Russell Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It was no such evidence: Biosphere 2 had almsot nothing in the way of
complexity, compared with AGI systems, and it was controlled by trial and
error in such a way that .... it failed.
Hey, great example of how to run a science or engineering project.
Did you expect a 100% working Biosphere to appear out of thin air?
Partly-working versions are necessary precursors of the fully-working
version, and frankly it's surprising Biosphere 2 got as far as it did
on the very first attempt. If we react to such precursor projects by
spitting in their faces, people will eventually get the message and
there won't be any more of them. Good luck finding a genie to conjure
up the 100% versions for you then.
No, ya dummy ;-) ... I wasn't criticising the Biosphere project itself!
I was criticising your use of this as an example of how complexity can
be overcome in an engineered system by shear intuition and trial and
error. That was the context in which it was raised by Ben.
Sheesh. I actually think the Biosphere 2 project was a great effort,
for what it tried to do. I almost considered getting involved at the
time. One of my all-time favorite hobbies is trying to figure out ways
to run organic, balanced, self-sufficient ecosystems.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
