Fwd: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM SCREENING---Tomorrow
Locked
Fwd: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM SCREENING---Tomorrow
 
|
I was going to offer to show my copy at the Friam Wednesday gathering
sometime, but it looks like SFI is premiering it here. I play a modest role in it. Begin forwarded message: > From: Della Ulibarri <dlu at santafe.edu> > Date: August 29, 2006 11:46:55 AM MDT > To: inhouse at cyprus.santafe.edu, activities-announce at santafe.edu > Subject: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM SCREENING---Tomorrow > > *** FILM SCREENING *** > > Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 12:15pm ? Noyce Conference Room > > > "Mind in The Machine: > The Discovery of Artificial Intelligence" > > by > > Dan Rockmore > SFI External Faculty and Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth College > > http://www.santafe.edu/events/abstract/499 > > > _______________________________________________ > Activities-announce mailing list > Activities-announce at santafe.edu > http://www.santafe.edu/mailman/listinfo/activities-announce "For some reason the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But with tears in their eyes they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public places. And of course that's Moses, not Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere." Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man Without A Country" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060829/e5662886/attachment.html |
Fwd: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM SCREENING---Tomorrow
|
|
Hello Pamela
We're just back from a trip to the far far northeast (Newfoundland). I hope you will still show your copy to Friam. I may not be the only one who missed it. Looking forward to seeing you again, Jenny At 02:27 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote: >I was going to offer to show my copy at the Friam Wednesday gathering >sometime, but it looks like SFI is premiering it here. I play a modest >role in it. > > > >Begin forwarded message: > >>From: Della Ulibarri <<mailto:dlu at santafe.edu>dlu at santafe.edu> >>Date: August 29, 2006 11:46:55 AM MDT >>To: <mailto:inhouse at cyprus.santafe.edu>inhouse at cyprus.santafe.edu, >><mailto:activities-announce at santafe.edu>activities-announce at santafe.edu >>Subject: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM SCREENING---Tomorrow >> >>*** FILM SCREENING *** >> >>Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 12:15pm ? Noyce Conference Room >> >> >>"Mind in The Machine: >>The Discovery of Artificial Intelligence" >> >>by >> >>Dan Rockmore >>SFI External Faculty and Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth College >> >><http://www.santafe.edu/events/abstract/499>http://www.santafe.edu/events/abstract/499 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Activities-announce mailing list >><mailto:Activities-announce at santafe.edu>Activities-announce at santafe.edu >>http://www.santafe.edu/mailman/listinfo/activities-announce > >"For some reason the most vocal Christians among us never mention the >Beatitudes. But with tears in their eyes they demand that the Ten >Commandments be posted in public places. And of course that's Moses, not >Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, >the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere." > > Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man Without A Country" > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Fwd: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM SCREENING---Tomorrow
|
Administrator
|
Me too! How about a wedtech in the not too distant future?
On Sep 1, 2006, at 7:03 PM, Jenny Quillien wrote: > Hello Pamela > We're just back from a trip to the far far northeast > (Newfoundland). I > hope you will still show your copy to Friam. I may not be the only > one who > missed it. > Looking forward to seeing you again, > Jenny > > > At 02:27 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote: >> I was going to offer to show my copy at the Friam Wednesday gathering >> sometime, but it looks like SFI is premiering it here. I play a >> modest >> role in it. >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Della Ulibarri <<mailto:dlu at santafe.edu>dlu at santafe.edu> >>> Date: August 29, 2006 11:46:55 AM MDT >>> To: <mailto:inhouse at cyprus.santafe.edu>inhouse at cyprus.santafe.edu, >>> <mailto:activities-announce at santafe.edu>activities- >>> announce at santafe.edu >>> Subject: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM SCREENING---Tomorrow >>> >>> *** FILM SCREENING *** >>> >>> Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 12:15pm ? Noyce Conference Room >>> >>> >>> "Mind in The Machine: >>> The Discovery of Artificial Intelligence" >>> >>> by >>> >>> Dan Rockmore >>> SFI External Faculty and Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth >>> College >>> >>> <http://www.santafe.edu/events/abstract/499>http:// >>> www.santafe.edu/events/abstract/499 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Activities-announce mailing list >>> <mailto:Activities-announce at santafe.edu>Activities- >>> announce at santafe.edu >>> http://www.santafe.edu/mailman/listinfo/activities-announce >> >> "For some reason the most vocal Christians among us never mention the >> Beatitudes. But with tears in their eyes they demand that the Ten >> Commandments be posted in public places. And of course that's >> Moses, not >> Jesus. I haven't heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the >> Mount, >> the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere." >> >> Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man Without A Country" >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Fwd: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM SCREENING---Tomorrow
