Hi Jonathan:
You wrote:
> Some of you may be interested in the following:
>
> DISCOVER Vol. 22 No. 1 (January 2001)
> Machines That Think
> By Brad Lemley
>
> The full article is at
> http://www.discover.com/jan_01/gthere.html?article=featmachines.html
>
> Here is an extract to give you a taste
> <Quote>
> For most of their existence, computers have been little more than
> complex adding machines, tabulating data and spitting out useful but
> prosaic results. Now, employing a new kind of programming based on
> biological evolution, computers are invading what we thought was among
> the last uniquely human spheres- true, original, even artful creativity.
> "We're not used to computers creatively solving problems," says David
> Goldberg, chairman of the International Society for Genetic and
> Evolutionary Computation. "But it's happening."
>
> The engine behind the revolution is called evolutionary computation. Its
> basic premise is that the most capable and efficient things on the
> planet came into being through evolution- not as the brainchild of an
> individual designer. After all, the human hand makes the most dexterous
> robotic claw look like nothing more than a pair of rusty pliers.
> </quote>
Thanks for the reference to the Discover article on evolutionary
computing. Fascinating stuff. Discover magazine is my favorite entree
into the science world. Recently there was an article about a physicist
who argues that time, like space, is illusory. Every issue has at least
one article of interest to lay persons.
A couple of observations about evolutionary computation. First,
according to the article it requires �A so-called fitness function (that)
evaluates the progeny . . .� which might be also called a �moral
function� as it represents a value choice. Second, the artist using the
program to produce pictures makes his value choices based on an
aesthetic sense, a uniquely human sense that I think is involved in
many software design and other logical/scientific decisions. Finally, the
article implicitly raises the hoary question about who or what designed
the original evolutionary process. We don�t want to stumble into the
paradox of believing we�ve designed a computer model that shows the
world is not designed.
The more I try to the less I can see an escape from values. Perhaps
you feel the same universality of morality in your work (if you accept
morality as broadly defined in the MOQ). At least I gather you haven�t
completely rejected Pirsig�s views as several other science-oriented
contributors have.
Best, Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
