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 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).