Re: cristallization and evolution


"grayden" <gsolman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121793423.376954.61130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> JPL Verhey wrote:
>> The perception of biological evolution is often that it is like a
>> free
>> ride - "anything is possible" the moment self-replicating systems
>> like
>> premordial cells (or cell-like structures) evolve under the rigid and
>> straight forward regime of natural selection.
>>
>> The diversity of biological organisms is indeed impressive, and there
>> is
>> no reason to believe that all diversity will not further diversify in
>> the future (or de-versify).. but the idea that "anything is possible"
>> is
>> nonsense.
>
> I could be wrong, but I don't think that particular argument has ever
> been made in the strong sense.

You could be right.

>From my surveys the more frequent
> assumption is not that evolution is "anything goes" but rather that it
> is "open-ended".

Yes that's better phrased.

They sound synonymous, but they're not. For an
> evolving system to be open-ended simply means that there isn't a
> predefined or best 'end-state'. The system will never settle into any
> ultimate form, and moreover there is no 'best' path. However, there
> does nothing to imply that the paths taken are not subject to
> restrictions - just that there is unrestricted freedom *within* the
> state of possible paths.

Ok

>
>> Water particles cristalize into snowflakes with a very rich
>> diversity of crystal forms as a result.
>>
>> Maybe the diversity of biological life forms can be explained
>> analogous
>> to the diversity of crystal forms like snow flakes. The results may
>> be
>> extremely divers, but the underlying "laws" may be simple, rigid and
>> strickt without mercy. Water particles that cristalize will for
>> instance
>> never turn into plastic toy stars that light up in the dark.
>
> This is the goal and main approach in the field of ALife - to generate
> emergent life-like properties from locally interacting low-level
> components. The benefit to this system is exactly as you have
> described
> it. A water molecule will not transform into a plastic toy star.
> Interactions are simple and predetermined, which detours the plague of
> a priori structures and functions that AI often falls to.

Indeed. However "emergent properties" what are they? I think all
properties can be said to be emergent. When properties are well known as
they are observed frequently they are not unexpected. When a property is
oberved that is unexpected ie that surprised us (read: that we can't
explain the moment it is observed) it may usually be called "an emergent
property". Like consciousness is often called "an emergent property of
the brain". Which should be: a property we can't make any sense of why
it is there. Anyways's that's my somewhat distrust of the word
"emergent" - a term used to disguise an inability to explain. But maybe
there is a more benign use of the word? Like properties of a system that
can not be explained as a sum of its parts? The problem of course is
that for instance in physics success really is determined by the ability
to explain (predict) properties of systems by computing its parts.

>> This is also relevant for AI. Human and other organic intelligence
>> may
>> be a very specific form of "cristalization" that cannot easily (if at
>> all) be re-engineerd in another substrate. You can of course always
>> make
>> look-alikes like sophisticated plastic barbi dolls that say "Good
>> morning" when you enter the kitchen - but that cannot be the business
>> of
>> AI - creating fake-intelligence.
>>
>> I believe it is the idea of Functionalism (correct me if wrong) that
>> it
>> is possible to create identical intelligence in different substrates.
>> That may not be so easy, if not impossible.
>
> I would agree with you here, but only because the functionalist
> argument is too strict. I take a very simple approach to human
> intelligence: It is a result of being human. This is not to say that a
> *comparable* or even a superior intelligence could not be created in
> some other substrate. All I'm saying is that to be human you have to
> be
> human, which is why I personally feel that much of AI research is
> irrevocably misguided. We are embodied systems. Our brain is not the
> only part of our body that thinks, and is far from independent in its
> functioning. The entire body works as a consistent, self-supporting
> unit. All the pieces are necessary. So if you want a human
> intelligence
> you're better off having sex than working in AI. The 'intelligence'
> manifested by a system will be dependent both on design and on
> implementation, and will be wholly determined by those elements and by
> the environment in which they are embedded.

Yes, for human intelligence you need human beings. Then we have monkey
intelligence, the intelligence of those awsome predator spiders that
have amazing hunting techniques..dolfins..etc etc..up to the point of
inorganic particles that then also must "possess" some (proto-)
intelligence. But then the word intelligence loses meaning.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: cristallization and evolution
    ... > The perception of biological evolution is often that it is like a free ... > premordial cells evolve under the rigid and ... > The diversity of biological organisms is indeed impressive, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: cristallization and evolution
    ... >> The perception of biological evolution is often that it is like a free ... >> The diversity of biological organisms is indeed impressive, ... > evolving system to be open-ended simply means that there isn't a ... species often develop their own solution to the same problem. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: What happened
    ... biological evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of species", ... you learn that fairy tales are not real. ...
    (talk.origins)