The memories you brought back brought many memories back for me, and the names of some familiar tomes. A time when ecumenicalism was an ideal, a pinnacle to be climbed; without thinking too much about some of your sisters and brothers in Christ in some of the more distant denominations and how they really thought.

Your phrase, “it was like going from seminars on number theory to being drilled in multiplication tables, badly,” is going to stay with me for some time.

And good luck with that bid on experiential,client-centric criminology (rule of law) or however it shapes up.

if you drop the “scripted” model and lean toward emergent results (neural-net type stuff), most of the magic falls away.

the simplest example is “mindlessly” (LOL) applying the actions from successful results to a new target repeatedly using minor variations; in small-world cases, this works! and my cats are quite patient when it comes to training our household humans into doing new things for them.

now the mystery is how the “new target” is selected. seems tabby has an “i want” wiring which can select new targets. machines? seems not.

but, who knows…

Hadn’t come across Norman, but I think his lifecycle falls down at precisely this point – reusing the action already specified for another purpose. I guess a program can’t produce its own subroutines.

Second, think about it this way. Could you design a _machine_ to do the same thing? IOW, a goal-seeking automaton that is programmed to achieve “reward” might record a success w/ the tinned food. It might also record a success w/ getting let outside.

The impressive part is the “leap” that i can duplicate some actions from successful outcomes in order to “fix” seemingly unsuccessful outcomes.

When Andromache wants her breakfast, and thinks I am slow in getting out of bed to give it to her, she begins ripping up a nearby literary periodical. It never fails.