In article <2et5lv$prl at wp-sp.nba.TRW.COM> erwin at trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) writes:
>In article <CI6s6D.6rE at carmen.logica.co.uk>,
>Richard Wilson <WilsonR at LILHD.Logica.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <2epn69$r4v at wp-sp.nba.TRW.COM>
>>erwin at trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) writes:
>>>>>>Choice is a bit more complex than just non-determinism. There are actually
>>>>Sure but does this mean that you agree it is non-deterministic?
>>Yes, a Nash equilibrium (non-zero-sum generalization of the saddle point
>solution to a zero-sum game) requires 'die-rolling' processes. However, as
>an open system, the brain can use external inputs as the source of the
>necessary 'random numbers'. What gets interesting is that the consensus
>strategy can be expected to evolve chaotically.
Are you saying that we use noise to make a choice?
>>>>>three behavioral options open during most choice processes: go right, go
>>>with work I've been doing on mass action models (Freeman Nets) to define a
>>>>Glad to be of service. What you say is of interest but seems to me to avoid
>>or omit the act of choice. Yes there are several options and game and chaos
>>theory are relevant to decision making but how does dynamic programming
>>implement the act of choice?
>>Dynamic programming provides an optimal rule for making (or deferring) the
>act of choice. Consider a quasiperiodic process with two associated
>near-limit cycles. Cycle A implements a 'flight' plan. Cycle B implements a
>'commit' plan. The system is loaded with two sets of patterns for
>matching. If set A is matched, the dynamics drop into cycle A. If set B is
>matched, they go into cycle B. If neither are matched, information
>collection continues. In a game against nature, set A and set B can be
So there's no choice: if the system matches an input pattern then that
input determines the option taken, if the system can't match the input
then it doesn't take either option.