From: Joseph Sterlynne (vxs@mailandnews.com)
Date: Tue Sep 07 1999 - 22:06:34 MDT
> "Matt Gingell" <mjg223@nyu.edu>
>> Joseph Sterlynne <vxs@mailandnews.com>
>>Some of this
>>concern has, I think, been incorporated as a major facet of studies of
>>complex systems: we don't know why some systems can defeat local optima,
>>how minimally complex various features must be, or even what the shape of
>>certain multidimensional solution spaces is.
>I donít think there can be any general solution to the problem of local
>optima.
>There are lots of different useful techniques, but any hill-climbing algorithm
>can potentially get stuck. Itís a question of the topology of the search
>space,
>which can be arbitrarily complex
Perhaps, though Rik and Eliezer have offered rebuttals. Whatever the case,
I should clarify that my main intention here was not to question movement
in search space but to mention the problem of understanding the
architecture of complex systems. I mentioned the human system, which is
still a little complicated for us; in terms of Perry's design, though,
there may be lessons as to what constitutes a flexible enough architecture
for seeing around optima. I am thinking of Aaron Sloman's attempts to
sketch the salient dimensions of minds by imagining these arrayed in a
space. If we knew the details of the human mind we could locate ourselves
within this space (and thus, hopefully, identify directions in which to
move).
>I think itís interesting to ask why evolution didnít get stuck [. . .].
Oh, I took care of this one long ago. See my 1971 _Wear My Britches,
Matt!: The Homo Sapiens Story_ (Oxford University Press).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:04 MST