Adaptation and Gradients

[Nick Thompson]

Steve,and all,

We were accumulating so much garbage on the blade of our dozer that I just
stripped it all away left only the following:

STEVE WROTE:

"If you agree that all organisms capture useable energy (free energy) from
their environments, might we recognize an adapted organism as an organizing
system that does work, ie an engine?"
 

I can feel Steve moving toward a definition of the adapted organism as that
which disperses energy most efficiently or effectively or something.  And I
can feel myself trying to head that off because I am the protagonist of an
alternative definition, rooted (as I explained to Steve yesterday in an
effort to recruit him to the cause) in Direct Perception Theory.  

According to Steve's theory (which I don't think he has stated yet) a
Whazzis cell  is better adapted than gently warmed water and the flailing
bubbles of a fully boiling pot are better adapted, too, no?  And so on up
the chain of being.  Hmmmm.

I keep thinking of a Barry Commoner book I read ages ago (Does ANYBODY HAVE
A COPY S/HE WOULD LOAN ME?) called the fate of the earth, which was based
on the second law.  This is very vague in my mind but it seems to me he
makes a distinction between organisms (or transport systems, for that
matter) that win because they are efficient and organisms (transport
systems) that win because the cheat.  Mammals and diesel busses are
wonderful examples of thermodynamic entities that win because they cheat.
Poikelo (WHAT IS THAT WORD?)therms are more efficient but homeotherms win
because they can go about in the night an pick the p-therms off the rocks
while they are waiting for the sun to rise.  Similarly, diesel busses are
less efficient than electric trains or busses but General Motors was able
to use the leverage of its motor industry to ram them up the ...... uh....
to entice transport companies to tear up their tracks and buy busses.  

But now I am confused because it seems to me that on Steve's theory, (which
he hasn't offered yet but I am trying to head off) the less efficient
thermodynamic entity is by definition the better adapted.  

I am making my head spin.  Perhaps I had better let Steve propose his own
theories.

Uh....

Gbye,

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
[hidden email]
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
 [hidden email]

> [Original Message]
> From: <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Date: 1/11/2005 11:08:13 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 14
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Darwin@Home (Nicholas Thompson)
>    2. [Fwd: Complex Systems & International Security] (Raymond C. Parks)
>    3. More Adoo about MooDu (Nicholas Thompson)
>    4. Re: Diversity%20University%2C%20Inc. (Raymond C. Parks)
>    5. RE: Darwin@Home (Stephen Guerin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:58:36 -0700
> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> To: "Russell Standish" <[hidden email]>, "The Friday Morning
> Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Hi Everybody,
>
> .... but what about the circularity problem posed in my earlier post?  If
> there are no external constraints to which natural selection is shaping
> whatever it is shaping, in what sense does the shapee become "adapted"
> except in the [now] trivial sense that it is under selection?
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> Clark University
> [hidden email]
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
>  [hidden email]
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Russell Standish <[hidden email]>
> > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
> > Date: 1/11/2005 3:01:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure I could give a precise definition of adaption
> > either, but it is clear that it differs from natural/artificial
> > selection. The Bedau-Packard activity stats (see the numerous papers
> > by Mark Bedau et al. on the subject) provides a measure of adaption,
> > and it is possible for evolutionary systems (systems with variation
> > and selection) to not experience adaption at all. The classic example
> > is an evolutionary system operating above the error threshold (aka
> > mutational meltdown).
> >
> > Note that when the concept of fitness is present, adaption is rather
> > easy to define. However, not all evolutionary systems have a notion of
> > fitness - in particular most of the interesting ones don't.
> >
> >    Cheers
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 02:19:54PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > We must consider if we want the statements
> > >
> > > "natural selection begets adaptation"
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > "the adapted organism is favorably selected"
> > >
> > > to be analytical or contingent.   I.e., do we want them to be like 2 +
> 2 =
> > > 4, or do we want them to be like "steve Guerin has a red tie on

today."

> > >
> > > I prefer them to be contingent, which means of course that is possible
> to
> > > imagine worlds in which natural selection does NOT produce adaptation
> and
> > > worlds in which the adapted organism is NOT favorably.  
> > >
> > > To make the truth of these statements contingent, adaptation has to be
> > > defined in a way that is unconnected with the definition of natural
> > > selection.  Adaptation cannot be defined as, "Whatever natural

selection

> > > produces."  nor can the adapted organism be defined as that organism
> that
> > > has the most offspring.  How can we define adaptation and how can we
> > > recognize the adapted organism without counting the number of its
> offspring
> > >
> > > To answer this question I think we need to turn to the thinking of a
> much
> > > abused and little known author who has defined adaptation as "natural
> > > design".  Natural design is, roughly, "whatever properties of nature
> that
> > > WOULD lead us to make attributions of intentional design except that

we

> > > know they arent."   What ARE those properties.    A sahib, that is the
> > > problem.  
> > > Unfortuately, nobody (except the aforementioned lonely thinker) has
> given
> > > this problem any damn thought at all and the lonely thinking has been
> too
> > > stupid to make much progress on it on his own.
> > >
> > > I do know, though that a natural selection program that does not adapt
> in
> > > some [other] sense is not doing evolution.  
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> > > Clark University
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
> > >  [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
> > > > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity
> > > Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> > > > Date: 1/10/2005 1:01:54 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> > > >
> > > > Nick writes:
> > > > > Do these models have adaptation?   Most models of this type that I
> have
> > > > > been exposed to  have evolution and natural selection but not
> > > > > ADAPTATION.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, you may define "adaptation" in a more rigorous way than I.
> > > >
> > > > I consider natural selection to be a form of adaptation. Learning
> during
> > > an
> > > > agent's lifetime is another form of adaptation. And, manipulation of
> the
> > > > environment, as in the indirect communication via pheromone fields

in

> ant
> > > > foraging, to be a third form of adaptation for an agent system.
> > > >
> > > > As a generality, I'd say most Alife models primary mechanism of
> adaptation
> > > > is natural or artificial selection.
> > > >
> > > > However, Larry Yaeger's Polyworld, which is one of the models on the
> link,
> > > > does include non-hereditary adaptation through Hebbian learning.

From
> his
> > > > paper (http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/Yaeger.ALife3.pdf):
> > > >
> > > > "PolyWorld brings together biologically motivated
> > > > genetics, simple simulated physiologies and metabolisms, Hebbian
> learning
> > > in
> > > > arbitrary neural network
> > > > architectures, a visual perceptive mechanism, and a suite of
primitive

> > > > behaviors in artificial organisms
> > > > grounded in an ecology just complex enough to foster speciation and
> > > > inter-species competition.
> > > > Predation, mimicry, sexual reproduction, and even communication are
> all
> > > > supported in a
> > > > straightforward fashion. The resulting survival strategies, both
> > > individual
> > > > and group, are purely
> > > > emergent, as are the functionalities embodied in their neural

network
> > > > "brains". Complex behaviors
> > > > resulting from the simulated neural activity are unpredictable, and
> change
> > > > as natural selection acts over
> > > > multiple generations."
> > > >
> > > > Your point is interesting. I guess what constitutes an Alife model
is
> > > rather
> > > > fuzzy. In the late 80s and early 90s I'd say ~70% of Alife models
had
> > > GA/GP
> > > > mechanisms as central components. That said, tangentially related
> models
> > > > like flocking, ant foraging models and machine learning models were
> also
> > > > included in the conferences. Since the mid-90s, I think the meaning
of
> > > what
> > > > constitutes a living system to the Alife community has pushed out
> from a
> > > > naive application of neo-darwinist mechanism. Some would argue for
the

