Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can we make software that comes to life?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An interesting article talking about the progress, or lack thereof, in evolution of computer “life”.

Can we make software that comes to life?

A few choice snips:

On January 3 1990, he started with a program some 80 instructions long, Tierra’s equivalent of a single-celled sexless organism, analogous to the entities some believe paved the way towards life. The “creature” – a set of instructions that also formed its body – would identify the beginning and end of itself, calculate its size, copy itself into a free region of memory, and then divide.

Before long, Dr Ray saw a mutant. Slightly smaller in length, it was able to make more efficient use of the available resources, so its family grew in size until they exceeded the numbers of the original ancestor. Subsequent mutations needed even fewer instructions, so could carry out their tasks more quickly, grazing on more and more of the available computer space.

A creature appeared with about half the original number of instructions, too few to reproduce in the conventional way. Being a parasite, it was dependent on others to multiply. Tierra even went on to develop hyper-parasites – creatures which forced other parasites to help them multiply. “I got all this ecological diversity on the very first shot,” Dr Ray told me.

Hmmm… starts out complex and then gets simpler and simpler. Yup. That’s how Darwin described it. Right? Oh hold it. That was our side who said life had to begin with all the complexity it would ever have because RM+NS can’t generate CSI.

Other versions of computer evolution followed. Researchers thought that with more computer power, they could create more complex creatures – the richer the computer’s environment, the richer the ALife that could go forth and multiply.

But these virtual landscapes have turned out to be surprisingly barren. Prof Mark Bedau of Reed College in Portland, Oregon, will argue at this week’s meeting – the 11th International Conference on Artificial Life – that despite the promise that organisms could one day breed in a computer, such systems quickly run out of steam, as genetic possibilities are not open-ended but predefined. Unlike the real world, the outcome of computer evolution is built into its programming.

More Darwinian predictions confirmed? Hardly. Front-loading confirmed by computer modeling of evolution. Again.

His conclusion? Although natural selection is necessary for life, something is missing in our understanding of how evolution produced complex creatures.

Truer words were never said! 😎

By this, he doesn’t mean intelligent design – the claim that only God can light the blue touch paper of life – but some other concept.

Gratuitous disclaimer regarding ID required to get by peer review. Can’t leave that out. 😉

I don’t know what it is, nor do I think anyone else does, contrary to the claims you hear asserted,” he says. But he believes ALife will be crucial in discovering the missing mechanism.

Dr Richard Watson of Southampton University, the co-organiser of the conference, echoes his concerns. “Although Darwin gave us an essential component for the evolution of complexity, it is not a sufficient theory,” he says. “There are other essential components that are missing.”

Dangerously candid admission with only one ID disclaimer. Does this guy have a death wish or something? ❗

Here’s a clue, doc. The missing mechanism you’re searching for is commonly called “programmer” or “engineer”. Or in a more inclusive form a “designer”. 😛

One of these may be “self-organisation”, which occurs when simpler units – molecules, microbes or creatures – work together using simple rules to create complex patterns and behaviour.

Yeah, that would be one way. One imaginary way with no empirical support whatsoever. These things somehow just “self-organize”. No intelligence needed. They just poof into existence through some unknown laws of self-organization. Good science there alrighty. 🙄

Heat up a saucer of oil and it will self-organise to form a honeycomb pattern, with adjacent “cells” forming as the oil turns by convection. In the correct conditions, water molecules will self-organise into beautiful six-sided snowflakes. Add together the correct chemicals in something called a BZ reaction, and one can create a “clock” that routinely changes colour.

Ah, the old snowflake argument. The modern version of Darwin’s blobs of protoplasm are ice crystals. Now all that’s left is the minor detail of how snowflakes become complicated machines made of thousands of interdependent components each of which has its specification encoded in abstract digital codes. No great leap there. No sir. Space shuttles and computers, both of which pale in complexity compared to the molecular machinery in any single protozoan, form in same manner as snowflakes. There’s some real science for ya! 😯

“Evolution on its own doesn’t look like it can make the creative leaps that have occurred in the history of life,” says Dr Seth Bullock, another of the conference’s organisers. “It’s a great process for refining, tinkering, and so on.