|
|
Pamela and I talked this week about screening "Mind in the Machine" at Wedtech
in early December when she returns to Santa Fe. I'll send out an announcement when we have a fixed date. -Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen Densmore [mailto:owen at backspaces.net] > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 9:59 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM > SCREENING---Tomorrow > > Me too! How about a wedtech in the not too distant future? > > On Sep 1, 2006, at 7:03 PM, Jenny Quillien wrote: > > > Hello Pamela > > We're just back from a trip to the far far northeast > (Newfoundland). > > I hope you will still show your copy to Friam. I may not be > the only > > one who missed it. > > Looking forward to seeing you again, > > Jenny > > > > > > At 02:27 PM 8/29/2006, you wrote: > >> I was going to offer to show my copy at the Friam > Wednesday gathering > >> sometime, but it looks like SFI is premiering it here. I play a > >> modest role in it. > >> > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >>> From: Della Ulibarri <<mailto:dlu at santafe.edu>dlu at santafe.edu> > >>> Date: August 29, 2006 11:46:55 AM MDT > >>> To: <mailto:inhouse at cyprus.santafe.edu>inhouse at cyprus.santafe.edu, > >>> <mailto:activities-announce at santafe.edu>activities- > >>> announce at santafe.edu > >>> Subject: [Activities-announce] SFI FILM SCREENING---Tomorrow > >>> > >>> *** FILM SCREENING *** > >>> > >>> Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 12:15pm . Noyce Conference Room > >>> > >>> > >>> "Mind in The Machine: > >>> The Discovery of Artificial Intelligence" > >>> > >>> by > >>> > >>> Dan Rockmore > >>> SFI External Faculty and Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth > >>> College > >>> > >>> <http://www.santafe.edu/events/abstract/499>http:// > >>> www.santafe.edu/events/abstract/499 > >>> > |
|
|
I was curious about the film you were talking about, "Mind in the
Machine", and Googled it, coming across several things including its origin and a simple statement by an Australian journalist (quoted below) of Turing's idea of the test one would apply to measure success in reproducing intelligence. I read the statement as saying if you're able to imitate something by some other means (say behaviors of people by computers), in a way that an observer doesn't notice the discrepancy, you've made the real thing. I expect that's not quite accurate, and the current thinking has evolved. Can anyone say where the concept is headed? Phil http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/allen/story.htm "The theoretical basis of artificial intelligence goes back to the British mathematician, Alan Turing. In 1950, he proposed a test by which he claimed we could determine whether or not a machine could think. The Turing test, as it has become known, is quite simple. If a computer can perform in such a way that an expert cannot distinguish its performance from that of a human who has a certain cognitive ability - say the ability to do subtraction - then the computer has the same ability as the human. If we could design programs which simulate human cognition in such a way as to pass the Turing test, then those programs would no longer be models of the mind, they would literally be minds, in the same sense that the human mind is a mind. " "Turing was probably being deliberately provocative in proposing this test. In 1950 the idea that a machine could beat a human in any skill that required intelligence seemed complete fancy. Even so, the Turing test became a challenge that would motivate the field of AI research for decades. " Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com |
|
|
Phil Henshaw wrote: > I was curious about the film you were talking about, "Mind in the > Machine", and Googled it, coming across several things including its > origin and a simple statement by an Australian journalist (quoted below) > of Turing's idea of the test one would apply to measure success in > reproducing intelligence. > > I read the statement as saying if you're able to imitate something by > some other means (say behaviors of people by computers), in a way that > an observer doesn't notice the discrepancy, you've made the real thing. > I expect that's not quite accurate, and the current thinking has > evolved. Can anyone say where the concept is headed? The field of Artificial Intelligence no longer talks at all about general intelligence, the human mind, or anything like that. The lone exception might the the natural language community, who of course are try to replicate something human specific. But they still don't talk about "human equivalence" or anything like that. After the hype for AI in the 60s and 70s, there was a backlash in the 80s. Kind of what happened to ideas like "virtual reality" or "dot com." In search of respectability, AI has become largely applied statistics and focused on near term results. For someone like me who wants to explore principles and methods that point the way to full intelligence, this is all very depressing. Like wanting to study cognitive psychology during behaviorism. Best, Martin |
|
|
Got it! But it's like making your way through a maze by running into