> > > > necessary presence of generalized thermodynamic work-cycles for an
> Alife
> > > > system to be considered "alive". "Some" being me with a mouse in my
> pocket
> > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > > -S
> > > > ________________________________________________________
> > > > [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> > > > office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> > > > mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:25 AM
> > > > > To: [hidden email]
> > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] RE: Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just being annoying,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nick
> > > > >
> > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > > > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> > > > > Clark University
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
> > > > >  [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today's Topics:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    1. Darwin@Home (Stephen Guerin)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Message: 1
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:27:13 -0700
> > > > > > From: "Stephen Guerin" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> > > > > > To: "Friam" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Biota.org is back up and promoting Darwin@Home.
> > > > > > http://www.darwinathome.org/mission/index.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some familiar Alife applications are adapting to it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - Fluidium: Gerald De Jong's "tensegrity" structures. Nice
> example
> > > of
> > > > > JOGL
> > > > > > and webstart
> > > > > > I believe Owen passed around a link 6 months ago:
> > > > > > http://fluidiom.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - SodaBot -> SodaRace
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - Larry Yaeger's PolyWorld
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - More at: http://www.darwinathome.org/teams/index.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________________________________
> > > > > > [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> > > > > > office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> > > > > > mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Friam mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> > > > > > *************************************
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ============================================================
> > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > > > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > > > > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > > > > http://www.friam.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > > http://www.friam.org
> >
> > --
> > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> > may safely ignore this attachment.
> >
> >
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > A/Prof Russell Standish             Director
> > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone [phone]
> (mobile)
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                     Fax   [phone] (")
> > Australia             [hidden email]            
> > Room 2075, Red Centre                  
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> >             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
> >
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:18:06 -0700
> From: "Raymond C. Parks" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Complex Systems & International Security]
> To: "The Friday Morning Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Folks,
>
>    If you are interested in complex systems and international security
> (and presumably you are or you would have deleted this email just from
> the Subject), then read on, else delete and be happy.
>
>    Sorry if this duplicates any of you-all out there - I'm sure some of
> you are on the same mailing list as me.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:15:00 -0500
> From: NECSI Programs <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Complex Systems & International Security
>
> Complex Systems and International Security
>
> Co-Sponsors: NECSI, MITRE, and other government sponsors
>
> DATE:      February 2, 2005
> LOCATION:  MITRE McLean Campus, Washington, DC
>
> This is a one day workshop on complex systems concepts and
> their implications for international security. Ethnic violence,
> terrorism, and global sociopolitical movements will be
> discussed in light of complex systems insights and modeling,
> including multiscale analysis and agent-based simulation.
>
> The workshop is intended for participants from academia,
> government, and national/international security related
> organizations. Registration is limited.
>
> For more information and registration:
> http://necsi.org/education/peace/winter05.html
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Yaneer Bar-Yam
> President
> New England Complex Systems Institute
> http://necsi.org
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ray Parks                   [hidden email]
> IDART Project Lead          Voice:505-844-4024
> IORTA Department            Fax:[phone]
> http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:24:21 -0700
> From: "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] More Adoo about MooDu
> To: "Friam" <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I thought the following was particularly interesting.
>
> http://www.du.org/dumoo/classes.htm
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> Clark University
> [hidden email]
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
> [hidden email]
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20050111/04be9a51/attachment-0001.h
tm

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:34:12 -0700
> From: "Raymond C. Parks" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Diversity%20University%2C%20Inc.
> To: [hidden email], "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > Our wedstech discussion last Webday about creating a virtual Janes put

me in mind of this thing which was a sort of dungeons and dragons
university called MooDu.  (It is also the name of a Vermont Organic
Fertilizer company, so dont get your hopes TOO high.  
> >
> > I was puzzled when nobody at the table seemed to have heard of it.  Has
anybody else?  If it is still active, the url is

> > http://moo.du.org/
>
>    Ah, so someone has finally gone and done it.  A group of like-minded
> folks here in ABQ attempted to start a freenet (as in community network,
> not anti-censorship software) back in the early '90s.  We tried to start
> the project with a grant to work with KUNM (or maybe KNME, I forget) to
> provide a Multi-User Shared Hallucination (MUSH) Object Oriented (MOO)
> classroom for distance learning.  Unfortunately, our partner did not
> share the same vision and after we had already received positive
> feedback from the educational foundation to which we had applied, the
> University of New Mexico Provost nixed the project.  That was one among
> many negative interactions with UNM that led me to believe that
> university is an arbitrary bureaucratic morass.
>
> --
> Ray Parks                   [hidden email]
> IDART Project Lead          Voice:505-844-4024
> IORTA Department            Fax:[phone]
> http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:07:45 -0700
> From: "Stephen Guerin" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Thanks Nick and Russell for clarifying my first point where I sloppily
> wrote:
> > I consider natural selection to be a form of adaptation.
>
> I should have written "I consider natural selection to be a mechanism for
> adaptation." A lot of us here consider natural selection to a mechanism of
> search that isn't *necessarily* privileged over other search techniques

like
> simulated annealing, greedy hill climbers or even random search. Perhaps
its