What’s this? Someone gets it! Yay! 😀

But self-organisation is the process that is needed alongside natural selection before you get the kind of creative power that we see around us.” [Bullock concludes]

Crap. Spoke too soon. 😳

At least he got the requirement for organization right. Maybe Bullock will get a clue and figure out that complex things don’t just “self” organize like a magic origami. What a dope. Where do they find these clueless chuckleheads and how do they possibly get advanced degrees? 🙁

Comments
GCUG (105) I guess if you don't feel comfortable defending the idea that all biological DNA code is reasonably evolvable ("I wouldn’t agree with that [that some DNA code is essentially unevolvable] at all, but I’m not a biologist."), but do not wish to concede the point because of the opinions of some people you regard as authorities in this matter, perhaps it is best if we agree to disagree on this point.Paul Giem
August 24, 2008
August
08
Aug
24
24
2008
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
Paul Giem @ 100 "Right now it looks like those who claim that some biological DNA code is essentially unevolvable have more evidence on their side than their opponents." I wouldn't agree with that at all, but I'm not a biologist. I do work with some biologists and from the bits I glean from talking with them and the few presentations I see on the subject it appears that DNA is highly evolvable (almost as if it were designed for it)GCUGreyArea
August 23, 2008
August
08
Aug
23
23
2008
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
This discussion is getting a little out of date and its probably time to move on to more current discussions but I promised a reply so here it is: DaveScot @ 99 You missed my point entirely, all the way. I am perfectly happy to speculate on biological wheels but I was responding to your specific phrasing 'my claims...' (which I may have over-interpreted). I would normally interpret a claim as something that can be backed up by empirical data and so when you asked me to respond to your claim I couldn't because I have no data on the subject, all I can do is speculate. If I had just speculated in response then you might have thought I was also making a claim. Anyway my point was that it seems to me that all we can do on the issue of why wheels don't seem to appear in nature is to speculate, at least for the moment. I am always happy to speculate and enjoy it a great deal.GCUGreyArea
August 23, 2008
August
08
Aug
23
23
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
GCUG (101), Congratulations on your baby girl. And take your time answering. I prefer well-thought-out responses to rapid ones.Paul Giem
August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
GCUG I wouldn't even accept it as an excuse from your wife unless she was given general anesthesia and even then only for the time she was actually unconscious. Just to show you that I'm capable of magnanimous gestures I'll make an exception here if you promise that when you look at all the babies in the maternity ward you keep in mind two things: 1) life comes only from life 2) intelligence comes only from intelligence Now be off with you.DaveScot
August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Paul Geim, DaveScot. I might try and respond to your posts in a few days. My wife had a baby girl earlier today by emergency c-section, neither of us have slept in 48 hours and they are both in hospital for the next few days. I hope you will accept that as a good excuse to duck out of these discussions for a while. I'm so tired I can hardly type...GCUGreyArea
August 17, 2008
August
08
Aug
17
17
2008
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
GCUG (91),
The question is whether this process can generate new species or phenotypic novelty.
You give a good discussion of why some DNA is evolvable, then raise the last question, quoted above. I would refine the question somewhat. Most ID people I know, including most creationists (meaning YLC's) would agree that species is not the proper place to draw the line. It is closer to the family level in most cases. And I would say, "major genotypic novelty" rather than "phenotypic novelty", as legs in the place of antennae could qualify for phenotypic novelty, but is not what evolution needs to explain to be a comprehensive theory. But with those caveats, the key statement that I made, that you quoted, is,
Right now it looks like those who claim that some biological DNA code is essentially unevolvable have more evidence on their side than their opponents.
Would you agree with that statement?Paul Giem
August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
GCUGreyArea Anything that wasn't witnessed or duplicable is mere speculation. If we bound science by those requirements then the field of evolutionary biology would no longer be a science except in the cases where evolution can actually be observed or duplicated. I will accept your wish to avoid speculation but I will ask that you be consistent and not speculate about other things. And by the way, one way to grow a wheel is through scaffolding. The same way a broken bone is repaired. But that's just speculation so we can't talk about it any further. In fact we can't even say there are no macroscopic wheels in nature because we are speculating that none exist that we simply haven't observed. I'm afraid without speculation we're going to be quite restricted in future dialog. DaveScot
