Organization: The Armory
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 13:05:20 GMT
Message-ID: <CzMCCx.1IK@armory.com>
References: <3agf03$qi5@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3aj1ls$i3m@jetsam.ee.pdx.edu> <gradyCzHF3q.GM3@netcom.com> <3aj8nv$jlt@jetsam.ee.pdx.edu>
Sender: news@armory.com (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deepthought.armory.com
Lines: 17
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:25367 comp.robotics:15528 comp.ai.philosophy:22401

In article <3aj8nv$jlt@jetsam.ee.pdx.edu>,
Marcus Daniels <marcus@ee.pdx.edu> wrote:
>grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward) writes:
>
>>Marcus Daniels (marcus@ee.pdx.edu) wrote:
>
>>: You really buy into this Law thing don't you?!  I'm perfectly keen
>>: on admitting that that all we can get out mathematics and science 
>>Luckily our robot progeny will be far less limited in how they can
>>be wired and change their own wiring once inspired.
>
>Agreed.  However, that `rewiring' is a function of existing `wiring'.
>Add randomness if you like, but it is still a function.
--------------------
And SO are YOU! What do you think YOU'RE doing!!
-Steve Walz   rstevew@armory.com

