I would say that 'life' as we know, and understand, it has 'chosen' robustness and redundancy instead of efficiency. It doesn't matter how efficient you *were* if one glitch kills you. I used quotes are because I am anthromorphizing evolution. It seems to me that some of the ideas here are approaching the same ideas ... glom together stauff that works, even if it not the most efficient solution, but good enough. Choose you goals wisely.
David On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Carl Gundel <ca...@psychesystems.com> wrote: > I’m not sure why you think I’m attributing special reverence to > computing. Break all the rules, please. ;-)**** > > ** ** > > The claim that life is somehow inefficient so that computing should be > different begs for qualification. I’m sure there are a lot of ideas that > can be gleaned for future computing technologies by studying biology, but > living things are not computers in the sense of what people mean when they > use the term computer. It’s apples and oranges. **** > > ** ** > > -Carl**** > > ** ** > > *From:* fonc-boun...@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-boun...@vpri.org] *On Behalf > Of *David Barbour > *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:39 AM > *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing > *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?**** > > ** ** > > If you treat computing that reverently, you'll never improve it.**** > > ** ** > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Carl Gundel <ca...@psychesystems.com> > wrote:**** > > Design systems that are more efficient than life? More efficient in what > ways, for what purposes? For the purposes of computing? Can we define > what computing should become? We are only touching the hem of the garment, > I think. ;-)**** > > **** > > -Carl**** > > **** > > *From:* fonc-boun...@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-boun...@vpri.org] *On Behalf > Of *David Barbour > *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:05 AM**** > > > *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing > *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?**** > > **** > > Life is, in some ways, less "messy" than binary. At least less fragile. > DNA cannot encode absolute offsets, for example. Closer to associative > memory.**** > > In any case, we want to reach useful solutions quickly. Life doesn't > evolve at a scale commensurate with human patience, despite having vastly > more parallelism and memory. So we need to design systems more efficient, > and perhaps more specialized, than life.**** > > On Sep 4, 2013 5:37 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <casey.obrie...@gmail.com> > wrote:**** > > John, you're right. I have seen raw binary used as DNA and I left that > out. This could be my own prejudice, but it seems like a messy way to do > things. I suppose I want to limit what the animal can do by constraining it > to some set of "safe" primitives. Maybe that's a silly thing to worry > about, though. If we're going to grow software, I suppose maybe I should > expect the process to be as messy as life is:)**** > > **** > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, John Carlson <yottz...@gmail.com> wrote:** > ** > > I meant to say you could perform and record operations while the program > was running.**** > > I think people have missed machine language as "syntaxless."**** > > On Sep 4, 2013 4:17 PM, "John Carlson" <yottz...@gmail.com> wrote:**** > > > On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <casey.obrie...@gmail.com> > wrote:**** > > > It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.**** > > Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed > operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but > with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was > running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range > and set notation.**** > > Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?**** > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc**** > > > > **** > > **** > > -- **** > > CALIFORNIA**** > > H U M A N**** > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc**** > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
