🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Bruce Abbott (990426.1435 EST)]

>Bruce Gregory (990425.2100 EDT) --

>I think Bill's point is that one of the ant's goals is not to collide with
>obstacles. So that taking the path around the obstacle is the result of the
>ant's goal, not the existence of the obstacle. Granted that the path would
>be more complex with more obstacles, but this complexity would still be the
>result of the existence of the ant's goals.

Thanks, Bruce.  It's a good point (and one I understand), but it doesn't
change the conclusion. The complexity of the ant's path is still due to the
complexity of the terrain through which the ant must move, not to the
complexity of the ant.

Whether the ant is forced to take a circuitous path because it runs headlong
into a ridge of sand and is physically deflected from its course, or because
it senses that it is encountering a ridge of sand and thus must alter its
heading in order to maintain a certain distance from the ridge, the
deflection of course arises because the ridge is in the way.  The ridge
doesn't physically disturb the ant's heading, but the actions initiated by
the object-avoidance system disturb the heading just as surely.  Similarly,
it is the forward motion of the ant (another control system responsible for
that) that brings the ant into such proximity to the ridge that its
proximity-control system is disturbed and takes action to change the ant's
course.

Regards,

Bruce A.