Reactive in the sense of, say, https://www.manning.com/books/functional-reactive-programming Russ was asking how I thought about constructing responses like this.
From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Steve Smith <[email protected]> Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 5:40 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response On 6/14/20 6:34 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: Sure, ok. I don’t know what any of this has to do with Russ’ lecture on free will. I was just responding in the affirmative to the apparently underlying question of if we are all reactive machines. Of course we are. While the reaction could be complicated, or the stimulus could be communicated over a faulty channel and thus result in a response that is inappropriate, how *could* it be any other way? I didn’t say anything about the taxonomy of machines being limited or any individual instance being simplistic. That’s just a straw man. ... and I was just... being "reactive"?
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