walls. There's no point in being disappointed and just sitting down when confronted by them. I think locating the walls helps, i.e. finding the barriers and disconnects in our thinking. I've been focused on one in particular, the lack of any working theoretical model of things organized from the inside. I think that's where the start may be. We all suffer from a core intellectual deficit on that account, to quote another post: "I think it's comes from the biological human view of the world. The basic structure of thinking comes from our being 'observers', locked up inside a brain, each of us reconstructing an imaginary model of the world around us from our own observations and experiences. That's a problematic viewpoint for relating to any other thing built the same way, i.e. organized from the inside. What's going on inside other things is invisible from the outside, and our [brain] builds its whole world view from an outside perspective!! Given that handicap, it's quite natural for there to be more than one might guess missing from our awareness." "...The theoretical sciences don't even have an image of anything organized from the inside! That part of the world is invisible to us and so we're structurally unaware of the internally organized systems we're part of and surround us. It's ridiculous to work with a world composed of several billion original, different and faulty universes, but I think we're stuck with it and should try poking around to see what other surprises there may be! :)" make any sense? > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > I was curious about the film you were talking about, "Mind in the > > Machine", and Googled it, coming across several things > including its > > origin and a simple statement by an Australian journalist (quoted > > below) of Turing's idea of the test one would apply to > measure success > > in reproducing intelligence. > > > > I read the statement as saying if you're able to imitate > something by > > some other means (say behaviors of people by computers), in > a way that > > an observer doesn't notice the discrepancy, you've made the real > > thing. I expect that's not quite accurate, and the current > thinking has > > evolved. Can anyone say where the concept is headed? > > The field of Artificial Intelligence no longer talks at all about > general intelligence, the human mind, or anything like that. > The lone > exception might the the natural language community, who of course are > try to replicate something human specific. But they still don't talk > about "human equivalence" or anything like that. > > After the hype for AI in the 60s and 70s, there was a backlash in the > 80s. Kind of what happened to ideas like "virtual reality" or "dot > com." In search of respectability, AI has become largely applied > statistics and focused on near term results. > > For someone like me who wants to explore principles and methods that > point the way to full intelligence, this is all very > depressing. Like > wanting to study cognitive psychology during behaviorism. > > Best, > Martin > > |
|
|
Hey Phil,
If I understand you correctly, I think you're very right. The information we have about the world is behavior and appearances, and for most interesting things the mechanism is completely hidden from us. We can observe inputs and outputs, but not the source code. We can see fuel go in and motion come out, but can't see the engine, let alone anything else. Perhaps the core of intelligence is coming up with models of the world and exploiting them. That's a view that's right up my alley. But say that to most AI researchers, and they'll stare at you uncomprehendingly. They want a well defined problem, such as using all users purchases at Amazon to suggest other purchases for a single user. And they'll come up with an algorithm that makes good suggestions most of the time. The idea that the computer should be trying to make sense of the world -- eh? What are you talking about? Or maybe "oh, that's that flakey research from the 60s and 70s. We've moved beyond that." I have a friend who does research in believable virtual characters, and he gets that. Best, Martin Phil Henshaw wrote: > Got it! But it's like making your way through a maze by running into > walls. There's no point in being disappointed and just sitting down > when confronted by them. I think locating the walls helps, i.e. > finding the barriers and disconnects in our thinking. I've been > focused on one in particular, the lack of any working theoretical model > of things organized from the inside. I think that's where the start may > be. We all suffer from a core intellectual deficit on that account, to > quote another post: > > "I think it's comes from the biological human view of the world. The > basic structure of thinking comes from our being 'observers', locked up > inside a brain, each of us reconstructing an imaginary model of the > world around us from our own observations and experiences. That's a > problematic viewpoint for relating to any other thing built the same > way, i.e. organized from the inside. What's going on inside other > things is invisible from the outside, and our [brain] builds its whole > world view from an outside perspective!! Given that handicap, it's > quite natural for there to be more than one might guess missing from our > awareness." > > "...The theoretical sciences don't even have an image of anything > organized from the inside! That part of the world is invisible to us > and so we're structurally unaware of the internally organized systems > we're part of and surround us. It's