Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02357
To: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
From: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:17:50 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: CPU again? (was Beam genome)
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Bob Shannon wrote:
---8<---
> There have been some very interesting experiments done with cellular
> automata based robotic controllers. A lot of this work is unpublished
> currently, existing as trade secrets.
>
---8<---
> But a sequenctial computer can simulate a cellular automata, and the
> behavior of that automata has nothing to do with the sequence of
> instructions being executed by the CPU.
Terry's main point is this:
> > It's something besides whether it's cpu or analog that will determine
> > if something electronic is "alive" (there's that word again!), who's
> > to say our little four neuron walkers are not alive? Can we tell?
Is a `bot alive, or can it be alive. You point to cellular automata
as the answer. One might also look at Tom Ray's Tierra, or other
ways to introduce something like the genetic algorithm. But what
are we looking at? Is it:
A) Life,
or
B) A simulation of some aspects of life, as perceived by the human
mind?
If you think A is the right answer, you have an incredibly narrow
concept of life. And B applies also to Tilden's Walkman. It kind of
walks, thereby simulating an aspect of certain walking animals.
That observation doesn't seem very meaningful to me. Imho robots
are just machines to be designed for fun or purpose.
---8<---
> > In general terms, adding a random factor merely lifts the
> > predictability of machines to the Brownian motion level.
>
> Now Steven's lost me here.
Consider a robot which merely reverses when it hits a wall; very
predictable linear motion. Now add a random change of direction at
each bounce. Your robot is now as predictable as a two-dimensional
gas molecule.
Imho life doesn't bother to throw dice. Choices are made based on
sensory input and remembered cause and effect; the heaviest side of
the balance derermines the choice. We may perceive a random factor,
but what we actually see is the complexity of the input.
> > Life and consciousness won't rise Phoenix-like from the ashes of
> > a little chaos. Remember the monkeys, their typewriters and
> > Shakespeare.
>
> Life did apparently arise in just this way!
Terry was talking about adding randomness to some electronic
circuitry. You can't compare that to life, because we don't begin
to match the creativity of planet earth. And she took a couple of
billion years to get from single cells to multicellular beings.
Those monkeys will never write "A Midsummer-night's Dream," because
they won't be around long enough. And neither will their childrens'
children. The universe itself will end before immortal monkeys can
finish that task.
Best,
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------
# sbolt@xs4all.nl # Steven Bolt # popular science monthly KIJK #
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home