Ben Goertzel wrote:
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).
This is amazing: you just wrote down a whole bunch of speculations,
pulled out of thin air, without a shred of evidence for any of them.
First, where is your evidence that Conway used "clever-intuition-guided
trial and error, not true random search"? Are there any publications
that make this claim? Are just guessing that he might have done?
[Note, BTW, that this is almost impossible to prove: his goal was to
find a CA that had the right balance between life and death, so how
would you tell the difference between Conway having an intuition about a
good place to look, and the possibility that there are lots of solutions
out there, and he just blundered into one of them?]
Second, you say that "the idea to look at that particular class of
local, binary 2D CA rules in the first place" was "guided by Conway's
excellent intuition into this particular class of complex systems".
really? He looked non-binary CA rules as well. And how do you know he
didn't just try the simplest things first, and it turns out that there
are sufficiently many solutions that he blundered into one of them by
accident (cf previous paragraph)? This is just your guess, unsupported
by any evidence, and perhaps even not provable even in principle!
Third, you say that "the idea that a 2D local binary CA rule giving rise
to apparently complex patterns would actually give rise to
Turing-complete behaviors" was also "guided by Conway's excellent
intuition into this particular class of complex systems". I know of no
evidence that Conway ever intended to make a system that could be used
to implement a Turing machine: do you know that he did? And, in any
case, is it not common knowledge, now, that vast numbers of CA can be
used to build Turning machines? Didn't Wolfram set up a competition to
see who could find the simplest CA that yields Turing-completeness? So
it appears that if you just start building CA at random, you can make
something that is Turing complete.
Third, you say "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." Again, this is nothing but Ben Goertzel's
speculation. Where is the evidence that he "knew where to look"?
Then, after all of this speculation pulled out of nowhere, you come to
the conclusion that:
> ... 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
You have established no such thing! I am truly impressed by your nerve
though.
Give me some evidence! :-)
Hypothesi non fingo, remember....
Richard Loosemore
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
David Hart wrote:
On 8/2/08, *Richard Loosemore* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[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/?&;
<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] <mailto:[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>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>
Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
-------------------------------------------
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
