Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead
Le 21-juil.-12, à 17:29, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: so we end up making no choice at all or we make a choice based on nothing, in other words at random. I don't believe we can make choice at random. Fine, I don't think that's true but as far as this discussion goes it wouldn't matter if it was. If the choice was not random then it happened for a reason and was deterministic; and the free will noise is just as meaningless as it would be if choices were random. Not for a compatibilist. The fact that consciousness and free will can be justified or explained, in some way, in a deterministic framework, does not make those concepts referring to something unreal. And yet very often people have great difficulty explaining, even to themselves, why they made the choice they did; so either there was no reason for the choice or there was but the conscious mind does not know what it was, That is it. those are the only two possibilities and neither elevates the free will noise even one Planck Length above pure gibberish. It does not elevate the incompatibilist notion of free will above gibberish, but this we already agreed on. It just define free will for the compatibilist, and I don't see why you believe that this is gibberish (as opposed to incompatibilist free will). It is close. It has been defended by Popper, I.J. Good and some others, and it suits well mechanism. This needs to be defended?? I admit that tautologies have the virtue of being true but I would have thought it would be embarrassing for two grown men, let alone two famous philosophers, to think that this childish observation deserves the millions of words they have churned out about it which all boils down to we don't know what we don't know. The notion of Knowledge is the most difficult notion to define with some rigor, as Socrates, in the writing of Plato, makes clear when refuting or criticizing all attempts of definition of it given by Theaetetus. Then you are too quick to sum up the definition of free will by we don't know what we don't know, for, as you admit yourself, the absence of knowledge, in this setting, is a consequence of Turing-like form of indeterminacy, which is not tautological, and that was my point that I share with Popper and Good. In the human sciences, a lot of notions seems trivial, but are not. We just happen to have a very old biological brain which makes it appear trivial, but as AI researcher know well, this is not the case. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead
Le 21-juil.-12, à 18:11, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And so they are no longer catholic theologians, they should be proud of their excommunication and shout from the rooftops Good riddance to bad rubbish!. Things are not that Black and White. The churches pervert an original idea, but don't make it disappear entirely. Why do you defend them? Why does atheists always defend the most conservative position in religion? It looks like defending something stupid just to be able to say I don't believe in it. I think the ultimate nightmare would be to be tortured to give information that you simply did not have, that's what would happen to me if the Gestapo demanded I explain what you were talking about in the above. The fact is that you act th same toward free will and theology, and probably toward the mind-body problem, each time by pointing on some popular discourse without ever addressing the question behind. You confuse concepts with their plausible misconception of it. And so if you tell me Bob is a theologian I know absolutely posatively nothing about Bob because now the word Theologian has joined atheist, theist, God and of course free will as words that mean absolutely positively nothing. Do you have an answer for what we can expect through death? Can you justify it, and in which theory? If yes, you have a theology. If no, either you make research, and believe in theology, or you don't make research and are not interested in theology. When I addressed that mortality question and showed that computationalism makes the question just more difficult, but partially formulable in arithmetic, I was told that it was theology, as it is with the large defiition I gave, because assuming comp, it is related with non provable truth (by the machine, for itself). And so if you tell me X is a religion you have told me nothing about X because meaning needs contrast and everything is a religion is equivalent to nothing is a religion But nobody ever said that everything is religion. OK, with comp correct human science is included in correct human theology (as G is included in G*), but 1) the inclusion is strict, and 2) from a human point of view, there is necessarily an act of faith if he want to apply that theology in practice (like when accepting the surgeon's proposition). May be you were just confusing theory of everything (which includes the question of afterlife, existence of souls, persons, gods, etc.) with everything. Of course those are different. Bruno and religion has now joined theologian atheist, theist, God and free will as words that mean precisely nothing. At this rate of word extinction soon we'll have nothing but grunts to communicate with. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA
Le 21-juil.-12, à 20:04, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/21/2012 7:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Stephen, I appreciate very much Louis Kauffman, including that paper. But I don't see your point. Nothing there seems to cast any problem for comp or its consequences. Why not read the MGA threads directly, and address the points specifically? I already did. My contention is that computational universality is NOT the separation of computations from physical systems, it is the independence of a given computation from any one particular physical systems. Computational universality is an arithmetic notion. You don't need UDA to separate it from physics, you need only a good intro to computer science. This critics is wrong at the very start. The independence of a given computation from any particular physical system is obviously part of the comp assumption, and should not be confused with the impossibility of any physical system to capture or produce consciousness, which is related to the mathematical and the theological by comp, and that is the consequence of UDA including MGA. By addressing MGA, I meant you to quote that text, and that text only, and tell me were you disagree, and for what reason. The former Seperation is categorical in that one has seperate categories with no connection between them whatsoever. The latter is a duality between a pair of categories in that for the class of equivalent computations there is at least one physical system that can implement it and for a class of equivalent physical systems there is at least one computation that can simulate it. (Equivalent between physical systems is defined mathematically in terms of homologies such as diffeomorphisms) This idea was first pointed out by Leibniz and known as Leibniz equivalence. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/ Leibniz_Equivalence.html This makes sense in Aristotelian physics, which, that is the point, does not make sense if comp is true. Unless you can find a flaw. May be you have a problem with what a proof consists in. Proofs does not depend on the interpretation of the terms and formula occurring in it. A proof in math, and in applied math, is always complete in itself. Keep in mind that comp does not presuppose any theory of physics. It assumes only that the physical reality is Turing complete at least. If not, asking for an artificial digital brain would not make sense. Bruno Bruno Le 20-juil.-12, à 05:34, Stephen P. King a écrit : Hi Bruno and Friends, Perhaps this attached paper by Louis H. Kauffman will be a bit enlightening as to what I have been trying to explain. He calls it non-duality, I call it duality. The difference is just a matter of how one thinks of it. Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. Laws of Form and the Logic of Non-Duality.pdf http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
Le 21-juil.-12, à 21:58, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/21/2012 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 06:47, meekerdb a écrit : This may be of interest to those recently discussing free-riders. Brent Original Message Unto Others BY MICHAEL SHERMER It is the oldest and most universally recognized moral principle that was codified over two millennia ago by the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder: “Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not do that to them. This is the whole Law. The rest is only explanation.” With comp this does not work. We are too much different, and we can never judge for another. The principle becomes: Don't do to others what others does not want to be done on them, unless you need to defend your life. Put in another way: respect the meaning of the word no when said by others. But often the others are unknown persons, and even if known it may be impractical to poll them. Well, if you don't meet them the problem will not occur. The new principle just ask you to listen if they are not saying no (or nein, non, of make grimace that you might be able to interpret as please don't do that). For a group of people, democracy is based on that idea, of listening to others, through some sort of poll. Not easy, and not a panacea, but the degree zero of the political possible progresses. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead
Le 21-juil.-12, à 23:48, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/21/2012 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 18:00, meekerdb a écrit : Le 18-juil.-12, à 20:48, meekerdb a écrit : Then, by the most common definition of atheism, atheists are doubly believer as they verify, with B for believes: B~g and Bm. Science is or should be agnostic on both ~Bg and ~Bm (and ~B~g, and ~B~m). This is wrong in two ways, which you muddle by not defining God. Sure. I do it on purpose, but atheists I met can agree, with some instanciations of God's meaning. But we are scientists, and we search explanation which should not depend on definition restricted by political power. I don't think the publishers of dictionaries are politicians. They record usage and usage is important because it tells you what meaning will be given to your words. If you don't care what meaning will be conveyed then you can just write gibberish. The usage can be perverted with respect to the original meaning. You are inconsistent. When I used agnostic in it's original sense, you objected that I should conform to the current usage: Brent: Agnostic means inability to know. It is the position of those who claim that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not. Bruno: I disagree with this. You are right, historically, but it is not the sense commonly used today. Well, you are right. But it shows that we are both inconsistent, because we both use the terms meaning when it suits the message. Who speaks with authority for atheists? I don't even know the name of the atheists who criticize comp. Unlike the Churches, they does not act in any transparent way. I am just told that those people exists, are influent, meet regularly, etc. Who they are? I don't know. It makes the authoritative argument much worse, of course. No, it is people who hear theology in the sense it has been used for the last thousand years. Where etc. includes a powerful, judgmental god person. I use agnostic in the common sense, but I use theology in a common sense too, for non religious people. It concerns all statements involving spirituality and non communicable truth. Consciousness itself can be seen as a basic mystical state (we know that true, but cannot justify it in any way), a bit like 0 is a number (meaning numerous!) for a mathematician. Theology doesn't mean truth in any interpretation. But truth concerns theology. It is encompassing it. If God exist, even with a white beard, sitting on a cloud, then truth = God exists. If God does not exist, then truth = God does not exist. Both proposition are theological. That's why I suggested aletheology and I can only infer that you reject it because you want the baggage that goes with theos. I