August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
DaveScot: Ok, if your hypothesis is that these joints are unnecessary then I can't just answer it, that would be mere speculation. It needs to be empirically tested, if that is possible. I didn't raise the issue or rotating joints to make specific claims about them, I wanted to explore the idea and its implications.GCUGreyArea
August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
GCUG You've still not answered my claim that continuously rotating macroscopic joints are simply unnecessary. If my claim is true then there is no further explanation required for why continuously rotating joints are not found in nature.DaveScot
August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
DaveScot @ 95 "Talk about a moving target!" I don't understand. I'm speculating about methods of design and construction, not making claims about whether wheels can evolve or not. The point is that from my perspective as a human designer assembling things like wheels, crankshafts, combustion chambers etc is an easy way to make things. If I wanted to make a machine that could produce a copy of its self using only its self and raw material (i.e. no factory, machine shop, assembly line) then it MIGHT turn out that unlimited rotating assemblies are difficult to generate as compared to restricted motion joints. This is just a vague hypothesis. I'm not making claims that it is true but it it is an interesting one that might be testable - a route to falsification might be to demonstrate that wheels can easily be made via self assembly cellular systems or that they are simply less practical, as you suggested. If I understand you then your objection to the idea that there are no rotating joints in nature is that cavemen have built them. This would be an example, possibly the only example, of a known intelligence designing wheels. What I am interested in is if there are examples of these mechanical systems that are not designed by us, and why they don't seem to crop up.GCUGreyArea
August 16, 2008
August
08
Aug
16
16
2008
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
GCUGreyArea Let's see. In the face of my retorts you've modified your original (whatever you call it) from a macroscopic continually rotating joint to a drive wheel composed of living cells. Talk about a moving target! Do the words dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge ring any bells for you? :lol: Before we get to the point where you're claiming that nature doesn't have reciprocating internal combustion engines because they're too difficult to make out of living cells I must insist that you address my objection for your original point that there are no macroscopic continuously rotating joints in nature. My objection, again, is that wheels are impractical compared to legs absent smooth roadways. Evolution by chance & necessity isn't going to produce a wheel unless a wheel is a necessity. Show me it's a necessity. An intelligent designer seems even less likely to produce unnecessary things. I would put to you the only reason airplanes have wheels and propellers is we aren't yet smart enough to build articulating wings and legs like a bird. A lets not even bother talking about how difficult it would be to build an aircraft that repairs itself, replicates itself, and is built from and fueled by no more than raw sunflower seeds and water. DaveScot
August 15, 2008
August
08
Aug
15
15
2008
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
DaveScot @ 93 It wasn’t a claim, just an observation. There is no reason why wheels need to be made of living tissue, although the ability to self repair and sense might be an advantage. The other problem with growing a wheel is how to actuate. The only actuator used in animal design is the muscle (outside of the cellular mechanism) which only works in one direction over a finite stroke so it can only generate rotary motion if you have several driving a crank (like a pushbike only pulling) To attach the muscles to the crank you need more rotating joints because the tendons on the crank need to be on bushes, and the crank needs to be supported. All in all when you break down the mechanism it becomes a surprisingly complex thing if you are thinking about it in terms of cellular self assembly, and a lot more complicated than a simple cart. That is not to say it is impossible though.GCUGreyArea
August 15, 2008
August
08
Aug
15
15
2008
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
GCUGreyArea Wheel and axle were perfected by cavemen for transporation purposes. Artificial articulated legs for transportation still aren't quite perfected and weren't even in the running (pun intended) more than a few decades ago. Point stands on which is the more difficult thing to engineer. You said nothing about the wheel being made of living cells in your original claim. Why is that now a requirement? Wheels could be easily made of cellulose, calcium, keratin, or God only knows how many other non-living materials which are incorporated into or extruded out of living things for various purposes. DaveScot
