User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 54

  1. #21
    Senior Member kuranes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Posts
    1,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hereandnow View Post
    Nature is not clumsy. The bottom up approach appears haphazard but it's not.
    You've probably been reading Wolfram.

    I just found this little site -

    http://www.collidoscope.com/modernca/lifelikerules.html

  2. #22
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    I promise not to God all over this thread-- but I wanted to say how interesting I think it is that in discussions such as these, people tend to imbue nature with a sense of competence or incompetence or clumsiness or not-clumsiness. It seems that we come hard-wired to see purpose and agency on the part of the universe. Maybe this is where God-ideas come from.

  3. #23
    Doesn't Read Your Posts Haight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    6,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hereandnow View Post
    As you stated elsewhere the Engineer views it as clumsy but not the scientist.
    I think that's the root of my answer.

    In other words, maybe this has nothing to do with how things found in nature are mostly round and squares seem like anomalies (since my wife just convinced me that that is not the case), but rather, it's based on our perception of these non-human creations. So in the end, maybe I just have to look closer, because my visual abilities are so limited.

  4. #24
    Senior Member HilbertSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kuranes View Post
    You've probably been reading Wolfram.

    I just found this little site -

    http://www.collidoscope.com/modernca/lifelikerules.html
    When that applet first started, I thought it was the ants building piles problem. The piles problem is canonical in questions of bottom-up intelligence - it's a problem of dispersed coordination.

    Say you have a bunch of grains of sand, evenly distributed, and you want them piled up. To to this, a (centralized, monolithic intelligence) would simply start moving all of the grains to a single spot on the board. If the person was coordinating ants to do the job, he might tell each ant to move a particular grain from Point A to Point B.

    However, the same effect can be brought about by simply encoding each ant with two trivial rules, and using the idea of stimergy to coordinate them: If you run into a grain of sand and you're not carrying one, pick it up. If you run into a grain of sand and you are carrying one, drop it.

    This is the sort of thing that nature does - the constraint here is that your ants are pretty stupid - they only have room in their minds for a couple of simple, concrete rules, and they can't even talk to one another. There's no possibility of having a foreman. But even with those constraints, they can still build a pile.
    JBS Haldane's Four Stages of Scientific Theories:

    1. This is worthless nonsense.
    2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
    3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
    4. I always said so.

  5. #25
    Senior Member kuranes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Posts
    1,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    I promise not to God all over this thread-- but I wanted to say how interesting I think it is that in discussions such as these, people tend to imbue nature with a sense of competence or incompetence or clumsiness or not-clumsiness. It seems that we come hard-wired to see purpose and agency on the part of the universe. Maybe this is where God-ideas come from.
    I agree, along with the fact that people like to think that their part in the "design" will continue.

  6. #26
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HilbertSpace View Post
    When that applet first started, I thought it was the ants building piles problem. The piles problem is canonical in questions of bottom-up intelligence - it's a problem of dispersed coordination.

    Say you have a bunch of grains of sand, evenly distributed, and you want them piled up. To to this, a (centralized, monolithic intelligence) would simply start moving all of the grains to a single spot on the board. If the person was coordinating ants to do the job, he might tell each ant to move a particular grain from Point A to Point B.

    However, the same effect can be brought about by simply encoding each ant with two trivial rules, and using the idea of stimergy to coordinate them: If you run into a grain of sand and you're not carrying one, pick it up. If you run into a grain of sand and you are carrying one, drop it.

    This is the sort of thing that nature does - the constraint here is that your ants are pretty stupid - they only have room in their minds for a couple of simple, concrete rules, and they can't even talk to one another. There's no possibility of having a foreman. But even with those constraints, they can still build a pile.
    You need additional rules, as this will result in a loss of ants until you no longer have any ants. The environment and initial distribution of sand and ants also changes the rules.

  7. #27
    Senior Member kuranes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Posts
    1,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HilbertSpace View Post
    However, the same effect can be brought about by simply encoding each ant with two trivial rules, and using the idea of stimergy to coordinate them
    Stimergy. There's a new word for me.

  8. #28
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hereandnow View Post
    Nature is not clumsy. The bottom up approach appears haphazard but it's not.
    It's "haphazard" in the sense that it occurs without any direct organization or planning.


    In natural process, a lot of things (such as diffusion, gravity, heat flow, light flow, sound) go in all directions equally unless conditions are different in the different directions, so structures made by these type of effects will be spherical. In the case where conditions aren't the same in all directions, they tend to not change suddenly, so the resulting structures formed are still smooth, but not exactly spherical (mushroom clouds.). there's also general randomness in processes, and having squares or rectangles is less likely than having round shapes, so things like fires aren't square partially because they aren't likely to be.

    Most human structures are built to divide up space, and for support, in these areas, square shapes work better. (The flat surface on top of cubes won't have things sliding off it as round shapes would, and squares are one of three basic shapes that can cover an entire 2-d space.)

  9. #29
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    Zerg: How do you know there's no planning?

  10. #30
    Senior Member HilbertSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    You need additional rules, as this will result in a loss of ants until you no longer have any ants. The environment and initial distribution of sand and ants also changes the rules.
    I over-simplified because I know I tend to make long posts, and I am consciously trying to keep things brief, but you're entirely correct. I believe the original papers on the experiment came out of ALife III or IV, but I can't find them at the moment (or else those were the ones where the ants were supposed to make patterns with the colored grains of sand...).

    The main idea that I was trying to get across is that systemic constraints, including being able to deal with only highly localized information and limited computational resources will guide the design of the larger system, and that the resulting system (and products of that system) will look different than one that was the result of a monolithic approach.
    JBS Haldane's Four Stages of Scientific Theories:

    1. This is worthless nonsense.
    2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
    3. This is true, but quite unimportant.
    4. I always said so.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-29-2017, 05:29 PM
  2. Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate
    By ygolo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-27-2007, 10:18 PM
  3. Hi my name is Nat and I am a misunderstood INTJ
    By Natrushka in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 08:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO