Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!linac!midway!msuinfo!buster.cps.msu.edu!dailey
From: dailey@buster.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: computer life?
Keywords: Survival, instincts
Message-ID: <1991Mar1.143222.29977@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 91 14:32:22 GMT
References: <1991Feb27.134800.18153@news.larc.nasa.gov> <1991Feb28.190553.20519@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1991Feb28.235517.20218@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Reply-To: dailey@buster.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Lines: 76
Originator: dailey@buster.cps.msu.edu

In article <1991Feb28.235517.20218@news.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>In article <1991Feb28.190553.20519@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> dailey@buster.cps.msu.edu (Chris Dailey) writes:
>>In article <1991Feb27.134800.18153@news.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>   Granted, this is a good point.  But manmade systems (like computers)
>>>are not evolved, but designed.  Knowing the path by which lifeforms
>>>evolved might help us construct an artificial life form, but it's not
>>>required.
>>This is the only form of evolution of which we have some idea of how
>>things work.  A manmade system which is designed would probably be
>>designed so it will evolve beyond its design.  We will probably learn a
>>lot if we do this.  (Some of us believe that WE were designed, and have
>>since evolved on our own, but I have digressed.)
>   Many learning systems exist which in a sense evolve as they learn about
>their environment.  But this is evolution in a very different sense.  A
>system that evolves beyond its design must not do so in the same fashion
>as humans did.  Software mutation and the weeding out of bad variants is
>not a good software engineering practice.  

I would tend to agree that we could not do software mutation and weeding
out of bad variants with what are today's acceptable software
engineering practices.  Maybe this will become a new specialization?  I
think it is needed to accomplish 'AI' (I'll leave the reason
unexplained).

[...computer chess being different from human strategy...]
>>However, these computers are designed (in many or most cases) with the
>>human's strategies.  They are algorithmic representations of human
>>thoughts.  The only way (IMO) they could operate in a manner truly very
>>different would be if they were the ones that taught themselves how to
>>play.
>
>No, they don't at all use the same strategies that humans use.  Many humans
>can't explain the strategies they use, and if they could, they probably
>would not be efficient to implement.

I guess I did not explain myself well.  I meant that computer
strategies are an attempt at quantizing human methods, or doing methods
that are just beyond human capabilities to actually implement.  I sure
humans would play chess much more like a computer if we had brains more
suited to doing so.  In the meanwhile, we dream up strategies that we
implement on computer ONLY BECAUSE OF THE TIME CONSIDERATIONS of us
trying the same strategy.  The computer is merely an extension of the
programmer's brain from this perspective.

[...Remainder of paragraph stating stuff I should have said :) or that we
look at from different viewpoints...]

>>>   If a computer life form is constructed, it will probably not be constructed
>>>in any manner resembling the evolutionary method by which all living systems
>>>we know have been formed.  This is because computers, again, operate in a 
>>>very different fashion than organic systems.  But nevertheless, the result
>>>will be the same.
>>
>>I believe a computer's evolutionary method, although modeled after the
>>evolution of living (I assume you mean, organic) systems, would be
>>significantly different (although not necessarily different enough that
>>we could not learn more about our own evolution).  Kinda like weather
>>patterns in comparison to living systems.

To the purpose of explaining my last paragraph ...  Have you ever
written a cellular automata program with differing rules?  Even though
you knew what the rules were before you ran the program, it was hard to
predict what the outcomes would be like.  Similar with chaos systems
like the Mandelbrot set:  each point is easy to find, but a point X and
Y units away is [almost?] impossible to predict.

>This sounds very much like we are agreeing.

I think you're right.

>--scott
-- 
Chris Dailey   dailey@(frith.egr|cps).msu.edu
    __  __  ___       | "A line in the sand." -- The Detroit News
 __/  \/  \/ __:>-    |
 \__/\__/\__/         | "Allein in der sand." -- me