Replies

What you've failed to comprehend is that I NEVER said that natural feedback was "impossible".

You kept insisting that feedback in a system "implies intelligence":

"Feedback" implies intelligent intervention into the process. (Post 98)
Nonsense! Of course "feedback" implies intelligence. (Post 489)

But hey, if you want to back off that position and agree that natural feedback is quite possible, I'll accept that.

What I said was that INJECTING the kind of feedback mentioned by the poster (circa Post #100 & #104) was adding aided intelligence into what was otherwise an unaided process.

And this is a non sequitur.

The poster in #100 (or thereabouts) wanted the monkeys to read a dictionary and then choose which of their outputs should be kept or discarded.

No, actually, he didn't. The dictionary and having the monkeys do the filtering was *your* idea.

Well, that ADDS intelligence into a process (both via the dictionary as well as in the monkeys having to make an intelligent choice).

This overcomplication of the selection process was your own, so I'm hardly impressed by your jumping up and down and pointing out how complicated it is.

Whose idea was it?!

The poster in #100 (or thereabouts) wanted the monkeys to read a dictionary and then choose which of their outputs should be kept or discarded. - Southack

"No, actually, he didn't. The dictionary and having the monkeys do the filtering was *your* idea." - Dan Day

"I'd like to see what the chances are if these monkeys had some appropriate fitness function. something based on an english dictionary.

but the key is this, its not all randomness, but ITERATED randomness."

12 posted on 03/05/2002 3:07 PM CST by gfactor

What I said was that INJECTING the kind of feedback mentioned by the poster (circa Post #100 & #104) was adding aided intelligence into what was otherwise an unaided process. - Southack

"And this is a non sequitur." - Dan Day

What?! How can you claim that my statement above is off subject? What makes it a non sequitur, specificly?