Hi Mike,
Comments below...
--- On Mon, 8/25/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Two questions: 1) how do you propose that your simulations
> will avoid the
> kind of criticisms you've been making of other systems
> of being too guided
> by programmers' intentions? How can you set up a
> simulation without making
> massive, possibly false assumptions about the nature of
> evolution?
Because I don't care about individual agents. Agents that fail to meet the
requirements the environment demands, die. There's going to be a lot of death
in my simulations. The risk I take is that nothing ever survives and I fail to
demonstrate the feasibility of the approach.
> 2) Have you thought about the evolution of play in animals?
>
> (We "play" BTW with just about every dimension of
> activities - goals, rules,
> tools, actions, movements.." ).
Not much. Play is such an advanced concept in intelligence, and my aims are far
lower than that. I don't realistically expect to survive to see the evolution
of human intelligence using the evolutionary approach I'm talking about.
Terren
-------------------------------------------
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=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
