Well, "identity" is not a great choice of word, because it implies a static
nature. As far as I understand it, Maturana et al simply meant, that which
distinguishes the thing from its environment, in terms of its
self-organization. The nature of that self-organization is dynamic, always
changing. When it stops changing, in fact, it "loses its identity", it dies.
I think also that you're confusing some sort of teleological principle here
with autopoieisis, as if there is a design involved. Life doesn't "adhere to a
flexible plan", it just goes, and it either works, or it doesn't. If it works,
and it is able to reproduce itself, then the pattern becomes persistent.
Terren
--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [agi] open or closed source for AGI project?
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 12:55 PM
Terren,
Thanks for reply. I think I have some idea, no
doubt confused, about how you want to evolve a system. But the big deal re
autopoiesis for me - correct me - is the capacity of a living system to
*maintain its identity* despite considerable disturbances. That can be both in
the embryonic/developmental stages and also later in life. A *simple* example
of
the latter is an experiment where they screwed around with the nerves to a
monkey's hands, and neverthless its brain maps rewired themselves, so to speak,
to restore normal functioning within months. Neuroplasticity generally is an
example - the brain's capacity, when parts are damaged, to get new parts to
take
on their functions.
How a system can be evolved - computationally, say,
as you propose - is, in my understanding, no longer quite such a
problematic thing to understand or implement. But how a living system manages
to
adhere to a flexible plan of its identity despite disturbances, is, IMO, a much
more problematic thing to understand and implement. And that, for me - again
correct me - is the essence of autopoiesis, (which BTW seems to me not the
best explained of ideas - by Varela & co).
Mike,
Autopoieisis is a basic building block of my
philosophy of life and of cognition as well. I see life as: doing work
to maintain an internal self-organization. It requires a boundary in
which the entropy inside the boundary is kept lower than the entropy
outside. Cognition is autopoieitic as well, although this is harder to
see.
I have already shared my ideas on how to build a virtual
intelligence that satisfies this definition. But in summary, you'd
design a framework in which large numbers of interacting parts would
evolve into an environment with emergent, persistent entities. Through
a
guided process you would make the environment more and more
challenging,
forcing the entities to solve harder and harder problems to stay alive,
corresponding with ever increasing intelligence. At some distant point
we may perhaps arrive at something with human-level intelligence or
beyond.
Terren
--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Mike Tintner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From:
Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [agi]
open or closed source for AGI project?
To:
agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 11:30 AM
Terren:autopoieisis. I wonder what your thoughts are about
it?
Does anyone have any idea how to
translate that biological principle into building a machine, or
software? Do you or anyone else have any idea what it might entail?
The only thing I can think of that comes anywhere close is the
Carnegie Mellon starfish robot with its sense of self.
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
agi | Archives |
Modify
Your Subscription
agi | Archives
| Modify
Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