August 15, 2008
August
08
Aug
15
15
2008
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
DaveScot @ 90 The problem with wheels is not the complexity but how you grow them. In most complex living systems you have the transfer of fluids throughout the entity to supply nutrients and gasses in order to maintain the living cells. If you want a constantly rotating joint in an entity made of living cells then you either need each half to be capable of digesting and distributing food to its cells, or you need some method to pass these materials through the joint – along with whatever nervous and chemical signals are required. By contrast constrained articulated joints are quite simple if you can grow muscles across a pair of loosely coupled rigid elements. (Something I wish I could do in my lab!)GCUGreyArea
August 15, 2008
August
08
Aug
15
15
2008
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Paul Giem @ 89 “Right now it looks like those who claim that some biological DNA code is essentially unevolvable have more evidence on their side than their opponents.” It’s a very interesting question with an even more interesting twist. DNA is subject to ‘evolution’ because we know that it is inherited, that mutations happen and that some form of selection happens (your probability of reproducing is a function of the environment, your physical morphology and your behaviour). It would seem that in one sense DNA is evolvable because it doesn’t appear to be brittle to inheritance and mutation, and natural fitness landscapes don’t appear to be too jagged. The question is whether this process can generate new species or phenotypic novelty.GCUGreyArea
August 15, 2008
August
08
Aug
15
15
2008
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Articulated legs are much more difficult from an engineering perspective than wheels. For that matter wings are much more difficult too. I think the lack of macroscopic wheel and axle is probably simply a matter of wheels not being very practical for locomotion without well maintained roads, especially when you're competing with legs and wings.DaveScot
August 15, 2008
August
08
Aug
15
15
2008
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
GCUG (87), You may remember that (84) was an answer to F2XL (I presume 81 rather than 21). She asked if, for example, Windows XP could evolve into Windows Vista without front-loading. As I understood it, you said no in (84), and said that while certain systems were evolvable, especially ones with variables, other systems could not reasonably evolve, because the code was brittle and because the fitness landscapes were jagged. Of course, as you know, the primary interest in this question here, including, if I guess correctly, F2XL (He/she may correct me if I am wrong), is not evolving computer code, but rather evolving life. It does seem that if one concedes that some computer code is essentially unevolvable, that it is possible that some DNA code is essentially unevolvable. So the possibility of unevolvable DNA code should be considered. Some parts of DNA code are not that brittle, If, in a membrane-spanning part of a protein, one substitutes isoleucine for valine, it might make no noticeable difference. On the other hand, if one substitutes arginine for lysine where one needs to make a Schiff base with an amino acid, the enzyme simply will not work. If that enzyme is required to make, say, tyrosine, then unless there are plentiful supplies of tyrosine outside the cell, the cell will die. Period. Just imagine computers trying to evolve software, where, if they make certain mistakes in code, the whole computer is destroyed. That's brittle. Irreducibly complex systems do not have smooth, progressively rewarding pathways that slowly lead up to the final product. The classic example, although not the only one, is the bacterial flagellum. Most of the time defenders of naturalistic evolution simply assert that there can be such a smooth pathway if we go along a sufficiently circuitous route. They don't really know this, except that from their point of view it happened, intelligence did not help, and so there must be such a pathway. The one exception to this handwaving is Nick Matzke. He tried to show how one could develop the flagellum in a step-by-step manner. It is really more leap-by-leap, as the evolutionary pathway for each individual protein is not outlined. And it has, for practical purposes, zero experimental evidence to back it up, thus making it simply a much more complicated just-so story at present. But at least Matzke recognizes the importance of actually trying to find a smooth pathway from one protein to another, in order to have the flagellum evolve without intelligence. (I'd love for someone to test some of Matzke's proposals experimentally. I also find it fascinating that the link does not mention Behe. Talk about staying on message!) Right now it looks like those who claim that some biological DNA code is essentially unevolvable have more evidence on their side than their opponents. This means that, while it is fair to say that one never says never in science, if one is to follow the weight of evidence in this regard, one does not sit exactly halfway between the poles. One leans towards the side that has the most, and the most quality, evidence.Paul Giem
