The observation that a robot, with or without unchanging primitive elements of design, can potentially be capable of learning because it operates in a world that itself is complex and indefinably changing,... seems a close match to what's happening, and both theoretically and operationally valid. That it becomes impossible to say how... because impossible to specify the interactions or fully understand the responses is relevant too.
At the moment, because robots are extensions of our thinking, 'their' way of organically adapting is that we watch how they work and build new ones. That works perfectly well as a natural system! 'Hands off' robot evolution is far more limited, because the way we build machines is with invariant primitives of many kinds. The root problem is that equations are *so* self-sufficient that they have no environmental interaction at all, and that all natural systems are entirely different on that count. Natural systems actually all directly *grow out of* the environments they will continue to interact with. That equations don't do that and robots don't do that, except as the man-equation & man-robot couples they are, is the rub. That explaining why seems to be an ill-posed question, then, might it be considered highly useful information too, about what information can explain v. what we can only point to. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com -- "it's not finding what people say interesting, but finding what's interesting in what they say" -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 8:10 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] not enough of Robert Rosen > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I'm going to violate the bottom-post rule because all 3 of > the following excerpts focus on the point I made (in response > to Günther) that there's a difference between "computation" > as the software that runs on a machine and the machine, itself. > > When we talk about "computation", are we talking about a > concrete _thing_ that exists out there in the world? Or are > we talking about an abstract machine that exists only in our > minds (or software as the case may be)? > > Marcus' comments show that he's talking about the former... > computers are real machines that can avail themselves of the > full machinery of reality. Hence, that type of "computation" > isn't limited in the way RR suggests because that's not what > "computability" refers to. > > A robot that can change itself based on sensory-motor > interactions with the real world is not a computer in the > same sense as a universal turing machine. > > This distinction provides plenty of fodder for long arguments > and confusion between Rosenites. Some even say that an > extant, concrete machine in the real world actually is > complex_rr in the same sense that a rock or a mountain is > (but not a tree or a cat). Others vehemently deny that. The > former seem to submit to degrees of complexity_rr whereas the > others seem to think it's bivalent. > > So, I already asked this; but, the conversation really needs > a clear understanding of what we mean by "computation". > Perhaps we could split it into two categories: computation_c > would indicate the activities of a concrete machine and > computation_a would indicate the (supposed) activities of a > universal turing machine. > > Joost Rekveld on 01/08/2008 02:13 PM: > > isomorphism could be possible), but from what I understand from > > Rosen, Pattee, Pask and Cariani is that novelty in a real, non- > > platonic (let's say Aristotelic ?) world has to do with the > > appearance of new primitives: new symbols with new meanings in a new > > syntax. The construction of symbols in the real world is an open- > > ended process, which is why no isomorphism with a closed, formal > > system is possible. > > Marcus G. Daniels on 01/08/2008 02:52 PM: > > 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. 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.. > > Joost Rekveld on 01/08/2008 03:24 PM: > > 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. > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity > with which it got out of its way. -- Henry David Thoreau > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHhB7PZeB+vOTnLkoRAkxPAJkBFRfqeFx/UOEwqm05yJOZ8WHO9gCfTefY > HYWqQsjEqLVI5D13iIW0zoc= > =WGg8 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ============================================================ > 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 > > ============================================================ 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
