On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>  On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>> Dear john:
>>
>> 2012/10/4 John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>  Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> Wrote:
>>>
>>>   >> Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had
>>>>> over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even come up
>>>>> with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  > First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in the flagela of the
>>>> bacteria, invented about 3800 million years ago
>>>>
>>>
>>> I know, that's why I said "macroscopic". It's easy to make if the wheel
>>> is microscopic because nutriments can just diffuse in and waste products
>>> diffuse out; but as parts get bigger the volume increases by the cube of
>>> the radius but the surface area only increases by the square, so when
>>> things get big diffusion just isn't good enough. Evolution never figured
>>> out how to do better and make a wheel large enough to see, but people did.
>>>
>>
>>   I explained in a post above why evolution does not select  weels. An
>> autonomous living being must be topologically connected, and weels are not.
>> This is a neat consequence of the need of repairability. No autonomous
>> robot with weels can work for long time without supoort.. This is explained
>> in detail somewhere above.
>>
>>
>>  I can imagine a design in which wheels are connected to the circulatory
>> system just as some vehicles are built with hydraulic motors in their
>> wheels.  Or the wheels might be separate organisms in a symbiotic
>> relation.  Those are possible - but it's too hard to get there from here.
>> So you make the point yourself, evolution is constrained in ways that
>> rational design is not.
>>
>
>
> Do we know that imagination doesn't use an evolutionary process (behind
> the scenes) to come up with new ideas?  Could it be that our brains use
> evolutionary techniques, combining different things we know in random ways
> and running internal testing and selection of those ideas, before they
> bubble up into an Ah-Ha moment that we become conscious of?
>
>
> Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and then
> those that reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness?  THAT would
> be a Darwinian theory of consciousness.
>


The only known implementations of artificial creativity involved genetic
programming.  In fact, this computer used such techniques to invented
patent-worthy designs:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.100.4146

When I try to conceive of how creativity works, it is hard for me to to
imagine it could be anything other than random permutation and cross
pollination of existing ideas, which must then be evaluated and the
nonsensical ones pruned.  New (good) ideas do not fall from the sky, nor
are they directly implied by the existing set of ideas.  It seems then that
the process involved is to generate a bunch of new ideas (using methods
similar to the tools of evolution works), and then apply selection criteria
to determine which are the good ones and which are the useless ones.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to