Doug Jones writes:
>
> The meta level still doesn't make the program in question capable of
> making design innovations, and is useless in the context.
And you know that how? I thought we've made *some* progress since the
time of the ursoup. Given the "Cerebral Code" assumption is true,
there might be no such thing as a nonevolutionary created design
innovation.
> True, but we were discussing the "works of a design evolution program",
> running without intervention by man. Human works added to the program
Yes.
> would not be evolution within that system, but would be an external deus
> ex machina plunking the program down in a new parameter space.
Human works are things being made by a coevolutonary process. It being
open-ended, and all, there's is really no telling what it can't do,
eventually.
> 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.
What does currently available software tell us about fundamental
limitations of the method? Very, very little.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:51 MDT