Artificial evolution..

Just saw this on the BBC wondered what people thought... http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1801000/1801985.stm"The machines can evolve by uploading their electronic genes to a remote computer.The principle of survival of the fittest will apply as only robots which survive for a given length of time will be allowed to re-enter their electronic genes into the breeding pool."

Joz, I didn't click through to the cite but it is technobabble taking to a new scientific lingo. As far as I can tell the only opinion that justifies such use of ENGLISH is the opinion expressed by Will Provine of Cornell in his book Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology that Dr. Wright had "shifted" his 'fulcrum'(viewpoint) with respect to the size of deme populations. Rather I find this in Galileo than this kind of modern computer dissemiated variety of intelligence designed by someone. And to address it explictly I never got the motivation Stu Kaufmann did with "blinking lights" to post-Kant bio-philosophy. This application is in line with that kind of thinking of Kaurmann's which arose at the end of the 60's to some insitutional practice. Sincerely, Brad

I think you're taking it a bit seriously, Brad, Its taking place at the Magna science adventure centre, & will be open to the public. It's a fun, interesting "experiment", whose value will surely be "how not to do it", & "how we can do it better next time", but then this is all it was ever meant to be. (By pure coincidence Noel Sharkey was on the radio today, talking of the ).Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Professor Noel Sharkey of the Computer Science Department of the University of Sheffield in the UK has been involved in public demonstrations of robotic capabilities for many years.The news article cited by Joz is tantalizing in its ambiguity and lack of detail. Evidently both predator and prey can experience demise, the predator through starvation. A robot whose batteries go dead is considered deceased, at which point the robot is "reincarnated" with fresh batteries and a copy of the latest program and data of a survivor.But the article doesn't say precisely what the robots learn. Just saying, "I'm still alive, I must be doing something right" seems insufficient. It would be nice to know how the robots distinguish their own robot species from enemy robot species, what kind of elements comprise their environment, and to what degree they're able to move about in and control their environment. I wonder if one attack is sufficient to "kill" a prey robot, or does it take multiple attacks to achieve this (the latter seems more likely to me). And learning is one thing, while evolving is another. Where, exactly, does the evoution come into play? My guess is that when a successful robot's probram is uploaded that the program is "evolved" before being downloaded into other robots.At heart this is another example of experiments in evolution through software simulation. Most of the what I've read about this has been purely software in expression, ie, the organisms play in a simulated software environment, sort of like the Sims game. It'll be interesting to hear how this real-world version plays out.--Percy

Yea,I guess I may be taking the whole creation/evolution thing too seriuously as you say, so thankyou. But since I wrote the above I have become rather convinced that the scholars on this side of the POND are not aware how far the British have been able to contradict US work on evolution science itself. I was not really aware of the influence as I tended to side more with Continental rather than Anglo/American philosophy. Your point is well taken. That was rather how I understood discussions of evolution as teenager who had not been snubbed or snuffed out (you pick the letters) by the elite here after I made the rounds between Cambridge and Oxford and judged that circle IN thought. Again, thanks for the remark.