A revolutionary OS/Programming Idea

[Li, Xiao Feng]

Hi, Dear Lynn, I don't think the evolution mechanism is something with
"safety in numbers". It's exactly a process of adaptation which can be
achieved by anything naturally or automatically in their eco system if
they have the ability of mutation and reproduction, including software.
This process doesn't need "deus ex machina" and is completely
unpredictable.=20

-xiaofeng

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn H. Maxson [mailto:lmaxson@pacbell.net]=20
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:48 PM
To: tunes mailing list; Michael Conrad; Li, Xiao Feng; Pascal
J.Bourguignon; Shayne Kasai; Matthew Danish; Alaric B Snell; John
Newman; Li, Xiao Feng
Subject: RE: A revolutionary OS/Programming Idea

Li, Xiao Feng writes:
"Hi, Dear Lynn, what you described are really interesting, but I=20
believe the adaptiveness for an individual system is not=20
essential if we have an reproduction and selection mechanism=20
among a group, where the death of the non-adaptive=20
individual is even more vital and the adaptiveness is achieved=20
generation by generation in a species-level instead of=20
individual-level."

If you want me to agree to a general species survival principle=20
that there is safety in numbers, you have it.  I don't believe I=20
have said anything to the contrary.

You have to appreciate what Ashby demonstrated with his=20
homeostat: that a goal-oriented system, basically that=20
associated with homeostasis in humans, could adapt to=20
changes in its environment without any form of external=20
intervention.  No "deus ex machina", no finger of God, no=20
initial instruction set, no starting program.

Moreover the system, the homeostat, responded to external=20
changes as a whole in an entirely unpredictable,=20
non-predeterministic manner: state A did not result in a state=20
B.  This flies in the face of control system theory or control=20
system synthesis.  A connection involving feedback=20
dynamically, i.e. unpredictably, switched between positive and=20
negative.

The homeostat demonstrated adaptive behavior.  If it could=20
not achieve homeostasis within some indeterminable interval=20
of time, it failed, i.e. died.  In short it constantly kept=20
attempting to maintain homeostasis until its resources failed it.

Now Ashby was pillored for this work, because he eliminated=20
the need for God, the "deus ex machina".  You would think=20
scientists would welcome such a demonstration. =20
Unfortunately it also rendered unnecessary the need to apply=20
control system synthesis to adaptive behavior in living=20
organisms or prevalent belief among those in this thread that=20
it was even possible to do so.

Now we haven't established the basis for adaptive behavior in=20
living organisms.  We have this one demonstration of it=20
occurring outside the realm of control system synthesis.  We=20
speculate, something far short of demonstrate, that at some=20
given future time when we can "realistically" emulate the=20
neurons of the brain we will be able to write the program.

If we cannot, then artificial intelligence will remain as such:=20
artificial, never real.  That doesn't make it useless.  Because=20
we may never "crossover" does not mean we should not=20
continue the quest for its improvement.  That it's not the way=20
we humans actually adapt does not detract from the value to=20
us of its advancement.

Yes, in general there is safety in numbers.<g>