Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!ames!ictv!tmh
From: tmh@ictv.com (Todd Hoff)
Subject: Re: Lamarckian Evolution
Message-ID: <1995Feb6.201628.3154@ictv.com>
Organization: /import/news/lib/organi[sz]ation
References: <3gs6v7$2og@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au> <3gu1cb$3l1@morrow.stanford.edu> <1995Feb5.132734.948@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 20:16:28 GMT
Lines: 14

In article <1995Feb5.132734.948@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se>,
Claes Andersson <sa209@utb.shv.hb.se> wrote:
> Oh! What a relieve, reinforcements finally arrived! I have tried to explain
>for several weeks why Lamarckism is impossible and why it's completely
>unimportant question weather it would be good to as someone put it "encode"
>accuired traits. It would be like telling your maths teacher that it is more
>convenient to look up the anwers in the solutions than to solve the tasks.
>And this without seeing that someone must have solved them once.
>
>Claes Andersson. University of Bors. Sweden

How is the pattern/solution lookup different than the fight/flight reaction
we have that seems built in? We have other externally triggered behaviors that 
are built in as well. Where does one draw that line at what is possible?