> particularly suited for co-evolutionary fitness landscapes, but it
> ultimately is just another mechanism of search. Adaptation is not a
> mechanism - it is a measure of quality perhaps analagous to a q-factor in
> the measurement of quality of thermodynamic engines.
>
> To further clarify, natural selection certainly is not the only mechanism,
> nor is it the case that the use of natural selection guarantees adaptation
> in natural or digital systems.
>
> Interestingly, natural selection has little to say how biological
> organization arises in the first place. Here, I like Fontana and Buss's

term
> "arrival of the fittest" from DeVries to make the distinction from
"survival
> of the fittest".
> http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/wpabstract/199309055
>
> Nick writes:
> > How can we define adaptation and how can we recognize the adapted
organism
> without counting the number of
> > its offspring
>
> If you agree that all organisms capture useable energy (free energy) from
> their environments, might we recognize an adapted organism as an
organizing

> system that does work, ie an engine?
>
> -S
>
> ________________________________________________________
> [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell Standish [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 5:01 PM
> > To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> > Coffee Group
> > Cc: Stephen Guerin
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> >
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure I could give a precise definition of adaption
> > either, but it is clear that it differs from natural/artificial
> > selection. The Bedau-Packard activity stats (see the numerous papers
> > by Mark Bedau et al. on the subject) provides a measure of adaption,
> > and it is possible for evolutionary systems (systems with variation
> > and selection) to not experience adaption at all. The classic example
> > is an evolutionary system operating above the error threshold (aka
> > mutational meltdown).
> >
> > Note that when the concept of fitness is present, adaption is rather
> > easy to define. However, not all evolutionary systems have a notion of
> > fitness - in particular most of the interesting ones don't.
> >
> >    Cheers
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 02:19:54PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > We must consider if we want the statements
> > >
> > > "natural selection begets adaptation"
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > "the adapted organism is favorably selected"
> > >
> > > to be analytical or contingent.   I.e., do we want them to be
> > like 2 + 2 =
> > > 4, or do we want them to be like "steve Guerin has a red tie on

today."

> > >
> > > I prefer them to be contingent, which means of course that is
> > possible to
> > > imagine worlds in which natural selection does NOT produce
> > adaptation and
> > > worlds in which the adapted organism is NOT favorably.
> > >
> > > To make the truth of these statements contingent, adaptation has to be
> > > defined in a way that is unconnected with the definition of natural
> > > selection.  Adaptation cannot be defined as, "Whatever natural

selection

> > > produces."  nor can the adapted organism be defined as that
> > organism that
> > > has the most offspring.  How can we define adaptation and how can we
> > > recognize the adapted organism without counting the number of
> > its offspring
> > >
> > > To answer this question I think we need to turn to the thinking
> > of a much
> > > abused and little known author who has defined adaptation as "natural
> > > design".  Natural design is, roughly, "whatever properties of
> > nature that
> > > WOULD lead us to make attributions of intentional design except that

