I would like to know if words sufficiently similar sounding to "GO" and "STOP" evoke the same impulse in the circuitry to accordingly output the voltage. I'm guessing that they will if the signals are sufficiently similar.
There is a difference between symbol and signal; as impressive as this story is, it is important to make this distinction because the article seemed to imply processing on the symbol/semantic level as opposed to the signal level (which I am assuming is the dominant modality of interpreting the words "stop" and "go"); there were also hints of awareness as in:
"It appears that evolution made use of some physical property of these cells—possibly a capacitive effect or electromagnetic inductance—to influence a signal passing nearby. Somehow, it seized on this subtle effect and incorporated it into the solution."
As an example of the difference of symbol/signal, a chimpanzee can be trained to obey traffic lights according to what they represent. The chimp will no doubt have the capacity to do what the lights command, but what would it do if it saw a red light while in the middle of an intersection? Would it be able to separate the symbology of "don't stop within the intersection" with the signal of "stop now" and end up either inside the intersection or directly after the intersection obediently waiting for another light to show up within its field of vision to tell it to continue?
The fact that he's used the process to create controllers for robots does not mean, to me at least, that there is the beginning of awareness forming at this stage; the controllers are more likely computed as opposed to rationalized; I suppose you could say that genetic algorithms are a form of rationalization, but feel free to show me how this is the case.
This is nonetheless an amazing break through in that we have what looks to be an "emergent entity" that responds to commands and the creator is baffled about how this happened. I'm hesitant to use the word "evolved entity" at this point because I don't see an imperative drive for survival for the sake of survival in the same way members of the five kingdoms display. I think the distinction is relevant given the nature of what has emerged and how it emerged (through genetic programming which uses the concept of evolution as a schema to describe the process accurately).
I think you misunderstood the significance of this research. Nobody is claiming that the circuit is alive or intelligent. The method used is a fairly standard genetic algorithm. The fascinating part is that the evolved circuit is unlike anything designed by humans. For example: "A further five cells appeared to serve no logical purpose at all — there was no route of connections by which they could influence the output. And yet if he disconnected them, the circuit stopped working."
Perhaps you're right about my misinterpretation... the overall implication I took from it was that a genetic algorithm was applied to a circuit that could be rewired itself; this increased the level of complexity possible and from this (and this is where I sensed the implication that we have something akin to a biological system that is living) we have the result of something that is autonomous and sensing in a way that it can interact with humans the way a dog might (as highlighted in the first paragraph). Also the use of the word "creatures" in the title sort of threw me off...
There's much I don't know about genetic algorithms; perhaps more background in that area would help. I thought that the benefit of using genetic algorithms was to create novel designs that are unlike anything a human being would normally create.
I would like to add that the first example of telling the circuitry "go" and "stop" implies some processing on behalf of the circuitry such that it has an understanding of the meanings behind these symbols. This conveyed to me in some way that the author of the article was indicating that the circuitry had an understanding of these words (hence my lengthy discussion of symbol vs signal).
Comments
I would like to know if words sufficiently similar sounding to "GO" and "STOP" evoke the same impulse in the circuitry to accordingly output the voltage. I'm guessing that they will if the signals are sufficiently similar.
There is a difference between symbol and signal; as impressive as this story is, it is important to make this distinction because the article seemed to imply processing on the symbol/semantic level as opposed to the signal level (which I am assuming is the dominant modality of interpreting the words "stop" and "go"); there were also hints of awareness as in:
"It appears that evolution made use of some physical property of these cells—possibly a capacitive effect or electromagnetic inductance—to influence a signal passing nearby. Somehow, it seized on this subtle effect and incorporated it into the solution."
As an example of the difference of symbol/signal, a chimpanzee can be trained to obey traffic lights according to what they represent. The chimp will no doubt have the capacity to do what the lights command, but what would it do if it saw a red light while in the middle of an intersection? Would it be able to separate the symbology of "don't stop within the intersection" with the signal of "stop now" and end up either inside the intersection or directly after the intersection obediently waiting for another light to show up within its field of vision to tell it to continue?
The fact that he's used the process to create controllers for robots does not mean, to me at least, that there is the beginning of awareness forming at this stage; the controllers are more likely computed as opposed to rationalized; I suppose you could say that genetic algorithms are a form of rationalization, but feel free to show me how this is the case.
This is nonetheless an amazing break through in that we have what looks to be an "emergent entity" that responds to commands and the creator is baffled about how this happened. I'm hesitant to use the word "evolved entity" at this point because I don't see an imperative drive for survival for the sake of survival in the same way members of the five kingdoms display. I think the distinction is relevant given the nature of what has emerged and how it emerged (through genetic programming which uses the concept of evolution as a schema to describe the process accurately).
I think you misunderstood the significance of this research. Nobody is claiming that the circuit is alive or intelligent. The method used is a fairly standard genetic algorithm. The fascinating part is that the evolved circuit is unlike anything designed by humans. For example: "A further five cells appeared to serve no logical purpose at all — there was no route of connections by which they could influence the output. And yet if he disconnected them, the circuit stopped working."
Perhaps you're right about my misinterpretation... the overall implication I took from it was that a genetic algorithm was applied to a circuit that could be rewired itself; this increased the level of complexity possible and from this (and this is where I sensed the implication that we have something akin to a biological system that is living) we have the result of something that is autonomous and sensing in a way that it can interact with humans the way a dog might (as highlighted in the first paragraph). Also the use of the word "creatures" in the title sort of threw me off...
There's much I don't know about genetic algorithms; perhaps more background in that area would help. I thought that the benefit of using genetic algorithms was to create novel designs that are unlike anything a human being would normally create.
Oh, one more thing...
I would like to add that the first example of telling the circuitry "go" and "stop" implies some processing on behalf of the circuitry such that it has an understanding of the meanings behind these symbols. This conveyed to me in some way that the author of the article was indicating that the circuitry had an understanding of these words (hence my lengthy discussion of symbol vs signal).