Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
What complex structure exists which does not contain any independently-useful substructure?
Most discussions on slashdot, perhaps?;-)
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
Thank you. That is exactly the kind of clarification I was hoping for. I had only one course that touched on EA but briefly, so bear with me...
I am curious how the selection is applied. The mutation part is easy enough to understand, but how do you apply selection pressures without making some sort of assumptions up front about what types of organisms deserve to thrive? This is the part that always seemed arbitrary/presumptuous to me.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
I persist because it seems more diligent than to take the easy path that leads me to interpret the results as justifying what I already perceive to be true.
I don't think I missed the result that a mechanism was demonstrated, and I definitely didn't mean to suggest that demonstrating a mechanism was without value. I merely view it as a side show in context of a philosophy of science.
I fail to see how demonstrating a mechanism in simulation (as opposed to in nature) can be used to make any proper claim about the physical universe. Remember the issue I took with the article I read was with the notion that there was a "proof" inherent in this demonstration.
The EA programmers take a hypothesis about how the universe works (a hypothesis that, I stress again, I consider to be effectively "proven" without the assistance of simulations), use it to build a model, and then demonstrate that certain things follow from that model. Where is the philosophical "connective tissue" to the physical world?
I'm perfectly willing to believe that I'm missing one or more details as I'm neither an EA or biology expert (in fact, even my philosophy of science studies are pretty far in the past) but I'd like to be filled in if I am.
My greatest fear is that some anti-evolutionist may seize upon this argument somehow to bolster their claims. Maybe I should shut up now.:-)
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
Yes, they shouldn't say "Darwin Proved Right" (for several reasons).
Well said, and I assume you would put "irreducible complexity" cheif among them.
It's ridiculous that in the 21st century we have to tread so carefully over the biases, misconceptions, and agendas in presenting science.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I enter the fray reluctantly.
The first thought I had when I saw the article (presented on Space.com as "Darwin Proved Right...") was that simulating something in a computer does not necessarily prove anything about the physical world. We can synthesize all sorts of things that have no analogy in nature. EA, AI, are fascinating fields inspired by evolutionary theory, but I fail to see how executing a computer program that assumes evolution in its infrastructure proves anything but that modelling evolution in software works.
For the record, I am not anti-evolution, though I may occassionally be noisy...
the government's scare machine is wayyy more powerful than you think,
especially among those who actually vote
I am sorry you posted this AC, because it deserves to be more visible. Any argument about the majority opinion of US citizenry as expressed through the vote is weakended severely by the low voter turnouts we've been seeing in recent decades. It's a distressing cycle of the disillusioned failing to vote, increasing the power of the voting minority, resulting in further disillusion, ad nauseum.
I have no doubt that if the majority actually expressed their opinion, our government would be quite different (a term I've chosen quite deliberately to avoid value judgment) than it is today.
It's similar to the difference in their approach to the network gaming. Sony lets the publisher's handle their own network servers, while MS insists on doing it all in their data centers, a strategy that has cost them some quite lucrative relationships (e.g. EA). Basically, I see it as the difference between a mature, responsible company, confident in their ability to profit and prosper in their market, and a megalomaniacal control freak out to dominate every market.
Are you suggesting that these upstanding registered voters of Texas A&M are engaged in felony copyright violation? If a little condescension from their lawmakers is all the trouble they get for it, they should perhaps consider themselves lucky.
As for the precedent, are there any politicians from Texas that aren't tactless?:-)
He was speaking in the context of a discussion of P2P use on University networks. With that in mind, it is not really so far out of line. Not nearly so, for example, as the kind of crud that's slung routinely on/. about the people involved in policy making on this issue.
Try The Number Devil by Hans Magnus Enzensberger. It is a very accessible introduction to mathematical thinking for those who are not necessarily already inclined to it. The book consists of a series of dreams of a young boy who hates math and is visited by "the number devil". Originally seen as a torturer, the number devil ultimately reveals the beauty and - most importantly - comprehensibility of mathematics
Majestic was well underway, and was suspended after the 9/11 attacks because of concerns over its content. It was reactivated a little later, but never got up any steam and was cancelled shortly thereafter (after episode 4, I think?).
I was one of the early access players, but it just wasn't fun and compelling enough to justify what I thought was an overpriced monthly fee for the amount of play / quality of content. Technically, it was a novel concept, but without a fun, compelling story that just wasn't enough...
Back in '93, I remember a link on Internet Underground Music Archive that said something like "Peer into the future of a crass and commercialized Web", and pointed to something called "The Internet Mall". Prescient.
If you're willing to risk your head spinning till it pops off, try and find a copy of "High Weirdness by Mail" by Rev. Ivan Stang. It is an immense compendium of nutcase organizations that will pepper your PO box (only the equally insane would give their home address to these people) with reams of similarly unbelievable, yet histerically funny disconnects from reality. Since the book was published in the late eighties, most of them have probably ceased operations (or gone online!) but the descriptions in HWBM are gutbusting anyway...
If we go any further off topic, we'd better shift to email... a_lb@p_opes.com. Take the _'s out to read the real address.
Just goes to show, hardware knowledge is a sliding scale and I'm not quite to the end of it. On the other hand, perhaps there is a certain pride to be taken in having forgotten that Winmodems exist.:-)
Sorry. They are quite serious. I have viewed/read a number of articles and commentaries on them going back to the 70s and they are quite sincere. I'm sure some Subgenius clowns have signed up to have the goofy certificate and map, but the founders are definitely intent on the flatness of the Earth.
Seems to me like this matter hinges on the legal status of ISPs in Au. If they are responsible for their subscriber's activity, they should be aware of relevant law because it's critical to their business function, and ignorance would not be an excuse.
Is there intent of the Feds to prosecute the ISP or just to tear up their site looking for illegal subscriber activity so as to prosecute the subscribers?
And the reply you just gave usually comes after the post I was mocking. Lighten up. It was a joke. I use them as an outlet to keep my blood pressure down. There is little to be said about the abuse of patents, or the negligence of the USPTO, that hasn't been run into the ground on this board many times over.
Slashdot Mirror
Most discussions on slashdot, perhaps?
Thank you. That is exactly the kind of clarification I was hoping for. I had only one course that touched on EA but briefly, so bear with me...
I am curious how the selection is applied. The mutation part is easy enough to understand, but how do you apply selection pressures without making some sort of assumptions up front about what types of organisms deserve to thrive? This is the part that always seemed arbitrary/presumptuous to me.
I persist because it seems more diligent than to take the easy path that leads me to interpret the results as justifying what I already perceive to be true.
:-)
I don't think I missed the result that a mechanism was demonstrated, and I definitely didn't mean to suggest that demonstrating a mechanism was without value. I merely view it as a side show in context of a philosophy of science.
I fail to see how demonstrating a mechanism in simulation (as opposed to in nature) can be used to make any proper claim about the physical universe. Remember the issue I took with the article I read was with the notion that there was a "proof" inherent in this demonstration.
The EA programmers take a hypothesis about how the universe works (a hypothesis that, I stress again, I consider to be effectively "proven" without the assistance of simulations), use it to build a model, and then demonstrate that certain things follow from that model. Where is the philosophical "connective tissue" to the physical world?
I'm perfectly willing to believe that I'm missing one or more details as I'm neither an EA or biology expert (in fact, even my philosophy of science studies are pretty far in the past) but I'd like to be filled in if I am.
My greatest fear is that some anti-evolutionist may seize upon this argument somehow to bolster their claims. Maybe I should shut up now.
Well said, and I assume you would put "irreducible complexity" cheif among them.
It's ridiculous that in the 21st century we have to tread so carefully over the biases, misconceptions, and agendas in presenting science.
I enter the fray reluctantly.
...") was that simulating something in a computer does not necessarily prove anything about the physical world. We can synthesize all sorts of things that have no analogy in nature. EA, AI, are fascinating fields inspired by evolutionary theory, but I fail to see how executing a computer program that assumes evolution in its infrastructure proves anything but that modelling evolution in software works.
The first thought I had when I saw the article (presented on Space.com as "Darwin Proved Right
For the record, I am not anti-evolution, though I may occassionally be noisy...
I am sorry you posted this AC, because it deserves to be more visible. Any argument about the majority opinion of US citizenry as expressed through the vote is weakended severely by the low voter turnouts we've been seeing in recent decades. It's a distressing cycle of the disillusioned failing to vote, increasing the power of the voting minority, resulting in further disillusion, ad nauseum.
I have no doubt that if the majority actually expressed their opinion, our government would be quite different (a term I've chosen quite deliberately to avoid value judgment) than it is today.
... or else I would have realized I was replying to an AC and, well, wouldn't have bothered...
Your post is indeed thoughtful, but it is not a reply. The mandate was that OSS solutions be considered along with proprietary ones.
It's similar to the difference in their approach to the network gaming. Sony lets the publisher's handle their own network servers, while MS insists on doing it all in their data centers, a strategy that has cost them some quite lucrative relationships (e.g. EA). Basically, I see it as the difference between a mature, responsible company, confident in their ability to profit and prosper in their market, and a megalomaniacal control freak out to dominate every market.
A way to make money from banner ads!
Are you suggesting that these upstanding registered voters of Texas A&M are engaged in felony copyright violation? If a little condescension from their lawmakers is all the trouble they get for it, they should perhaps consider themselves lucky.
:-)
As for the precedent, are there any politicians from Texas that aren't tactless?
He was speaking in the context of a discussion of P2P use on University networks. With that in mind, it is not really so far out of line. Not nearly so, for example, as the kind of crud that's slung routinely on /. about the people involved in policy making on this issue.
Try The Number Devil by Hans Magnus Enzensberger. It is a very accessible introduction to mathematical thinking for those who are not necessarily already inclined to it. The book consists of a series of dreams of a young boy who hates math and is visited by "the number devil". Originally seen as a torturer, the number devil ultimately reveals the beauty and - most importantly - comprehensibility of mathematics
Majestic was well underway, and was suspended after the 9/11 attacks because of concerns over its content. It was reactivated a little later, but never got up any steam and was cancelled shortly thereafter (after episode 4, I think?).
I was one of the early access players, but it just wasn't fun and compelling enough to justify what I thought was an overpriced monthly fee for the amount of play / quality of content. Technically, it was a novel concept, but without a fun, compelling story that just wasn't enough...
Back in '93, I remember a link on Internet Underground Music Archive that said something like "Peer into the future of a crass and commercialized Web", and pointed to something called "The Internet Mall". Prescient.
If you're willing to risk your head spinning till it pops off, try and find a copy of "High Weirdness by Mail" by Rev. Ivan Stang. It is an immense compendium of nutcase organizations that will pepper your PO box (only the equally insane would give their home address to these people) with reams of similarly unbelievable, yet histerically funny disconnects from reality. Since the book was published in the late eighties, most of them have probably ceased operations (or gone online!) but the descriptions in HWBM are gutbusting anyway...
If we go any further off topic, we'd better shift to email... a_lb@p_opes.com. Take the _'s out to read the real address.
Just goes to show, hardware knowledge is a sliding scale and I'm not quite to the end of it. On the other hand, perhaps there is a certain pride to be taken in having forgotten that Winmodems exist. :-)
Multiple Choice:
A. The post is a troll
B. The poster is entirely ignorant of computer hardware
C. This is supposed to be funny
In the case of C, the joke was made better above by someone for whom B was not in question.
Sorry. They are quite serious. I have viewed/read a number of articles and commentaries on them going back to the 70s and they are quite sincere. I'm sure some Subgenius clowns have signed up to have the goofy certificate and map, but the founders are definitely intent on the flatness of the Earth.
Seems to me like this matter hinges on the legal status of ISPs in Au. If they are responsible for their subscriber's activity, they should be aware of relevant law because it's critical to their business function, and ignorance would not be an excuse.
Is there intent of the Feds to prosecute the ISP or just to tear up their site looking for illegal subscriber activity so as to prosecute the subscribers?
Yeah, we especially hate having all those damn tourists clotting up our state to the point where we don't have to pay state income tax.
Go ahead. This is the part where you call me vindictive and hateful to cover your tracks...
Weak arguments are typically the ones enforced with maximum vigor.
Equally tongue-in-cheek: The real question is whether the simulators have been crashing, isn't it?
And the reply you just gave usually comes after the post I was mocking. Lighten up. It was a joke. I use them as an outlet to keep my blood pressure down. There is little to be said about the abuse of patents, or the negligence of the USPTO, that hasn't been run into the ground on this board many times over.