Well, there may have been a lot of trial and error in figuring out which local, binary 2D CA rule would give rise to complex patterns (though I feel pretty confident it was clever-intuition-guided trial and error, not true random search...), but
1) the idea to look at that particular class of local, binary 2D CA rules in the first place 2) the idea that a 2D local binary CA rule giving rise to apparently complex patterns would actually give rise to Turing-complete behaviors were guided by Conway's excellent intuition into this particular class of complex systems. Basically, his intuition told him where to look, and then finding the actual rule was a sort of "parameter tuning" in a fairly small discrete space. So I think this is a pretty good example of someone designing an interesting complex system via * coming up with the basic system design using an intuitive understanding * setting the parameters of the system via intelligently-guided trial and error However, one thing that wasn't done here was to try to create a system that depends relatively smoothly rather than extremely sensitively on the parameter values (in this case the "parameter" being the local rule). -- Ben G On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > David Hart wrote: > >> On 8/2/08, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> Thus: in my paper there is a quote from a book in which Conway's >> efforts were described, and it is transparently clear from this >> quote that the method Conway used was random search: >> >> >> I believe this statement misinterprets the quote and severely >> underestimates the amount of thought and design inherent in Conway's >> invention. In my option, the stochastic search methodologies (practiced >> mainly by his students) can be considred 'tuning/improvement/tweaking' and >> NOT themselves part of the high-level conceptual design. But, this topic is >> a subjective interpretation rabbithole that is probably not worth pursuing >> further. >> > > No, not at all. > > Conway is still alive, you know. Why doesn't somebody ask him? > > I defend what I say to the hilt. Conway and his helpers knew what target > they were aiming for (they decided on one aspect of the global behavior > before time), but I believe they did nothing at all besides try various > possibilities until one of them worked. > > I can find no evidence, anywhere, of any theorems, or any mathematical > analysis that allowed them to target a specific set of rules that would give > them the birth-death ratio that they were looking for. > > If anyone does believe that they did some analysis to achieve this goal, > the onus is on them to find it. Failing all else, ask Conway himself. > > It is not good enough for people to go around making wild allegations (as > Linas did yesterday), without any supporting evidence, and then for me to > produce apparently clear counter-evidence, only to have it dismissed by some > vague suggestion that perhaps I may have misinterpreted the evidence. > > > > Richard Loosemore > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