want a simple common term, reminding us of the human perversion of the field. I use theology because I read many books untitled theology, and that those book address the question I am working on, even if I disagree with their conclusion or their methodology. It is useful to remind that comp is a theology, and that its means that from our perspective it asks for a personal decision. Comp is clearly a non completely justifiable belief in some form of digital reincarnation. It cannot be imposed to any other. The comp theology explains well the theological trap, and so redeem the field with an explanation of why we have to backtrack so much. The theo means panorama, like in theorem. theology is the name of the field searching a theory of everything. This has to included concepts like afterlife/mortality, souls, spirits, heaven, hell, Gods and Godesses, etc. of the ideally self-referentially correct machine. The difference between G* and G completely justifies the use of that term. I could say that earth do not exist, if you take the definition of some community. Let g be the proposition that some god(s) exist and let G be the proposition that the god of theism (a creator who judges and wants to be worshipped) exists. Why to restrict to such definition? Why, if not to keep the notion in the hand of those who sell feary tales to control people by fear (cf hell). I'm not restricting the definition. Language is for communication and so words mean what most people think they mean Not in science. It would be absurd to define earth by a flat surface supported by turtles. But we all agree on what flat and turtle mean, so that when we deny this we know what we're talking about. You would have use redefine flat to curved and turtle to mean geodesic. and most people think God means a being who created the universe, judges people, and wants to be worshiped. A part of this might reflect some feature of God, and a part of this might be naive theorizing. I use theology in the sense of the neoplatonist theologians, which actually is rather close to Christian (European)
Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead
Le 21-juil.-12, à 23:54, meekerdb a écrit : On 7/21/2012 4:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 22:30, John Clark a écrit : On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Maybe that's what the smarter ones think privately but that is most certainly NOT what they preach to their congregation on Sunday, if they even hinted at such a thing they'd be excommunicated and would no longer be catholic theologians. Hmm... That does not happen, for it would make disappear Catholicism in Europa. But that happens for the intellectual. My favorite catholic theologians has eventually been excommunicated indeed, and got professional problems, but only for his writing, and that is a constant in the history of the catholic Church. Why do you defend them? Why does atheists always defend the most conservative position in religion? Because it is the politically powerful position and therefore the one most important to discredit and resist. No one cares what Sufi or Rastafarian theology is in Europe because they exercise no power. OK. I do think that the best way to discredit and resist power-based theology consists in coming back with the scientific attitude in the field: keeping the question and discarding or criticizing the answers. It would be simpler to give an introductory course in scientific theology instaed of trying to oppose Darwin and creationist, which provides only fuels to obscurantist, as Darwin does not answer the question raised by the creationist, so they can keep their (admittedly insane) answers. It looks like defending something stupid just to be able to say I don't believe in it. Not defending - just not redefining. But I do not redefine the questions. I just avoid the answer, and show that if we bet in comp, then the consistent theology has to be on the side of Plato, and not Aristotle, like the atheists seems to insist (in a non transparent way). It looks better than using a word that appears to endorse the politically powerful while claiming to reform them. It is better not to hide the questions in vocabulary discussions. I have already accepted to throw down the term theology, but it makes things unclear, and eventually people dismiss the whole thing as being theological, when they begin to grasp the question asked. So I prefer to warn in advance. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA (errata)
On 7/21/2012 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. And it is here that conventional physics has a problem, for to relate observations with perceptions they rely on the physical supervenience thesis, which does no more work when comp is assumed. It is only a problem in that the explanation is incomplet Not at all. Step 8 makes clear the explanation is *inconsistent* with the weak Occam razor. It makes matter into a god of the gap, actually into an aristotelian God having no job. It is an epinoumenon, like invisible horses. Physics takes the perception as given and doesn't (yet) try to explain how this perception is realized by the physics of a brain - or even whether it can be. It just takes the perceptions as data. + a bet that such data can be explained in a theory, but this used implicitly, all the time, the physical supervenience thesis. This can no more work with comp, as shown explicitly by UDA-8. We can come back on this if you missed something there. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
scientists simulate an entire organism in software for the first time ever
This is great news for Bruno! ;-) I was interested in the computational complexity factor involved. http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/21/big-leap-in-bio-engineering-scientists-simulate-an-entire-organism-in-software-for-the-first-time-ever/ -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Contra Step 8 of UDA
On 7/22/2012 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-juil.-12, à 19:57, Stephen P. King a écrit : On 7/21/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-juil.-12, à 21:46, Stephen P. King a écrit : Dear Bruno, I need to slow down and just address this question of your as it seems to be the point where we disconnect from understanding each other. On 7/19/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: At this stage I will ask you to define physical. The physical is the represented as the sum of incontrovertible facts that mutually communicating observers have in common. It is those facts that cannot be denied without introducing contradictions, thus such things as hallucinations and mirages are excluded. ? We can accept the physical facts, without accepting the idea that physics is the fundamental science, or that primary aristotelian matter makes sense (which is not the case in the comp theory). Dear Bruno, Could you explain what you mean by this in other words? What exactly is meant by primary aristotelian matter? Are you thinking of substance as philosophers use the term? There is a very nice article on this idea here. There could be said to be two rather different ways of characterizing the philosophical concept of /substance/. The first is the more generic. The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek /ousia/, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin /substantia/, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’. According to the generic sense, therefore, the substances in a given philosophical system are those things which, according to that system, are the foundational or fundamental entities of reality. Thus, for an atomist, atoms are the substances, for they are the basic things from which everything is constructed. In David Hume's system, impressions and ideas are the substances, for the same reason. In a slightly different way, Forms are Plato's substances, for everything derives its existence from Forms. In this sense of ‘substance’ any realist philosophical system acknowledges the existence of substances. Probably the only theories which do not would be those forms of logical positivism or pragmatism which treat ontology as a matter of convention. According to such theories, there are no real facts about what is ontologically basic, and so nothing is objectively substance. The second use of the concept is more specific. According to this, substances are a particular kind of basic entity, and some philosophical theories acknowledge them and others do not. On this use, Hume's impressions and ideas are not substances, even though they are the building blocks of—what constitutes ‘being’ for—his world. According to this usage, it is a live issue whether the fundamental entities are substances or something else, such as events, or properties located at space-times. This conception of substance derives from the intuitive notion of individual /thing/ or /object/, which contrast mainly with properties and events. The issue is how we are to understand the notion of an object, and whether, in the light of the correct understanding, it remains a basic notion, or one that must be characterized in more fundamental terms. Whether, for example, an object can be thought of as nothing more than a bundle of properties, or a series of events. I use primitive for the basic term of the ontological theory. Hi Bruno, Please be patient with me. I think that we are merely misunderstanding each other for the most part. I blame my terrible writing for most of that. I found a nice article about Ontology written by a coder: http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html In it an Ontology is a systematic account of Existence. It is a theory of the nature of Existence. It is consistent with my thinking. A primitive is thus an irreducible element within some scheme. With comp we can take a tiny formal arithmetic, defining just the laws of addition and multiplication, so what exists primitively can be just 0, s(0), s(s(0)), etc. OK, you are using primitive in the sense of being irreducible or atomic. It is not a reference to a metalevel per se. One problem that I have noticed in natural languages is that they do not index the metalevel in which phrasings are operating relative to each other. Usually I restrict substance for physicalist primitive ontology, like atoms, particles or strings, which does not exist primitively in the comp theory, but should be derived (by the conclusion of the UDA). OK. One might notice that if one only considers a single
Re: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead
On 7/22/2012 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-juil.-12, à 18:11, John Clark a écrit : On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And so they are no longer catholic theologians, they should be proud of their excommunication and shout from the rooftops Good riddance to bad rubbish!. Things are not that Black and White. The churches pervert an original idea, but don't make it disappear entirely. Why do you defend them? Why does atheists always defend the most conservative position in religion? It looks like defending something stupid just to be able to say I don't believe in it. I think the ultimate nightmare would be to be tortured to give information that you simply did not have, that's what would happen to me if the Gestapo demanded I explain what you were talking about in the above. The fact is that you act th same toward free will and theology, and probably toward the mind-body problem, each time by pointing on some popular discourse without ever addressing the question behind. You confuse concepts with their plausible misconception of it. And so if you tell me Bob is a theologian I know absolutely posatively nothing about Bob because now the word Theologian has joined atheist, theist, God and of course free will as words that mean absolutely positively nothing. Do you have an answer for what we can expect through death? Can you justify it, and in which theory? If yes, you have a theology. Why should that necessarily have anything to do with a judgmental god? Theories about what happens after death might be part of a science called thanatology, but only some of those theories would overlap with theology. I expect that we don't exist after death - that's contrary to all theologies. If no, either you make research, and believe in theology, or you don't make research and are not interested in theology. When I addressed that mortality question and showed that computationalism makes the question just more difficult, but partially formulable in arithmetic, I was told that it was theology, as it is with the large defiition I gave, because assuming comp, it is related with non provable truth (by the machine, for itself). And so if you tell me X is a religion you have told me nothing about X because meaning needs contrast and everything is a religion is equivalent to nothing is a religion But nobody ever said that everything is religion. OK, with comp correct human science is included in correct human theology (as G is included in G*), but 1) the inclusion is strict, and 2) from a human point of view, there is necessarily an act of faith if he want to apply that theology in practice (like when accepting the surgeon's proposition). You use the word theology but you don't define it. You only say it includes all science (which is contrary to any dictionary definition) and that applying it takes faith (which is obvious since applying something ill defined takes a lot of faith). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Unto Others (very interesting)
On 7/22/2012 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But often the others are unknown persons, and even if known it may be impractical to poll them. Well, if you don't meet them the problem will not occur. No, modern society is so interwoven that the problem does occur. My daughter is struggling with the problem now. She wants to buy a new car. On the one hand she would like a fast sporting car. But on the other hand see feels she should buy an environmentally friendly car. Either decision will affect a lot of other people - most of whom she will never meet. Brent The new principle just ask you to listen if they are not saying no (or nein, non, of make grimace that you might be able to interpret as please don't do that). For a group of people, democracy is based on that idea, of listening to others, through some sort of poll. Not easy, and not a panacea, but the degree zero of the political possible progresses. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: scientists simulate an entire organism in software for the first time ever
The siginficance is that this is one of the open problems of
Artificial Life:
@Article{Bedau-etal00,
author = {Mark A. Bedau and John S. McCaskill and Norman
H. Packard and Steen Rasmussen and Chris Adami and David G. Green
and Takashi Ikegami and Kinihiko Kaneko and Thomas S. Ray},
title ={Open Problems in Artificial Life},
journal = {Artificial Life},
year = 2000,
volume = 6,
pages ={363--376}
}
(or see http://www.alife.org/alife8/open-prob.html)
Only took 12 years. Oh well, 1 down, 13 more to go...
Cheers
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:52:18AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
This is great news for Bruno! ;-)
I was interested in the computational complexity factor involved.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/21/big-leap-in-bio-engineering-scientists-simulate-an-entire-organism-in-software-for-the-first-time-ever/
--
Onward!
Stephen
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: scientists simulate an entire organism in software for the first time ever
I, for one, remain skeptical.
wrb
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:17 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: scientists simulate an entire organism in software for the
first time ever
The siginficance is that this is one of the open problems of
Artificial Life:
@Article{Bedau-etal00,
author = {Mark A. Bedau and John S. McCaskill and Norman
H. Packard and Steen Rasmussen and Chris Adami and David G. Green
and Takashi Ikegami and Kinihiko Kaneko and Thomas S. Ray},
title = {Open Problems in Artificial Life},
journal ={Artificial Life},
year = 2000,
volume = 6,
pages = {363--376}
}
(or see http://www.alife.org/alife8/open-prob.html)
Only took 12 years. Oh well, 1 down, 13 more to go...
Cheers
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:52:18AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
This is great news for Bruno! ;-)
I was interested in the computational complexity factor involved.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/21/big-leap-in-bio-engineering-
scientists-simulate-an-entire-organism-in-software-for-the-first-time-
ever/
--
Onward!
Stephen
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
~ Francis Bacon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-
list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
---
-
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
---
-
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-
list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: scientists simulate an entire organism in software for the first time ever
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:52:18AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: This is great news for Bruno! ;-) I was interested in the computational complexity factor involved. http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/21/big-leap-in-bio-engineering-scientists-simulate-an-entire-organism-in-software-for-the-first-time-ever/ Gives new meaning to there's a bug in your program. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: scientists simulate an entire organism in software for the first time ever
I think it is more like, there's a program in your bug. wrb -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:41 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: scientists simulate an entire organism in software for the first time ever On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:52:18AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: This is great news for Bruno! ;-) I was interested in the computational complexity factor involved. http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/21/big-leap-in-bio-engineering- scientists-simulate-an-entire-organism-in-software-for-the-first-time- ever/ Gives new meaning to there's a bug in your program. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything- list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
