How Close to Artificial Life?

Technocrat

How Close to Artificial Life?

zogger

Tue Aug 05 20:55:00 -0700 2008

Science.

manage

Will this ever really be possible, to create life? Can it even be adequately defined, and if so, where is the dividing line? Is it life only if it is biochemical, or can it also be life if it is silicon based, as in computer AI? A few hundred of the top scientists in the world, from a variety of disciplines, are gathered to sort out the ramifications of the quest for life.

But these virtual landscapes have turned out to be surprisingly barren. Prof Mark Bedau of Reed College in Portland, Oregon, will argue at this week's meeting - the 11th International Conference on Artificial Life - that despite the promise that organisms could one day breed in a computer, such systems quickly run out of steam, as genetic possibilities are not open-ended but predefined. Unlike the real world, the outcome of computer evolution is built into its programming. ed.z.: Well, OK, that's all well and good all these scientists can get together and discuss this or that heavy deep subject..what I want to know is, from a *practical* viewpoint, once they actually "produce life"...will it be tasty between two slices of bread??

How Close to Artificial Life?

Michael Smith

Wed Aug 06 05:45:14 -0700 2008
manage

Kai has got me thinking about Greg Egan books again.

Egan wrote a book called Permutation City about this subject. The focus was on two different ways to implement virtual environments. The "patchwork" approach models the world at the domain level, in the sense that it contains virtual organisms with virtual tissues sitting on virtual rocks, etc. The other approach builds on a finite state machine, similar to Conways Life but with more dimensions and a different rule set.

The idea in the book was that the FSM approach would win out in the end because it was closer to a real universe at the lowest levels, despite being much heavier in resources to set up initially.

Unlike the real world, the outcome of computer evolution is built into its programming

Actually a lot of the software I work on seems to have a mind of its own. It just needs to be put together badly enough. I think these systems need an injection of random numbers.

How Close to Artificial Life?

Charles E Hill

Wed Aug 06 08:50:35 -0700 2008
manage

Philosophers, scientists, poets and theologians have debated a definition for life for millennia. I don't think there has ever been a universally accepted definition.

Does life include consciousness? Are viruses alive? Whare about prions? Fungi?

Personally, I think we already have created artificial, electronic life. Software viruses meet many of the basic definitions of "alive".

I think the proper question is about self-awareness and consciousness, not life.

We can simulate/program preservation instinct and several other characteristics of consciousness, but what level do we need to go to get "life"?

How Close to Artificial Life?

squiggleslash

Wed Aug 06 11:45:48 -0700 2008
manage

My wife and I are planning to create some life pretty soon. We've been doing it since time immorial.

How Close to Artificial Life?

mrjk

Wed Aug 06 12:25:21 -0700 2008
manage

"that despite the promise that organisms could one day breed in a computer, such systems quickly run out of steam, as genetic possibilities are not open-ended but predefined. Unlike the real world, the outcome of computer evolution is built into its programming."

This last sentence is false and provably so, it sounds like some intelligent design argument. With random inputs, there is nothing constraining computer evolution in that sense. The fact that we don't simulate very complicated systems is one thing, but we can certainly model genetic inheritance to whatever degree we want and thus computer evolution in that sense is equally as strong as regular genetics. I have to believe this paper is more nuanced than the description.