August 15, 2008
August
08
Aug
15
15
2008
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Dear Dave, I have to ask my friends, we were organising the conference. They might have saved the video somewhere. I will send you when I get it.abtahizadeh
August 14, 2008
August
08
Aug
14
14
2008
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
As I said, artificial evolution will not work on everything. It works great on some things and not at all on others. Just because it won’t work very well on some things that doesn’t mean it can’t work at all. It is not biological evolution, and I was not talking about biological evolution. It is not the simplicity or complexity of the system that is the issue. It is, as I already explained, related to how brittle the structure is that you want to evolve, and how jagged the fitness landscape is. Irreducible complexity, as far as I understand it, exists in most artificially evolved systems. If you evolve a neural network for a particular task and then remove a node, or a link, the network will usually fail. This is not true of all neural networks, some can compensate for lesions and others have redundancy – just like our brains, if you take away a single neuron it will not catastrophically fail (unless you are very very unlucky) Now does this mean that our brains are not irreducibly complex? I’m not a biologist – I make robots – but I did hear a fascinating talk a while ago by a biologist talking all about the numerous error checking mechanisms that the cell has to cope with DNA damage. “Might biological evolution have limitations as well? “ Yes, that is the current thinking in evolutionary biology as far as I know. Outside of the molecular mechanisms in the cell there appear to be absolutely no continually rotating joints in nature - things like wheels don’t seem to appear ‘naturally’ they are only observed as the product of human design.GCUGreyArea
August 14, 2008
August
08
Aug
14
14
2008
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
GCUG, Let me get this straight. Some computer systems are inherently unevolvable. But not to worry. This does not mean that some biological systems are inherently unevolvable, because artificial evolution is not biological evolution. I assume that this is because biological systems are much simpler than computer code. Or perhaps they are more tolerant of error, and always have smooth pathways from one state to another, with each mutation (or whatever change) being slightly more fit in some setting than the previous. That is, Behe-style irreducible complexity does not exist. And we know this because?
Genetic algorithms work, but they are not a universal design system, they have some very interesting limitations.
Might biological evolution have limitations as well? Is there an edge to evolution? Might some living things or subsystems be substantially beyond that edge? Or life itself, for that matter?Paul Giem
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Magnan @ 83 “You must then reject all the evidence of psychic phenomena and the paranormal.” Perhaps you missed the bit where I said that I don’t discount the possibility of supernature, I just don’t assume it is required either. I’ve always had a big interest in the paranormal but I am also a healthy sceptic – my standards for solid evidence are rather high. As for Searl’s Chinese room, I always felt it was just an example of a rather odd symbol processing system. It says nothing about whether it is possible to make a mind that experiences consciousness in the way we do, it just make a point about how hard it might be to tell if something we have created is anything more that a symbol processing machine. I’m not sure what you are referring to with Chalmers Qualia of Consciousness – is it his hypothetical zombies? If it is I am not at all convinced by his reasoning.GCUGreyArea
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT
F2XL @ 21 "I’m asking if you know of an instance in which windows XP could “evolve” into windows vista or a more complex software program without any prior front-loading." By front-loading I presume you mean without adding any of the mechanisms required for evolution to occur? I have yet to come across anyone working with artificial evolution who believes that software can just develop the ability to evolve spontaneously. There are very good reasons why most people don’t try and directly evolve machine code in order to produce software applications like word processors. As any programmer will know code is very brittle, change a single instruction and the entire programme can fail totally. Equally important is the nature of what is called the ‘fitness landscape’ If there are no, or very few, points in between a total