Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 03 2015,18:15) | | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 03 2015,10:36) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 03 2015,08:22) | State 2, binary 10, Avoid
A place to avoid can cancel signal propagation of a nearby place that is attracting using the in/out pattern that produces a wavefront collision, by making the 6 direction signal out the same as the signal in. The navigation vectors then alternate between two possible frames, where the one added is an 180 degrees out of phase reflection that point the other way, repel instead of attract. At a distance an avoid is not as much an influence, but where the attractor is right next a place to avoid the critter nervously keeps its distance to, though may confidently charge full speed then where avoid signals become predominate it will quickly retreat again. |
How does your "theory" account for the fact that you're incapable of learning anything about English composition? |
I was totally exhausted from going over the writing a few hundred times yesterday, but I was too excited to sleep. Code I thought I would need to add is no longer needed. I did though fix the grammar in that paragraph, shortly after posting it.
I'm now seeing the complex skittish behaviors I observe in wild animals like squirrels, which likewise noticeably alternate between two states/frames that approach and avoid a moving human offering them a treat. There is no circling in orbit around food and other behaviors that would indicate the network added (what's more like) a physics model of gravity or guided missile type feedback. This critter gets noticeably agitated by the two streams of conflicting information. If it had a language center then I would expect it to be swearing up a storm. |
You didn't answer the question.
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