we

> > > know they arent."   What ARE those properties.    A sahib, that is the
> > > problem.
> > > Unfortuately, nobody (except the aforementioned lonely thinker)
> > has given
> > > this problem any damn thought at all and the lonely thinking
> > has been too
> > > stupid to make much progress on it on his own.
> > >
> > > I do know, though that a natural selection program that does
> > not adapt in
> > > some [other] sense is not doing evolution.
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> > > Clark University
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
> > >  [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
> > > > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied
> > Complexity
> > > Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> > > > Date: 1/10/2005 1:01:54 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> > > >
> > > > Nick writes:
> > > > > Do these models have adaptation?   Most models of this type
> > that I have
> > > > > been exposed to  have evolution and natural selection but not
> > > > > ADAPTATION.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, you may define "adaptation" in a more rigorous way than I.
> > > >
> > > > I consider natural selection to be a form of adaptation.
> > Learning during
> > > an
> > > > agent's lifetime is another form of adaptation. And,
> > manipulation of the
> > > > environment, as in the indirect communication via pheromone
> > fields in ant
> > > > foraging, to be a third form of adaptation for an agent system.
> > > >
> > > > As a generality, I'd say most Alife models primary mechanism
> > of adaptation
> > > > is natural or artificial selection.
> > > >
> > > > However, Larry Yaeger's Polyworld, which is one of the models
> > on the link,
> > > > does include non-hereditary adaptation through Hebbian
> > learning. From his
> > > > paper (http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/Yaeger.ALife3.pdf):
> > > >
> > > > "PolyWorld brings together biologically motivated
> > > > genetics, simple simulated physiologies and metabolisms,
> > Hebbian learning
> > > in
> > > > arbitrary neural network
> > > > architectures, a visual perceptive mechanism, and a suite of

primitive

> > > > behaviors in artificial organisms
> > > > grounded in an ecology just complex enough to foster speciation and
> > > > inter-species competition.
> > > > Predation, mimicry, sexual reproduction, and even
> > communication are all
> > > > supported in a
> > > > straightforward fashion. The resulting survival strategies, both
> > > individual
> > > > and group, are purely
> > > > emergent, as are the functionalities embodied in their neural

network
> > > > "brains". Complex behaviors
> > > > resulting from the simulated neural activity are
> > unpredictable, and change
> > > > as natural selection acts over
> > > > multiple generations."
> > > >
> > > > Your point is interesting. I guess what constitutes an Alife model
is
> > > rather
> > > > fuzzy. In the late 80s and early 90s I'd say ~70% of Alife models
had
> > > GA/GP
> > > > mechanisms as central components. That said, tangentially
> > related models
> > > > like flocking, ant foraging models and machine learning
> > models were also
> > > > included in the conferences. Since the mid-90s, I think the meaning
of
> > > what
> > > > constitutes a living system to the Alife community has pushed
> > out from a
> > > > naive application of neo-darwinist mechanism. Some would argue for
the

> > > > necessary presence of generalized thermodynamic work-cycles
> > for an Alife
> > > > system to be considered "alive". "Some" being me with a mouse
> > in my pocket
> > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > > -S
> > > > ________________________________________________________
> > > > [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> > > > office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> > > > mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:25 AM
> > > > > To: [hidden email]
> > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] RE: Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve,
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Just being annoying,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nick
> > > > >
> > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > > > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> > > > > Clark University
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
> > > > >  [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Today's Topics:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    1. Darwin@Home (Stephen Guerin)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Message: 1
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:27:13 -0700
> > > > > > From: "Stephen Guerin" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> > > > > > To: "Friam" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Message-ID:
> > <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Biota.org is back up and promoting Darwin@Home.
> > > > > > http://www.darwinathome.org/mission/index.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some familiar Alife applications are adapting to it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - Fluidium: Gerald De Jong's "tensegrity" structures.
> > Nice example
> > > of
> > > > > JOGL
> > > > > > and webstart
> > > > > > I believe Owen passed around a link 6 months ago:
> > > > > > http://fluidiom.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - SodaBot -> SodaRace
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - Larry Yaeger's PolyWorld
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   - More at: http://www.darwinathome.org/teams/index.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________________________________
> > > > > > [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> > > > > > office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> > > > > > mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Friam mailing list
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> > > > > > *************************************
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ============================================================
> > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > > > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > > > > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > > > > http://www.friam.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > > http://www.friam.org
> >
> > --
> > *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> > is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> > virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> > email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> > may safely ignore this attachment.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish             Director
> > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone [phone], 8308
> > 3119 (mobile)
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                     Fax   [phone] (")
> > Australia             [hidden email]
> > Room 2075, Red Centre
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
>             International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 14
> *************************************