failure to do the required job, and total success then genetic algorithms don’t tend to work – and for that matter neither do a whole load of other automated design systems, for example simulated annealing. Genetic algorithms tend to work best on less brittle substrates and on reasonably smooth fitness landscapes, for this reason they tend to get used a lot with computational neural networks, where the majority of the parameters being evolved are floating point values and small changes to these values translate into small changes in the behaviour of the network. As for the question of complexity, it really depends what you are looking at. If you are, as I have done in the past, trying to artificially evolve a neural network to perform a particular task then surely the measure of complexity should be applied to the parameters being evolved – the configuration of the network. The underlying software doesn’t have to change, although it can if you are using a variable size network - in other words the network can grow in size and consequently in complexity, which is reflected in the way the underlying software uses memory and fills it with new data. You picked a couple of examples of things that most researchers in AI and ALife would regard as un-evolvable, and you seem to be trying to suggest that unless I can explain how they could be evolved then the whole evolution thing is junk. It’s a cheap and not very convincing attempt at argument and just illustrates a poor understanding of the whole subject – most importantly that artificial evolution is not biological evolution and that not everything is evolvable. Anyone who has tried to claim that something like windows XP could evolve into something else is, in my opinion, completely nuts! Genetic algorithms work, but they are not a universal design system, they have some very interesting limitations.GCUGreyArea
August 13, 2008
August
08
Aug
13
13
2008
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT
GCUGreyArea (#74): "We don’t appear to know for certain (and maybe are incapable of knowing) if a mechanistic set of rules can produce free will. ....If (a pack of neurons) is all we are then it appears to be doing the job most of the time." You evidently consider it quite possible, though you don't go so far as the convinced materialists, who know this absolutely. I'm curious. You must then reject all the evidence of psychic phenomena and the paranormal. You apparently also reject the philosophical arguments on AI, like Searle's Chinese Room and Chalmers' qualia of consciousness. Comment?magnan
August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
Ahhh, FPGA's bring back many good memories. I quite enjoyed reading Dave Scot's description of his 486 motherboard project. As for me, my own career was with Altera from the mid 80's to the early 2000's. I (like Dave and GCUGreyArea), was also a jack of all trades, in my case for the internal products and projects needed for getting our chips through production test and silicon debug, as well as tools specific to simulating and generating test programs for the various product families. I also worked on a continually improving hardware/software system which replaced million-dollar test equipment with multi-thousand dollar PC based equipment. It originally all ran under DOS and evolved through the years to run under NT. We did, of course, push everything to the absolute limit and made copious use of Altera PLDs in the design. I couldn't have asked for a better technical career!Matteo
August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
I would need to know what definition of complexity you are using before I could debate the point. I'm asking if you know of an instance in which windows XP could "evolve" into windows vista or a more complex software program without any prior front-loading.F2XL
August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
DS, I was about to ask if Chuck Missler was the same Chuck Missler who is a pastor and writes books, etc, when you answered my question with the link. What a small world! (6.6 degress of separation small, I guess.)Atom
August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
DaveScot @ 75 – 76 Interesting background. In my work I have to be a jack of all trades as you can imagine – electronics, microcontrollers, PCB design, engineering, design. And I quite often feel that I am not good enough at any of them. (I did my first degree in sculpture BTW) I would be interested to know what you made of the whole Evolvable Hardware thing – applying genetic algorithms to FPGA’s? I did follow the DARPA grand challenge, I almost wanted to enter but I am not based in the US and there were restrictions on the nationality of the teams (And issues over the ownership of any IP). Some very interesting stuff there, a lot of things I am not hugely concerned with in my work though. I am most interested in biologically inspired and evolutionary robotics, in particular legged locomotion, and dealing a good deal with what is loosely called ‘Morphocognition’ – the way seemingly difficult problems can be solved with the right type of body. We have used the