Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcus G. Daniels on 01/08/2008 02:18 PM: > Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: >> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but GP currently requires a human to set >> up the objective function. And even in the cases where a system is >> created so that the objective function is dynamically (and/or >> implicitly) evolved, my suspicion is that the GP would soon find a >> computational exploit that would result in either an infinite loop >> (and/or deadlock), crash, or some sort of "exception". >> > The objective function can be to an extent arbitrary and self-defined by > the agent, but there must be a large implicit emphasis on avoiding > death. In a simulated world, a way to deal with exceptions is to trap > them, and then reflect that in the objective function. Existing memory > management hardware, operating systems and programming languages have > good facilities for trapping exceptions. Aha! What you're implicitly referring to, here, is an assemblage (though not a holarchy) of formal systems ... just like I suggested. [grin] If inference within one of the formal systems (e.g. memory allocation) reaches an impasse, the machine hops out of that system and into one that has a different semantic grounding (e.g. the OS or a hardware driver) takes over and "plugs the hole". After the hole is plugged, it hops back inside the prior formal system and continues on. _Or_ the latter formal system, through its inference modifies the former formal system (new axiom, new alphabet, whatever) such that the previous exception can no longer obtain. Of course, in that case, it's probably true that the inference int he former system has to be re-run from the start rather than picking up where it left off... but, hey, c'est la vie. The reason I suggested a holarchy rather than just an adhoc assemblage of systems, however, is important because it's unlikely we'd be able to design an assemblage of formal systems to handle every exception. (Sorry for repeating myself...) So, what's necessary is either the on-the-fly generation of new systems along with on-the-fly re-architecting of the assemblage OR a holarchy where every sub-system, regardless of what level it's at, is further composed of sub-sub-systems. > runtime. This is all in the context of a simulated environment, of > course. In the robot example, the robots would just slump on the ground > or jump up and down or whatever until its energy supplies were exhausted. Well, this is another example of fragility to ambiguity and, to some extent is the heart of my cheap shot criticism of RR's concept. The robot should fail gracefully (like living systems do). A robot endowed with the holarchy of formal systems would do everything in its power to avoid slumping on the ground or doing something over and over with no discernible effect. I.e. it would _explore_ not only its own repertoire (determined by the formal systems) but also the repertoire of its environment. Hence, a robot would find ways to harness things in its environment to plug any holes (resolve any ambiguities) it couldn't otherwise plug. E.g. a troubled robot may well find itself replacing its aging transistor-based "computer" with, say, a bag of wet fat/meat it harvests from that annoying human who lives in the apartment next door. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric. -- Bertrand Russell -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHhCONZeB+vOTnLkoRAh5RAJ9fqcffe75m7axl9b1u8z1Rvbq/gACgkaTS FTBfh0LyX/ibYot7lIgitN8= =cUMT -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
Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen
Marcus Daniels wrote: > > In what way does Genetic Programming not provide an efficient cause: > Albert Moore & Associates wrote: > > Genetics is simply the hardware. > To clarify, Genetic Programming is a machine learning technique, and software in the sense that there are programs for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming ..but then I'd argue genetics is very much software as well. 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
Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: > As for the robot, you're just begging the question. A robot is a tool > built and programmed by us. Or, positing a regression to where we are > currently, a robot_N that is built by robot_(N-1), that is built by > robot_(N-2), ..., is built by a living system. > I'm imagining that the program that the robot executes is also genetic program, but one that benefits from richer and more dynamic perceptual data than in purely simulated world. The genetic code can be inherited by the robot (a rusty old robot transfers its instructions to a new shiny robot), or the robot can evolve its own programs during its lifetime using simulation or experiment. The GP candidates are random perturbations against things that sort-of work, so the random noise eventually gets it or at one of its millions of peers out of local minima (relative to its objectives).There's also effectively noise in addition to the signals from the dynamically generated and evolving goo of the environment. Marcus 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
Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: >> In what way does Genetic Programming not provide an efficient cause? >> Having a stochastic aspect, and the possibility to define new >> instructions, it seems to me to provide an escape from anything a human >> might have intended. This learning algorithm could escape the >> constraints of being a `tool' by being used in a robot with similar >> senses as ours and interacting with the conditions of the `real' world. >> > > Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but GP currently requires a human to set > up the objective function. And even in the cases where a system is > created so that the objective function is dynamically (and/or > implicitly) evolved, my suspicion is that the GP would soon find a > computational exploit that would result in either an infinite loop > (and/or deadlock), crash, or some sort of "exception". > The objective function can be to an extent arbitrary and self-defined by the agent, but there must be a large implicit emphasis on avoiding death. In a simulated world, a way to deal with exceptions is to trap them, and then reflect that in the objective function. Existing memory management hardware, operating systems and programming languages have good facilities for trapping exceptions. Imagine you have some program evolving in a process on a Linux system. Yes, a program could [try] to allocate so much memory that system would crash, or find a stack exploit (e.g. to get root and compromise the kernel), but by in large the way a broken program would die because the memory management hardware trapped illegal memory requests. If a process actually succeeds in killing the whole system, it's a security bug in the operating system (or secure programming language, etc.). As for infinite loops or deadlocks, these are things that a management process can readily detect. For the worst case, satellites typically have independent monitoring hardware that reboots the main operating system should it become unresponsive. But normally could you just have one software process monitoring the performance of the others. And here I mean performance in the sense of CPU utilization (e.g. is it cycling through the same program counter range over and over) and wall clock runtime. This is all in the context of a simulated environment, of course. In the robot example, the robots would just slump on the ground or jump up and down or whatever until its energy supplies were exhausted. Marcus 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
Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:47 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: > It's just a body of theoretical work that we > may or may not need as yet. I fully support the development of theory > prior to needing that theory. Fine, and I fully support the deconstruction of theory prior to using it! In what way does Genetic Programming not provide an efficient cause? Because you need to look beyond the physical plane of existence into the spiritual to see that the soul is the real administrator of the life's path. Genetics is simply the hardware. Genetics is not actually causal and nothing physical can ever be causal. See The Kybalion, Principles of Hermes. Having a stochastic aspect, and the possibility to define new instructions, it seems to me to provide an escape from anything a human might have intended. This learning algorithm could escape the constraints of being a `tool' by being used in a robot with similar senses as ours and interacting with the conditions of the `real' world. Marcus 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1214 - Release Date: 1/8/2008 1:38 PM _ I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 5220 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> for free now! 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
Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcus G. Daniels on 01/08/2008 12:46 PM: > Fine, and I fully support the deconstruction of theory prior to using it! That's the spirit! > In what way does Genetic Programming not provide an efficient cause? > Having a stochastic aspect, and the possibility to define new > instructions, it seems to me to provide an escape from anything a human > might have intended. This learning algorithm could escape the > constraints of being a `tool' by being used in a robot with similar > senses as ours and interacting with the conditions of the `real' world. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but GP currently requires a human to set up the objective function. And even in the cases where a system is created so that the objective function is dynamically (and/or implicitly) evolved, my suspicion is that the GP would soon find a computational exploit that would result in either an infinite loop (and/or deadlock), crash, or some sort of "exception". As for the robot, you're just begging the question. A robot is a tool built and programmed by us. Or, positing a regression to where we are currently, a robot_N that is built by robot_(N-1), that is built by robot_(N-2), ..., is built by a living system. RR's position might be that such a chain from 1 .. N is more fragile than a lineage of living systems. Namely, the efficient cause (humans in this case) cannot be removed even with a large but finite N _because_ machines are not closed to efficient cause. Whether or not RR's rhetoric is _sound_ is one thing. We can prove his rhetoric unsound by creating such a robot lineage. But to prove his rhetoric invalid, we'll have to show that computation is not fragile to ambiguity. And as far as I can tell, such a proof (that RR's rhetoric is invalid) would involve a constructive proof that sets up a holarchy of formal systems that, together, are not fragile in the way GP systems are fragile. Somehow we would have to build a set of (sufficiently complicated, as in modern mathematics) formal systems and prove ([meta-]mathematically) that this set is robust to ambiguity. I.e. it will never go into an infinite (null) loop, crash, or trigger some exception. Of course, we could take the _easier_ tack and point out a technical flaw in RR's rhetoric (as the largely ineffective criticism of Penrose's argument does). My choice for such a cheap shot criticism lies at the heart of "closure to efficient cause". And my criticism is basically that nothing is really closed to efficient cause. Everything is embedded in a dynamically generated and evolving goo that is holistically dependent on everything else in the goo. But even if such cheap shots are successful in getting people to ignore RR, it still doesn't make any progress on RR's main question: "can we devise better formalisms that more accurately describe living systems?" - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. -- E.O. Wilson -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHg+xkZeB+vOTnLkoRApPWAKCgotysX3Ooh36zeYj7Ipg4Mm59hACdFX+x krJqxKFwyGGc8q99ePPb9X8= =c1fa -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
Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: > It's just a body of theoretical work that we > may or may not need as yet. I fully support the development of theory > prior to needing that theory. Fine, and I fully support the deconstruction of theory prior to using it! In what way does Genetic Programming not provide an efficient cause? Having a stochastic aspect, and the possibility to define new instructions, it seems to me to provide an escape from anything a human might have intended. This learning algorithm could escape the constraints of being a `tool' by being used in a robot with similar senses as ours and interacting with the conditions of the `real' world. Marcus 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
Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marcus G. Daniels on 01/08/2008 11:44 AM: > Fine, so let's move on from RR terms. It seems to be a dead end! No, it's not a dead-end. It's just a body of theoretical work that we may or may not need as yet. I fully support the development of theory prior to needing that theory. What if we plug along in the "computationalist" paradigm for the next 100 years and _finally_ realize that, hey! we could have used that gobbledygook Robert Rosen generated? Or, worse yet, what if _forget_ about it completely and end up reinventing it? No, I don't think we should categorize RR terms as a dead-end... not yet, anyway. However, if you don't like speculative theoretical discussions, then feel free to avoid them! [grin] - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com If people never did silly things, nothing intelligent would ever get done. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHg9k+ZeB+vOTnLkoRAgo8AJ48T7cnRvaK7aDoOEMYsBgBHynYpgCg2p9/ 7jpoMl79OW5SuwfoGQqNUVI= =zuRw -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
Re: [FRIAM] enough of Robert Rosen
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote: >> Anything that requires significant short >> term memory and integration of broad but scare evidence is probably >> something a computer will be better at than a human. >> > > That's just plain silly in terms of RR's ideas because _humans_ program > the computer. Until/unless we come up with a computer that programs > itself, or a computer that programs another computer, or something of > that sort, computers will _never_ be better at any task than humans. > As you know, one form is Genetic Programming. > I.e. in RR terms, humans are THE canalizing "efficient cause" for any > computer system. > Fine, so let's move on from RR terms. It seems to be a dead end! Marcus 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