ridiculous to work with a world > composed of several billion original, different and faulty universes, > but I think we're stuck with it and should try poking around to see what > other surprises there may be! :)" > > make any sense? > >> Phil Henshaw wrote: >>> I was curious about the film you were talking about, "Mind in the >>> Machine", and Googled it, coming across several things >> including its >>> origin and a simple statement by an Australian journalist (quoted >>> below) of Turing's idea of the test one would apply to >> measure success >>> in reproducing intelligence. >>> >>> I read the statement as saying if you're able to imitate >> something by >>> some other means (say behaviors of people by computers), in >> a way that >>> an observer doesn't notice the discrepancy, you've made the real >>> thing. I expect that's not quite accurate, and the current >> thinking has >>> evolved. Can anyone say where the concept is headed? >> The field of Artificial Intelligence no longer talks at all about >> general intelligence, the human mind, or anything like that. >> The lone >> exception might the the natural language community, who of course are >> try to replicate something human specific. But they still don't talk >> about "human equivalence" or anything like that. >> >> After the hype for AI in the 60s and 70s, there was a backlash in the >> 80s. Kind of what happened to ideas like "virtual reality" or "dot >> com." In search of respectability, AI has become largely applied >> statistics and focused on near term results. >> >> For someone like me who wants to explore principles and methods that >> point the way to full intelligence, this is all very >> depressing. Like >> wanting to study cognitive psychology during behaviorism. >> >> Best, >> Martin >> >> > > |
|
|
Martin C. Martin wrote:
... > But say that to most AI researchers, and they'll stare at you > uncomprehendingly. They want a well defined problem, such as using all > users purchases at Amazon to suggest other purchases for a single user. A while back, a DARPA program manager (an agent person, at that), sent out the notice to his program that the textbook on agents that he wrote before moving to DARPA was available on Amazon. The beauty of this was the "people who purchased this" recommendations, which started with "Clean Underwear". He reported this and I subsequently checked and, sure enough, Amazon recommended that purchasers of his book would also like to purchase clean underwear. I suspect this was the default for something that had no purchasers, showing the sense of humour of the programmers. However, I have seen many other nearly as absurd recommendations from that type of AI. Clearly, the absurdity arises because they do not model the real world, just data mine blindly. Those recommendation systems clearly do not pass the Turing test. -- Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 |
|
|
Perhaps the author is anal retentive, and this is revealed in his book;
making the affiliative recommendation even smarter than we could have expected. Turing would have loved it. (Just kidding; my own strange sense of humor). David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raymond Parks" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] have we moved on? > Martin C. Martin wrote: > ... >> But say that to most AI researchers, and they'll stare at you >> uncomprehendingly. They want a well defined problem, such as using all >> users purchases at Amazon to suggest other purchases for a single user. > > A while back, a DARPA program manager (an agent person, at that), > sent out the notice to his program that the textbook on agents that he > wrote before moving to DARPA was available on Amazon. The beauty of > this was the "people who purchased this" recommendations, which started > with "Clean Underwear". He reported this and I subsequently checked > and, sure enough, Amazon recommended that purchasers of his book would > also like to purchase clean underwear. I suspect this was the default > for something that had no purchasers, showing the sense of humour of the > programmers. However, I have seen many other nearly as absurd > recommendations from that type of AI. Clearly, the absurdity arises > because they do not model the real world, just data mine blindly. Those > recommendation systems clearly do not pass the Turing test. > > -- > Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov > IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 > IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 > http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 > http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin
I am dually impressed at Amazon's ability to know what undergarments it's random visitors might be advised to try....:) (just marvelous!) but still I have some questions about reality 101. If molecules in thermal motion follow random walks, do fluids composed of molecules in thermal motion do so as well? I've run into the strangest confusion among Darwinian theorists, both from journals of paleontology and evolutionary biology. I have a quite good paper that's unpublishable because I stick my neck out to say populations have no non-extraordinary mechanisms for changing by random walks. a) am I wrong and there are some? a.1)clue me in.. b) do you know a journal for people literate in evolution theory that might be willing to consider the issue based on physical mechanisms? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com |
Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks?
