Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's exactly the "survival" I was talking about. I certainly did not mean to imply that the lengthy survival of any individual of a species was a "goal" of evolution.
Not sure what you mean with 'code', but my initial reaction is "no that is not how really how works", which tells me I problay did not understand you properly.
On a generic abstract level: the gradient in the fitness landscape.
If you are on a gradient you cannot avoid to move along the gradient. I don't like the picture of the fitness landscape with hills you need to climb. A hill suggest some kind of force are needed to push you up the hill, while rater the opoist is the case; you are falling down into a valley. The gradient works more like an energy minimum; if you put something in the empty air it will fall back to the ground because that is the direction in which the gravitational gradient points.
Is it?
As described in the link:
The focus of Monte Carlo tree search is on the analysis of the most promising moves, expanding the search tree based on random sampling of the search space.
This is designed and purposeful, a code that is designed for a particular type of purpose, and has a kind of intelligence in the form of analysis algorithms. It isn’t self generated, and when it has completed its purpose, it either does something else it was coded to do, or it stops. I assume you don’t think that random mutation is designed, so what would be the explanation for why it happens - not the process of how it happens, or the fact that it does happen, but why it does, what is the driving force behind it, in your view?
Yes. You just quoted it yourself:
I think you miss the point; MCTS are designed to make their own designs.
I grant you the fact that a MCTS algorithm are designed by humans, but what a machines does which is equipped with an MCTS algorithm are not designed by human but the machines itself.
Analogous, as far as we can tell evolution is such design machine. I.e. the design process of evolution is a consequences of natural laws not an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer could possible be behind the laws of nature, but that is beside the point. It would be like observing a tornado assemble a Boeing 747 in a junkyard. Obviously the tornado did it, but the question who, if any, made a tornado capable of this miracle is another question.
I don’t have the science or programming background to frame the question properly, it’s just something I’m curious about, and your answer makes sense.
Like most threads this one seems to have gone off in a few different directions so I’m still not sure how this relates to the tornado analogy. Anyway.
Righht. I’m assuming you don’t mind being peppered with questions, as you keep responding.
What is the understanding of natural laws as regards their application - I mean this seems analogous to some extent also, in that living organisms don’t choose to obey these laws as such, in the same way that we consciously do (or don’t).
Is it that these laws are boundaries, or frameworks, or driving forces that herd organisms along a particular path, or an interaction of different forces that lead to particular results through a process that the laws allow, and any aberrations cease to be if they don’t fall within the limits of these laws, or something like that?
Even a PC can play chess from the rules.
A super computer can do it faster and deeper. It is not anything like a tornado.
It is a logic machine.
However that does not make creationists an more logical themselves.
Ummmmmm....SOMEbody had to "create" the robot and its "intelligence" from the gitgo.
Didn't they?
It seem to me that you conflate different concepts right now.
My understanding is that "random" is a misnomer. It's a term of art in computer programming. Yes, it certainly can appear unpredictable, and look random to humans, but so can falling snowflakes. I would need to be convinced that electricity can do anything other than follow the laws of physics.The Monte Carlo Tree Search used by AlphaZero wont even work if it isn't randomized so I do not understand what you mean when you say there is no randomness.
If it's not intelligent design, then you tell me what accounts for the difference between the two programs. As someone noted earlier, if you're trying to make some point for atheistic evolution, you're undercutting your own position.Stockfish has been given the rule of chess and heuristic tree searches and strategics discovered by humans etc etc in order to be able to play chess, i.e. Stockfish has been designed by humans, over several decades, to play good chess.
On the other hand, AlphaZero has only been given the rules and then discovered, by itself, how to play chess, i.e. AlphaZero was not designed to play chess, yet AlphaZero can play chess and it achieved superhuman capability with randomness and no plan or goal whatsoever in just a few hours, i.e. just like evolution.
Btw, AlphaZero is a game changer. Before AlphaZero, humans had to teach chess engines how to play chess. However, AlphaZero was has not been taught by humans to play chess, instead it seems like AlphaZero might actually teach human how to play chess instead. I.e. AlphaZero is better at chess than any human - ever.
if randomness cannot create design, no matter what time is given, then what did cause AlphaZero to achieve a superhuman performance in chess in less than four hours time?
