Hi David, > Any amount of guidance in such a simulation (e.g. to help avoid so many of the useless > eddies in a fully open-ended simulation) amounts to designed cognition.
No, it amounts to guided evolution. The difference between a designed simulation and a designed cognition is the focus on the agent itself. In the latter, you design the agent and turn it loose, testing it to see if it does what you want it to. In the former (the simulation), you turn a bunch of candidate agents loose and let them compete to do what you want them to. The ones that don't, die. You're specifying the environment, not the agent. If you do it right, you don't even have to specify the goals. With designed cognition, you must specify the goals, either directly (un-embodied), or in some meta-fashion (embodied). Terren --- On Mon, 8/25/08, David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: David Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [agi] How Would You Design a Play Machine? To: [email protected] Date: Monday, August 25, 2008, 6:04 PM Where is the hard dividing line between designed cognition and designed simulation (where intelligent behavior is intended to be emergent in both cases)? Even if an approach is taken where everything possible is done allow a 'natural' type evolution of behavior, the simulation design and parameters will still influence the outcome, sometimes in unknown and unknowable ways. Any amount of guidance in such a simulation (e.g. to help avoid so many of the useless eddies in a fully open-ended simulation) amounts to designed cognition. That being said, I'm particularly interested in the OCF being used as a platform for 'pure simulation' (Alife and more sophisticated game theoretical simulations), and finding ways to work the resulting experience and methods into the OCP design, which is itself a hybrid approach (designed cognition + designed simulation) intended to take advantage of the benefits of both. -dave On 8/26/08, Mike Tintner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Terren:As may be obvious by now, I'm not that interested in designing cognition. I'm interested in designing simulations in which intelligent behavior emerges.But the way you're using the word 'adapt', in a cognitive sense of playing with goals, is different from the way I was using 'adaptation', which is the result of an evolutionary process. 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? 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.." ). ------------------------------------------- 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/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com 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=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