|
|
Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display accumulative
variance? If you were to design one to do that, would it have a structure comparable to populations of organisms living in ecologies? -In case anyone's curious I have a high quality direct measure of accumulative variance. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:30 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: [FRIAM] nature walks! > > > > I am dually impressed at Amazon's ability to know what > undergarments it's random visitors might be advised to > try....:) (just marvelous!) but still I have some questions > about reality 101. > > If molecules in thermal motion follow random walks, do fluids composed > of molecules in thermal motion do so as well? I've run into the > strangest confusion among Darwinian theorists, both from > journals of paleontology and evolutionary biology. I have a > quite good paper that's unpublishable because I stick my neck > out to say populations have no non-extraordinary mechanisms > for changing by random walks. > > a) am I wrong and there are some? a.1)clue me in.. > b) do you know a journal for people literate in evolution > theory that might be willing to consider the issue based on > physical mechanisms? > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks?
|
|
Hi Phil,
> Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display > accumulative variance? I haven't come across the term 'accumulative variance' before. Do you have a web pointer? As a swarm organizes, the agents' directions and velocities become more correlated with each other. ie agents become more constrained as they lose degrees of freedom. Would you interpret this to be decreasing variance? -Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Henshaw [mailto:sy at synapse9.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:24 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: [FRIAM] Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks? > > Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display > accumulative variance? > > If you were to design one to do that, would it have a > structure comparable to populations of organisms living in ecologies? > > -In case anyone's curious I have a high quality direct > measure of accumulative variance. > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:30 PM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: [FRIAM] nature walks! > > > > > > > > I am dually impressed at Amazon's ability to know what > undergarments > > it's random visitors might be advised to > > try....:) (just marvelous!) but still I have some questions about > > reality 101. > > > > If molecules in thermal motion follow random walks, do > fluids composed > > of molecules in thermal motion do so as well? I've run into the > > strangest confusion among Darwinian theorists, both from > journals of > > paleontology and evolutionary biology. I have a quite good paper > > that's unpublishable because I stick my neck out to say populations > > have no non-extraordinary mechanisms for changing by random walks. > > > > a) am I wrong and there are some? a.1)clue me in.. > > b) do you know a journal for people literate in evolution > theory that > > might be willing to consider the issue based on physical mechanisms? > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > NY NY 10040 > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks?
|
|
Phil,
I now see where 'accumulated variance' is used in the context of Principal Components Analysis where it represents how much of the variance is explained by a set of component vectors. Is this how you're using the term? Given this usage, I would guess that if you described the agents' states with position and velocity vectors, a given number of principal components would have increasing accumulated variance as the swarm becomes more organized. Or, perhaps you are talking about describing the motion of the swarm as a single entity? In that case, I would say it depends on the parameters of the model. Some settings yield swarms that break symmetry in linear momentum and move at a constant rate in a given direction. Other settings in a model yield more stationary swarms that buzz around much like gnats around a light. These swarms may exhibit random-walk dynamics. FWIW, We have a swarm model/visualization at http://www.redfish.com/projects/SwarmEffects/ where you can vary agent behaviors to get different macro swarms. Focus on changing the "Average Position", "Avoid" and "Average Direction" sliders. These sliders weight how much a given behavior contributes to a summed vector that is an agent's next move. -Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Guerin [mailto:stephen.guerin at redfish.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:55 PM > To: sy at synapse9.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks? > > Hi Phil, > > > Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display > accumulative > > variance? > > I haven't come across the term 'accumulative variance' > before. Do you have a web pointer? > > As a swarm organizes, the agents' directions and velocities > become more correlated with each other. ie agents become more > constrained as they lose degrees of freedom. Would you > interpret this to be decreasing variance? > > -Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Phil Henshaw [mailto:sy at synapse9.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:24 PM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: [FRIAM] Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks? > > > > Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display > accumulative > > variance? > > > > If you were to design one to do that, would it have a structure > > comparable to populations of organisms living in ecologies? > > > > -In case anyone's curious I have a high quality direct measure of > > accumulative variance. > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > NY NY 10040 > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:30 PM > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > Subject: [FRIAM] nature walks! > > > > > > > > > > > > I am dually impressed at Amazon's ability to know what > > undergarments > > > it's random visitors might be advised to > > > try....:) (just marvelous!) but still I have some questions about > > > reality 101. > > > > > > If molecules in thermal motion follow random walks, do > > fluids composed > > > of molecules in thermal motion do so as well? I've run into the > > > strangest confusion among Darwinian theorists, both from > > journals of > > > paleontology and evolutionary biology. I have a quite good paper > > > that's unpublishable because I stick my neck out to say > populations > > > have no non-extraordinary mechanisms for changing by random walks. > > > > > > a) am I wrong and there are some? a.1)clue me in.. > > > b) do you know a journal for people literate in evolution > > theory that > > > might be willing to consider the issue based on physical > mechanisms? > > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > > NY NY 10040 > > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks?
|
|
Phil,
Following on from Steve's comments, the mean distance of a randomly-walking point from its origin is of the order sqrt(N) where N is the number of steps in its walk. Steve's flocks don't exhibit this behaviour, so it's safe to say that no, swarms do not generally display random walk behaviour. Robert On 9/7/06, Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at redfish.com> wrote: > > Phil, > > I now see where 'accumulated variance' is used in the context of Principal > Components Analysis where it represents how much of the variance is > explained by > a set of component vectors. Is this how you're using the term? > > Given this usage, I would guess that if you described the agents' states > with > position and velocity vectors, a given number of principal components > would have > increasing accumulated variance as the swarm becomes more organized. > > Or, perhaps you are talking about describing the motion of the swarm as a > single > entity? In that case, I would say it depends on the parameters of the > model. > Some settings yield swarms that break symmetry in linear momentum and move > at a > constant rate in a given direction. Other settings in a model yield more > stationary swarms that buzz around much like gnats around a light. These > swarms > may exhibit random-walk dynamics. > > FWIW, We have a swarm model/visualization at > http://www.redfish.com/projects/SwarmEffects/ where you can vary agent > behaviors > to get different macro swarms. Focus on changing the "Average Position", > "Avoid" > and "Average Direction" sliders. These sliders weight how much a given > behavior > contributes to a summed vector that is an agent's next move. > > -Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Guerin [mailto:stephen.guerin at redfish.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:55 PM > > To: sy at synapse9.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > > Coffee Group' > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks? > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display > > accumulative > > > variance? > > > > I haven't come across the term 'accumulative variance' > > before. Do you have a web pointer? > > > > As a swarm organizes, the agents' directions and velocities > > become more correlated with each other. ie agents become more > > constrained as they lose degrees of freedom. Would you > > interpret this to be decreasing variance? > > > > -Steve > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Phil Henshaw [mailto:sy at synapse9.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:24 PM > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks? > > > > > > Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display > > accumulative > > > variance? > > > > > > If you were to design one to do that, would it have a structure > > > comparable to populations of organisms living in ecologies? > > > > > > -In case anyone's curious I have a high quality direct measure of > > > accumulative variance. > > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > > NY NY 10040 > > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:30 PM > > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] nature walks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am dually impressed at Amazon's ability to know what > > > undergarments > > > > it's random visitors might be advised to > > > > try....:) (just marvelous!) but still I have some questions about > > > > reality 101. > > > > > > > > If molecules in thermal motion follow random walks, do > > > fluids composed > > > > of molecules in thermal motion do so as well? I've run into the > > > > strangest confusion among Darwinian theorists, both from > > > journals of > > > > paleontology and evolutionary biology. I have a quite good paper > > > > that's unpublishable because I stick my neck out to say > > populations > > > > have no non-extraordinary mechanisms for changing by random walks. > > > > > > > > a) am I wrong and there are some? a.1)clue me in.. > > > > b) do you know a journal for people literate in evolution > > > theory that > > > > might be willing to consider the issue based on physical > > mechanisms? > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > > > NY NY 10040 > > > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > unsubscribe, maps at > > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060907/940568fd/attachment.html |
Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks?
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
On 9/6/06, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote:
> Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display accumulative > variance? > > If you were to design one to do that, would it have a structure > comparable to populations of organisms living in ecologies? One of my models, "chain-of-fools" is a swarm where the members simply try to follow each other--rather, each follows one specific other, in a chain. But with some settings, the group does some interesting things, including random-walk like movement. I think some of it has to do with rounding errors in the math, but it's still interesing. http://www.turtlezero.com/models/models.php?model=chain-of-fools If it weren't for the boundaries of the screen, the chain would travel all over. Would this count? ~~James _____________________ http://www.turtlezero.com |
Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks?
