On Jan 8, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Joost Rekveld wrote: >> This is certainly a good point, but from what I understand of Rosen's >> theories another limitation of GP has to do with the fact that the >> language in which the programming is done can not evolve. > I don't see why this must be so. One could imagine that a robot > had a > field programmable gate array that could, in effect, burn an all new > processor and bring it online.
sure, but can a robot develop representations for other operations than those already in its specifications ? can it design a processor that has some novel feature that is not already possible in the robots current architecture ? > But, usually when new computer > architectures are being developed, the developers just write a > software > simulator for it in initial stages (that mimics the intended > physics of > the hardware design). > Even the adiabatic quantum computer people at DWave are using existing > silicon process technologies to design circuits.. I guess the main creative factor in these examples are the people involved in designing new specifications and defining symbols representing aspects of the new hardware they are developing... > >> The syntax >> will always be circumscribed by a subset of the programming language >> that is used to set up the GP, and the semantics of what the symbols >> represent in terms of real-world measurements or actions will be >> fixed by the robot's senses and actuators. > Biotech, nanotech... ? yes, I guess so. In this Cariani thesis I mentioned he posits some kind of real-world assembly process enabling the construction of new senses and actuators. ( see "On the design of devices with emergent semantic functions", <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/Cariani89.pdf> ) I guess the crucial difference is that such a self-constructing robot would be grounded in the real world and not in a prespecified computed universe. It would be able to evolve its own computed universe. I'm not sure what to think of all this, but I like Cariani's ideas a lot and so far I haven't found any basic flaw in them. But, as said, being non-schooled in these matters that doesn't necessarily mean very much. On Jan 8, 2008, at 11:56 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Joost Rekveld wrote: >> This is certainly a good point, but from what I understand of Rosen's >> theories another limitation of GP has to do with the fact that the >> language in which the programming is done can not evolve. > 20 amino acids seem to go a long way... :-) > characters make no language... cheers, Joost. ------------------------------------------- Joost Rekveld ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld ------------------------------------------- “This alone I ask you, O reader, that when you peruse the account of these marvels that you do not set up for yourself as a standard human intellectual pride, but rather the great size and vastness of earth and sky; and, comparing with that Infinity these slender shadows in which miserably and anxiously we are enveloped, you will easily know that I have related nothing which is beyond belief.” (Girolamo Cardano) ------------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
