> Lots of big words in there, but unless you believe that there was a
> creator, or that for some reason computers can't simulate physical laws
> complex enough to evoke a nice fitness landscape (ie quantum randomness
> is necessary for evolution), nothing that you've said
> countermands my point
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Majboroda O.M. 16.03.2001 wrote:
>
> CPU cicles is not analogue of energy.
> Transformation of energy is not necessarily accompanied by transformation of
> the information.
> But transformation of the information is always occured due to energy.
It's a fine analogy actually.
>If one truly believes in evolution, then in theory, any sufficiently
>complicated fitness landscape should produce AI if given enough CPU
>cycles (i.e. energy input).
>That's effectively what happened here on earth. We had the right
>conditions and enough "CPU cycles".
CPU cicles is not an
