Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: B.F. Skinner (and dead Greeks)
Message-ID: <844@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Jul-84 19:38:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.844
Posted: Wed Jul 11 19:38:51 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Jul-84 04:58:09 EDT
References: flairvax.600, <2857@ecsvax.UUCP> <4043@utzoo.UUCP>, <834@pyuxn.UUCP> <4058@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 12

> Do you agree that ``thinkking'' is a pretty wasteful if it is impossible
> to make decisions? If so, why has such a wasteful design prospered so
> much?
> Laura Creighton

Not wasteful at all.  What gets called "thinking" would merely be the chemical
processes "running" (as with a program) to eventually come up with some final
result (hopefully---sometimes you get stuck or two or more answers are
returned; then you use the same set of processes to decide again).
-- 
AT THE TONE PLEASE LEAVE YOUR NAME AND NET ADDRESS. THANK YOU.
						Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr