If I might add: The important point about Robert Rosen's work is that his
emphasis is not on structures at all. Instead, he develops his ideas based
on the relationships between biological components. Hence, the term
relational biology. Moreover, he begins to show (in his book Life
Itself) how
I'm a big fan of Rosen's, and I think he was on to some important stuff, but
his book is not exactly a model of clarity in mathematical exposition. It's
readable enough, but the strokes are pretty broad. He also comes across as
somewhat jaded; I don't think his work was very well received for most
On Tuesday 20 Sep 2011 9:25:11 AM Shawn Morel wrote:
only slightly off topic. The questions posed seem really applicable when
pointed at boot-strapping truly complex software:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_cronin_making_matter_come_alive.html
The software equivalent of this experiment would be
I've encountered this wet a-life research program before. There's a
biologist at my school who's doing similar stuff... see
http://web.pdx.edu/~niles/Lehman_Lab_at_PSU/Research.html
I think your analogy is quite understated, Subbu. There are an awful lot
more than 2^(2^10) permutations of
I would encourage those with an interest in this stuff to read Robert Rosen,
and also perhaps Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela. While somewhat
heterodox, they're the best I've found in the subject of theoretical biology
so far. Any others?
I'm a fan of Tibor Ganti's approach to
Closer to Walter Fontana's artificial chemistries?
Other names to look at (off the top of my head) might include Stuart Kauffman
and George Kampis.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Wesley Smith wrote:
I would encourage those with an interest in this stuff to read Robert Rosen,
and also perhaps
random expression trees mutating.
OK, so less Ray's Tierra then Koza's Genetic Programming? Still too much
structure baked in, I'd say. All the GP stuff I've ever seen has been more
about selection than natural evolution; the modularity, replication and
selection is provided for free by the
random expression trees mutating.
OK, so less Ray's Tierra then Koza's Genetic Programming? Still too much
structure baked in, I'd say. All the GP stuff I've ever seen has been more
about selection than natural evolution; the modularity, replication and
selection is provided for free by the
The biggest 'baked in' abstraction with Fontana's work in my view is that
reactions are one-way - one lambda expression is applied to another to create a
new product, and the reaction is not reversible except in trivial cases. Sure
makes using the lambda calculus make more sense, but not
only slightly off topic. The questions posed seem really applicable when
pointed at boot-strapping truly complex software:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_cronin_making_matter_come_alive.html
shawn
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
10 matches
Mail list logo
