Transistion from biology to machinery

Hello all, I'm new hear, and after reading a bunch of posts on the origin of life I became inspired to ask your opinion from a scientific standpoint on Artificial Intelligence. I'm writing a cognative science research paper for one of my college classes and decided to do some research into AI and AL. After looking at the origin of life, and how things evolved with only GTCA, would it not be possible for a machine to evolve exponentially faster with only 1 and 0? The code that causes the program to malfunction would be deleted by the human creators leaving only more capable code in it's place (artificial natural selection). Eventually maybe even after enough time the machines could become more life then machine. Just wondering what you already educated folk think about this, and any research done into this would also be much appreciated.
It's nice to be here, I'll be posting in the other forums as well, because I have an ongoing debate with a new earth creationist buddy, though talk origins has already done wonders in combating him. Thanks again!
-Brad

Google for "genetic programming" or "evolutionary algorhythms." You'll significant computer science and engineering work being done in this very field.

Try genetic-programming.org-Home-Page

quote:

---

would it not be possible for a machine to evolve exponentially faster with only 1 and 0?

---

My first instinct is that they would evolve slower. With more options per "base" the more possibilities there are. If you are limited to two choices it would seem that there is less possible variation. Of course, this all depends on how the sequence is used, such as codon reading in transcription of mRNA. I would say that a binary set would have less "informational content" than a DNA sequence of the same length. This is just speculation, I am sure others have a more informed opinion.

Biologically it will depend on if your morphometric"gestallt" considers that there is as much 'functional' change as structural within an organ or given grouped anatomy say. I dont hold this view of grades but if one did of the clade, then it possible to think that machines might NOT be able to change as fast as life but this would require one to KNOW the difference of organic and inorganic hierarchies (in my own lingo, using Gladyshev('s),) down beyond the difference of protons and electrons (level). I have not seen any literature on this point as of yet. I think the science of it is bound with Kelvin's discussion of the age of the earth and if there was a change in form from two differnt times. Because Gould seperated hard and soft parts linguistically I dont think Gould had any evidence against what I think of this but he would be a place to start if one thought such existed.What is at issue is such like

quote:

---

Certainly, the results presented do not neglect the existence of dissipative structures and the effects of dynamic self-organization in natural systems (I.Prigogine), for instance, when such systems undergo "revolutionary changes" due to the influence of external factors, and their state is far from the equilibrium one.

---

from
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/dem/dem.htm
as to finding "inside" what today we only thought was out of shape.
see also
1360.pdf | jun102001 | currsci | Indian Academy of SciencesThe reason I, personally, do not think this possible to know at present is because my own knowledge of the difference between reptiles and amphibians is not enough of a stimulus in what I already know of this congruent incidence to logically abduct me to consider a discussion of bird feathers as Faraday insulators. I do not deny that such is possible. I just dont have enough information to warrent for any trait, I KNOW OF, that it(the trait), has functionally changed as much in biological-duration-as, as much as, I can imagine it haveing done so strucuturally! I do not know also if this is rather not due to the trajectory of my education as well. ?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-13-2004 01:46 PM

Some decades ago Isaac Asimov pointed out that we don't have to design an AI smarter than we are. All we have to do is construct one that can make one smarter than it is. Then it runs away to who-knows how smart.A AI capable of doing it's own "artificial" selection based on recongnizing something smarter would qualify.

My current understanding of nested things however seems to indicate that whatever the selfreproducable machine we could build to start today will only be of a relation of rationals to reals not reals to reals as I supposed if "selection" WERE "abstraction" (in the design). I dont know that that has been establised in logic anywhere. The form-making would then depend on this incidentally as a congruence I would guess.

quote:

---

A AI capable of doing it's own "artificial" selection based on recongnizing something smarter would qualify.

---

That is a great idea, if you ask me. Researching genetic algorithms I came across this article. The investigators allowed random connections between different electrical switches, transistors, etc. The selection pressure was towards evolving a circuit that produced an oscillating signal. Therefore, each time this ability was improved part of the circuit was preserved and new combinations were added. By the end the scientists had a fully functioning oscillating circuit. However, the most stunning part was that the circuit actually relied on a form of parasitism. Instead of actually producing the oscillating current, the circuit used a long run of copper wire in the circuit board to recieve oscillating radio frequencies from surrounding computers. Voila, the radio was accidently reinvented throught the process of variation and selection. Quite a stunning example of how evolutionary algorithms can come up with strategies that seem counter-intuitive but still work, just as we see in nature.As to developing AI, the same process could probably be used. The exciting part is that evolutionary algorithms usually come up with solutions that humans would not have thought of, which makes this field a very rich resource for designing circuits and software. However, without the correct selective pressures we may end up with results that do not meet our starting criteria, as was seen in the example above. I think it is very possible that AI could be evolved, but it may come down to fine tuning the selective pressures and the source of variation.this article/url. The investigators allowed random connections between different electrical switches, transistors, etc. The selection pressure was towards evolving a circuit that produced an oscillating signal. Therefore, each time this ability was improved part of the circuit was preserved and new combinations were added. By the end the scientists had a fully functioning oscillating circuit. However, the most stunning part was that the circuit actually relied on a form of parasitism. Instead of actually producing the oscillating current, the circuit used a long run of copper wire in the circuit board to recieve oscillating radio frequencies from surrounding computers. Voila, the radio was accidently reinvented throught the process of variation and selection. Quite a stunning example of how evolutionary algorithms can come up with strategies that seem counter-intuitive but still work, just as we see in nature.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-13-2004 03:15 PMThis message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-13-2004 03:16 PM