Re: Brain protocol

[Paul W. Box]

glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> 
 Actually, that gives room for one more nice separation of functions. 
The brain, having thought, would then be able to pass messages back to
one of the 'sensors' on the agent.  Therefore, the agent, as well as
being able to sense its environment and other agents, would 'sense' its
own thoughts or conclusions about what it sees in the form of recieving
the output of the neural net to its 'sensor'.  The agent would be
reacting to it's own 'thoughts' as well as to its environment.

> 
> The "brain" bears the responsibility of "thinking" but it
> doesn't bear the responsibility of "sensing."  So, instead
> of:
> 
> > -(float*) feel: (float*);
> 
> I might propose
> 
> -(id) think: (id);
> 
> And then there would be some other protocol that would
> specify the "sense" method.
> 
> glen

-- 
/**********************************************************************/
/*  Paul Box                      |        Cogito ergo                */
/*  Dept. of Geography            |      Oculum Dioscoreum            */
/*  University of Florida         |                                   */
/*  address@hidden   |     (I think, therefor            */
/*  http://grove.ufl.edu/~sanduku |           eye yam)                */
/*                                |                                   */
/**********************************************************************/