🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov3.224312.24030@athena.cs.uga.edu> fuller@athena.cs.uga.edu (James P. H. Fuller) writes:
>    Conclusion: at some point we must simply act, without any rule overt
>or covert to control our action.  Though a given action may be describable
>by a rule inferred by an observer, that alone is not enough to show that
>a rule somewhere inside the actor is necessarily controlling the action.
>Whatever the correct analysis is of the regularities we see in behavior,
>the notion of rules or guiding algorithms as a universal answer is just
>too naive.

This assumes that a rule is only something which can be followed.  It
assumes a false dichotomy between agent and rule.

Rules can be embodied in many forms.  In some of those forms, they act
directly.  A directly acting rule needs no actor separate from itself to
implement it; it is itself an actor.

When people talk about rules as a universal explanation of behavior, they
mean rules in this larger sense.