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
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
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
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
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.
11 matches
Mail list logo