I don't think any robots are recognisably conscious as we generally think of consciousness, but there are some that have specific aspects or components of consciousness, however these are typically fairly task-specific, not well-integrated, and only weakly generalizable.A will kind of implies consciousness. Perhaps with 'will' you are referring to 'intentions'? There are machines, i.e. agents, which have intentions. Intention does not require and agent to be consciousness as far as I understand, but you may judge it differently than me and in some cases I've started to doubt myself weather or not we already made conscious robots....
You be surprised what AI can do these day then...
However I think the claims made are hyped. I read their research paper and I think the conclusion the robots passed the self-awareness test is flawed - for many reasons. Anyway the point is that these robots demonstrates intention.
Boston Dynamics seem to have captured the algorithms and heuristics that animals naturally use to control their movement and balance - I've not seen any other robots come close to their level of reflexive adaptability - the gross bodily movements are impressive, but the small things, like the way they can casually push open a door and hold it open with one arm as they walk through, seem uncannily human - makes me wonder whether they used motion capture templates from humans to generate their control sequences...And if you haven't seen what Boston Dynamics are up to, this might impress on you.
These robots are not just acting autonomous, they are also re-acting to the unpredictable word around them.
Strictly speaking, this is true (except that quantum interactions do appear to be truly stochastic). But in general use, randomness is effectively unpredictability.My understanding is that "random" is a misnomer. It's a term of art in computer programming. Yes, it certainly can appear unpredictable, and look random to humans, but so can falling snowflakes. I would need to be convinced that electricity can do anything other than follow the laws of physics.
As I understand it, unlike previous Alpha versions, AlphaZero had no external feedback or reinforcement. It was given the rules of the game and what constituted a win, loss, or draw. From that it could evaluate its own performance.AlphaZero was told that there was a game by it's Creators, and it was told what constituted 'winning'. It was given feedback to know that it had won or lost. If it hadn't been given that feedback, it wouldn't have known how to improve.
Evolution by natural selection produces a diversity of creatures, particularly when there is a diversity of environments, as the genetic makeup of populations changes over time; and there are a few creatures that are effectively immortal (if not killed by external forces).If there was just life on the physical level, I would think that life would evolve to the point where it was effectively immortal and call it a day. We really haven't seen that yet. Why is there such diversity? Soup should beget better soup, and eventually immortal soup. Not birds.
I dont think thats what happened.....despite we got a "Boeing 747" in front of our eyes created by a "tornado"?
1. Evolution proceeds by random variation followed by selection, over and over.I kind of lost you there, I am not used to think in terms of such elaborate colorful language. Don't take me wrong, I think it was beutiful written, and I can sense it carries a lot of meaning , but it was written far beyond my own comprehension.
The "tornado" analogy is not In situ's; it was coined by the famous scientist and evolution critic Fred Hoyle many years ago.I don’t have the science or programming background to frame the question properly, it’s just something I’m curious about, and your answer makes sense. Like most threads this one seems to have gone off in a few different directions so I’m still not sure how this relates to the tornado analogy. Anyway.
AlphaZero was told that there was a game by it's Creators, and it was told what constituted 'winning'. It was given feedback to know that it had won or lost.
It was given feedback to know that it had won or lost. If it hadn't been given that feedback, it wouldn't have known how to improve.
Randomness would remain just that, random, instead of steps to perfection. Even if it randomly created something good, it would just throw it away, unable to evaluate it. The capacity for evaluation is essential. In order to improve, you have to have a standard to improve against.
Likewise for humans, we have a capacity for evaluation and a standard to improve against. This falls at a variety of levels, from basic survival to moral choices and spirituality. If there was just life on the physical level, I would think that life would evolve to the point where it was effectively immortal and call it a day. We really haven't seen that yet. Why is there such diversity? Soup should beget better soup, and eventually immortal soup. Not birds.
It has. Individual creatures are not immortal; species are not immortal, but life goes on.If there was just life on the physical level, I would think that life would evolve to the point where it was effectively immortal and call it a day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?