evolutionary approach with some success but building robots is expensive and so a fair amount of the work is done in physics simulators whilst we try and drum up funding from non-military sources. Genetic algorithms are by no means perfect but tend to exploit the hell out of simulation flaws, in one trial a simulated walking robot discovered how to fly! Interestingly I knew a guy who was working for a company developing GA based predictors for financial markets, one of their first big contracts was earned when they did a trial for a large bank. The bank gave them a financial market model they had developed as a set of software DLL’s so they didn’t know how the model worked – it just outputted data. They managed to evolve a predictor (I think based on a neural net) that was about 95% accurate. After mulling over their results the bank gave them a load more work because the GA had discovered and exploited a whole bunch of flaws in their (multi-million dollar) model - The bank saw a lot of value in this as a tool for testing their models. Regarding my reason for remaining anonymous, I’m afraid I am telling the truth. I did get my fingers burnt a while ago, so to speak. It may have been a certain degree of bad luck or bad judgement in my being honest in a public forum occupied by some rather thuggish fundamentalists but it made me cautious. A couple of e-mails from one person regarding what they wanted to do to my children because I had apparently offended their god were particularly sick. (I didn’t actually have children at the time though, but we are expecting one any day now!) That said I don’t actually regard the wish to remain anonymous in these types of forum as an attempt to hide, or as requiring a justification, but I agree that it can be difficult to accept what someone is saying about themselves if you can’t verify it independently. I’m afraid that for the moment I’m not going to budge on the subject of my identity. BTW, I would be at this ALife conference now if it wasn’t for the imminent baby.GCUGreyArea
August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
AMir Do you happen to know when the videos of the ALife XI conference will be made available? I went searching but came up empty handed. CC Yes, you will get banned if you insist on raising the question "Who Designed the Designer". We don't have any empirical data to frame answers around so it's simply a dead end. It would be like me demanding that biologists explain where the material in materialism ultimately comes from. That's not germane to biology and who designed the designer is not germane to ID. We don't even have any hard data on the designer of life on this planet to say nothing of going up the chain of command to the next designer, or even if there is a next designer. All we have that we can actually observe is the end result of the intelligent agent at work. Just like all we have to actually observe is the end result of billions of years of chance & necessity at work. If it's possible mechanisms the designer might have used that you're interested in then I can do no more than give you an example of a sufficient mechanism without any evidence that's actually the mechanism utilized. A highly infectious airborne or waterborne retrovirus targeted at the reproductive cells of one or more species which deposits a genetic payload altering the course of evolution for those species would work nicely. Saltations from one form to another could be accomplished quite fast with minimal effort. The same vector could cause the rapid extinction of any selected species too. If you want the brand of the sequencing machine the designer used to build the virus and the mailing address of his laboratory I can't help with that. This puts us at better than parity with chance & necessity regards possible mechanisms underlying descent with modification. At least we can prove that intelligent agencies with the proper lab equipment can alter the genetic makeup of living organisms at any level of increased or altered complexity desired in one fell swoop. Nobody has demonstrated in any experiment that chance & necessity can do that. Chance & necessity's proven ability in that regard is supported by no more than extrapolation and hand waving. DaveScot
August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
GCUG You never commented on the DARPA Grand Challenge. Did you not follow it (hard to imagine you didn't given your professional expertise) or it hit so close to home that talking about it would give away too much personal information. By the way, I'm not buying the excuse about email being flooded with spam if someone finds out your name. My name and email address is the most loosely held secret around here and except for one moron/stalker named Blipey (Eric Pratt) who decided discretion was the better part of valor when I threatened to sic my dogs on him if he showed his face at my door, I've never had any problems because of it. What's the real reason? re; The Design Matrix - Amazon and $20 will have it on your doorstep in 3 days. DaveScot
August 12, 2008
August
08
Aug
12
12
2008
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply