From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2012 07:53:39 +0800 Archived: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 08:27:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity William, I'd just like to offer an addendum to this post, as I wrote it right after waking up and was somewhat groggy. As a side note, I've just moved within the last two weeks from Boston to Perth, Australia and my sleep schedule is still pretty hosed. >Hi William, >>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:51:25 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity >>>From: J. Maynard Gelinas<j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 08:57:56 +0800 >>>Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity >>>>From: Michael Tarbell<mtarbell.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:17:00 -0700 >>>>Subject: Re: Sampling Earth's Biodiversity >>>Michael, >>>Thanks for your lengthy and cogent counter-arguments. I'll do my >>>best to defend the initial work, but must admit that your >>>comment forced a lengthy re-think, which is exactly what >>>discussion of this sort ought to do. Rock on! >>><snip> >>>And that's why >>>genetic programming and directed evolution represent a likely >>>means toward deriving useful complex designs. Once you accept >>>this perspective, the only question is whether building 'toy' >>>ecosystems, or using naturally evolved systems, are better means >>>to seek out novel solutions to very difficult problems. >>The naturally evolving system adapts to the environment it is >>in. So if the earth ecosystem is being used as a laboratory to >>work out a new biological system for ETs to use, this new system >>would only be suitable for living on earth, would it not? >>Anywhere else, the environment would be different and thus, >>unsuitable for the new system. >No, I don't think so. All models are incomplete simulations of a >target environment. Were they fully complete, one would simply build a >large series of full scale prototypes. What the model offers is an >opportunity to build out a series of 'toy' prototypes very cheaply, >and then use aspects of the results in the final product based on a >series of assumptions built into the simulation. However, there is >always accepted drift from simulated to final real-world results. >Monte Carlos are a prime example of this. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method >>What this means, then, is that using the earth as a laboratory >>for an evolutionary experiment would make sense only if the >>result were to be applied on earth. If the Martians had done >>this, the War of the Worlds would have turned out quite >>differently. >From this perspective, as I noted, the simulated model is the real >world design - which would make it a prototype and not a model. It occurs to me that, for space-ship design, if one were to discover an ecosystem of naturally evolved space faring life, that might make for a more suitable ecosystem to use for simulation modeling. In that event, your criticism would be spot-on. It's a pretty outlandish suggestion, but one I've proposed on prior posts to this list. So for completeness, I thought I ought to at least openly recognize it as a counter. Best, Maynard Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp