Philosophy Now Forum

And if not now, will it?

PhilX

Is that Theory of Everything? I would assume so.

Jaded Sage wrote:Is that Theory of Everything? I would assume so.

No. Theory of evolution.

PhilX

Oops. I suppose we would have to design them to self-adapt. I mean, I guess on small levels they do: self parking cars, automatic vacuum cleaners. But I think we'd have to develop a simple AI for it to make major adaptations. I mean eventually it's conceivable. But in the end we would have to design them to do that. So the answer is up to us. Or really, it's about cost effectiveness. Is it cheaper to design self-adapting AI or just build a newer robot. But at the end of the day, we decide whether it applies to them or not. Although, you could say that technologies come and some stay and some go based on their usefulness. Cell phones stayed. Palm Pilots either died or evolved into tablets.

How about you explain what you understand by TOE first?

Arising_uk wrote:How about you explain what you understand by TOE first?

Would you accept a Wiki article as it's a big subject?

PhilX

Just your general belief or understanding would be fine.

I'll start! Small adaptations and mutations in genes or DNA or something lead to big adaptations which is or leads to the evolution of a species, usually or always as a response to their environment. And as always, the most fit is the one that continues to survive.

Did I get a "C" at least?

Evolutionary theory cannot be sensibly applied to robots unless they use evolutionary algorithms.

Jaded Sage wrote:I'll start! Small adaptations and mutations in genes or DNA or something lead to big adaptations which is or leads to the evolution of a species, usually or always as a response to their environment. And as always, the most fit is the one that continues to survive.

Did I get a "C" at least?

Not grading or anything but I think a few slight changes in order. Not 'as a response' but that the environment sieves and not the fit surviving but out reproducing. Just my tuppence worth.

The out-producing have a better likelihood, but if not of them are fit, they won't survive to reproduce again, and if a single producing species is fit enough to continue to survive, the number of offspring becomes irrelevant.

Arising_uk wrote:Just your general belief or understanding would be fine.

My understanding is that evolution means adaptation to the environment (including to oneself). With respect to something being for the better or worse would be irrelevant as that's a human judgement. In regards to robots, Leo sounds like he's using circular reasoning when he talks about using "evolutionary algorithms"
(What is an evolutionary algorithm? Is it the same as AI?)

To try to sharpen the question, would you apply evolutionary theory to robots with AI? What type of AI would robots need to have to apply TOE?

PhilX

Phil. A computer running an evolutionary algorithm is one which is self-programming rather than pre-programmed, exactly like a mind. My reasoning is not circular because a computer which has been programmed can only operate according to its programme. Therefore it cannot evolve.

Obvious Leo wrote:Phil. A computer running an evolutionary algorithm is one which is self-programming rather than pre-programmed, exactly like a mind. My reasoning is not circular because a computer which has been programmed can only operate according to its programme. Therefore it cannot evolve.

Now you're confusing me because you just got done saying that "unless they use evolutionary algorithms."

So OTOH you're saying computers (robots) can't evolve, but OTOH you're saying they can evolve. Can you clarify this?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So OTOH you're saying computers (robots) can't evolve, but OTOH you're saying they can evolve. Can you clarify this?

I'm not an expert on computer shit Phil, so I'm the wrong person to ask. However I'm sure there will be ample resource material on line. Just google "evolutionary algorithm" and you'll have enough information to keep you busy for ten lifetimes.