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
I'm using the definitions used to study Darwinian evolution, which may
slightly differ from yours. I'm not sure. There the term describes random variation that is accumulative, such as the endpoint of a random process is considered as the beginning point for the next iteration of the same random process. It's is said to be modeled on Brownian motion. My problem is that the current standard for evolution theory is to assume that populations vary by random walks under this definition too. I'm saying, wait a minute. Individual particles of dust, and molecules, may bounce randomly and subsequent paths may be an accumulation of the mean free paths of those random events, but a glass of water doesn't behave like one of its molecules. There you've got a larger system, and evolution theory seems to ignore that to the point they are quite unable to get the idea of considering the physical feasibility of their default assumption. I see the problem of population random walk as being that you'd have to explain how that might feasibly result as the sum of all the progressions of its members. The statistics are crystal clear that the mean value of any property of a population of individuals displaying random walk in that property does not change at all. The collection of random walks moves equally in all directions. They people who use the idea don't want to talk about that. I think the only way a population can produce a random walk is if all its members are closely following some third variable that happens to have a mean free path and random interactions.... I wrote a couple papers on it in relation to reconstructing the shapes of processes underlying data curves: methods -http://www.synapse9.com/fdcs-ph99-1.pdf application-http://www.synapse9.com/GTRevis-2006fin.pdf, but can't get the latter one published on this and similar objections.... just not the way 'we' think seems to be the problem, and I'm trying to double check to make sure I'm not nuts or just missing something. Phil Phil, Following on from Steve's comments, the mean distance of a randomly-walking point from its origin is of the order sqrt(N) where N is the number of steps in its walk. Steve's flocks don't exhibit this behaviour, so it's safe to say that no, swarms do not generally display random walk behaviour. Robert On 9/7/06, Stephen Guerin <stephen.guerin at redfish.com> wrote: Phil, I now see where 'accumulated variance' is used in the context of Principal Components Analysis where it represents how much of the variance is explained by a set of component vectors. Is this how you're using the term? Given this usage, I would guess that if you described the agents' states with position and velocity vectors, a given number of principal components would have increasing accumulated variance as the swarm becomes more organized. Or, perhaps you are talking about describing the motion of the swarm as a single entity? In that case, I would say it depends on the parameters of the model. Some settings yield swarms that break symmetry in linear momentum and move at a constant rate in a given direction. Other settings in a model yield more stationary swarms that buzz around much like gnats around a light. These swarms may exhibit random-walk dynamics. FWIW, We have a swarm model/visualization at http://www.redfish.com/projects/SwarmEffects/ where you can vary agent behaviors to get different macro swarms. Focus on changing the "Average Position", "Avoid" and "Average Direction" sliders. These sliders weight how much a given behavior contributes to a summed vector that is an agent's next move. -Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Guerin [mailto:stephen.guerin at redfish.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 11:55 PM > To: sy at synapse9.com <mailto:sy at synapse9.com> ; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks? > > Hi Phil, > > > Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display > accumulative > > variance? > > I haven't come across the term 'accumulative variance' > before. Do you have a web pointer? > > As a swarm organizes, the agents' directions and velocities > become more correlated with each other. ie agents become more > constrained as they lose degrees of freedom. Would you > interpret this to be decreasing variance? > > -Steve > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Phil Henshaw [mailto:sy at synapse9.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:24 PM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: [FRIAM] Do you know? Do 'swarms' follow random walks? > > > > Has anyone checked to see if any alife 'swarms' display > accumulative > > variance? > > > > If you were to design one to do that, would it have a structure > > comparable to populations of organisms living in ecologies? > > > > -In case anyone's curious I have a high quality direct measure of > > accumulative variance. > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > NY NY 10040 > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:30 PM > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > Subject: [FRIAM] nature walks! > > > > > > > > > > > > I am dually impressed at Amazon's ability to know what > > undergarments > > > it's random visitors might be advised to > > > try....:) (just marvelous!) but still I have some questions about > > > reality 101. > > > > > > If molecules in thermal motion follow random walks, do > > fluids composed > > > of molecules in thermal motion do so as well? I've run into the > > > strangest confusion among Darwinian theorists, both from > > journals of > > > paleontology and evolutionary biology. I have a quite good paper > > > that's unpublishable because I stick my neck out to say > populations > > > have no non-extraordinary mechanisms for changing by random walks. > > > > > > a) am I wrong and there are some? a.1)clue me in.. > > > b) do you know a journal for people literate in evolution > > theory that > > > might be willing to consider the issue based on physical > mechanisms? > > > > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > > NY NY 10040 > > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060908/83a8dba6/attachment.html |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |