** Talks will be held in 8 minute intervals on Tesuque Chair **
TITLE: Oscillatory motion on frozen gradients
TIME: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 12:30p - 4
LOCATION: Santa Fe Ski Basin
ABSTRACT: Empirical investigation of the emergence of transverse waves as
gravitational gradients are imposed o
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> What's important is the ability to form, use, and abandon languages (at
> will, obviously).
>
> And any system where the language is fixed will be fragile to ambiguity
> _because_ of Gödel's result.
>
> The only thing remaining is whether (and how much) contact and
> int
Glen,
I missed part of this thread and please feel free to ignore my
questions if I make you repeat things, but there's two things in your
reply I don't get:
- what does 'fragile to ambiguity' mean ?
- what would a 'holarchy of formal systems' look like ? Is't a
holarchy a structure where i
Glen wrote:
> 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)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels on 01/08/2008 04:11 PM:
> It seems to me it's the language that's important, and how suitable that
> language is to the environment at hand.
> That's not to say there aren't new useful primitives to be discovered.
It's not the langu
-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 fun
-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
Joost Rekveld wrote:
> 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 ?
>
The main capability it would of
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 wh
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:
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... :-)
===
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
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
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 e
On Jan 8, 2008, at 10:34 PM, 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.
-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 b
-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 po
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 provid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phil Henshaw on 01/08/2008 11:14 AM:
> I thought the implication was that the organization of life is an
> inherently ill-posed question from an observer's perspective. To me
> that either means you accept 'bad answers' or 'better and better
> answers
-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 theor
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. U
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels on 01/08/2008 10:44 AM:
> Perception, locomotion, and signaling are capabilities that animals
> have evolved for millions of years. It's not fair to compare a
> learning algorithm to the learning capabilities of a living system
> wi
I thought the implication was that the organization of life is an
inherently ill-posed question from an observer's perspective. To me
that either means you accept 'bad answers' or 'better and better
answers', and the difference is methodological.
Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·.
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> But, programmers haven't yet
> found a way to handle all ambiguity a computer program may or may not
> come across in the far-flung future. That's in contrast to a living
> system, which we _presume_ can handle any ambiguity presented to it (or,
> in a softer sense, man
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels on 01/08/2008 08:49 AM:
> As far as detecting (supposedly) ill-posed questions goes, if you are
> willing to put aside the complex matter of natural language processing,
> it seems to me it's a matter of similarity search against a
Glen wrote:
> And if you tell it that
> there are only, say, 10 possible answers, it will _merely_ produce one
> of those prescribed 10 possible answers.
>
You could say that about an employee, too, but that doesn't give much
insight into what that person might actually be able to do.
> (I li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Günther Greindl on 01/07/2008 12:57 PM:
> thanks for taking the time to write such a long response, here some
> comments:
And thank you for pursuing it. Since I'm only slightly versed in RR, I
enjoy the opportunity to talk about it. It helps me thin
27 matches
Mail list logo
