Ken Clements wrote:
>
> Doug Jones wrote:
>
> > Currently available software can do evolutionary design optimization,
> > but cannot make major jumps to new technologies. Useful, yes, but not
> > universally versatile. Creative design input is still required.
>
> I do not know the limitations of this specific software. What is this "Creative
> design" you refer to above? I suspect it is a Darwinian process of memes slugging
> it out for resources in the context of neurons and drafting paper. If we evolve a
> good enough simulation of this fight for survival in electronic bit context, will
> we have the "Creative design" part as well?
Possibly, yes. It will have to be a mighty big, kludgy, and complicated
program, possibly so complex that it would pass the turing test- at
which point you have to *pay* the damn thing! Perhaps the fittest memes
are the ones that give you an "Aha!" moment, when their fitness racks up
a high score in your internal simulation...
-- Doug Jones Rocket Plumber, XCOR Aerospace http://www.xcor-aerospace.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:49 MDT