Digital Organisms

[avad]

Interesting article...
from a post in scientificwhims:
Testing Darwin
Digital organisms that breed thousands of times faster than common
bacteria are beginning to shed light on some of the biggest unanswered
questions of evolution
By Carl Zimmer
DISCOVER Vol. 26 No. 02 | February 2005
www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html

Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene...

Comments

[babayada.livejournal.com]

I kinda have a problem with some of the language of the article. They talk about the digital organisms being aware of the operator scanning them with data in order to determine whether he'd shut down a line of evolution in progress. Words something to the affect of "they decided to adapt" were used.

This is a really sloppy use of language and gives these digital critters qualities they don't have.

What happens, most likely, is that through a more passive process, more like operating under certain rules under which there is no choice, the digital critters who can replicate under the conditions and still can do whatever is a quality selected for, do.

They no more decide or become aware as a charcoal colored moth decides to become another color because it figures that this will help insure its survival. If a mutation occurs and proves beneficial for survival, it gets replicated more and more.

They are supposedly arguing against creationism and intelligent design but are actually supporting it with language which is full of fallacy.

The subject is fascinating, though, it was the first thing I wrote about in my journal, I think.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/babayada/296.html

[avad.livejournal.com]

I actually agree. The language is WAY suggestive of attributes and 'will' that these 'critters' don't have. On the other hand, just like the human in your post making up the story....it's a generalized bs to simplify some slightly complex behaviors. So much easier to imagine for humans. heh.
but I agree. I was sort of cringing a bit while reading. Cover story of Scientific American, can you figure? The sloppy language made it right through. But yeah again I'm fascinated as well by the subject.
I have Wolfram's A New Kind of Science (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1579550088/qid=1106241201/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-2234855-6079155) here...I won't even PRETEND to have read it through, the thing is HUGE and pretty beyond my comprehension...but I do love to go through it skimmingly and go nuts over the images of cellular automata...which correlate to something I've been reaching towards in my art with respect to language and code (yet with more random inputs)..

[babayada.livejournal.com]

Science is a kind of interesting thing that I like to watch and sometimes poke with a stick from afar. If I get too close I get overwhelmed by complex systems of categorization, large amounts of information, and mathematics that is over my head.

Science was amazing to me when I was a kid. Along-side the religion I was being taught it seemed to me to be more filled with the fascination and wonder of life and magic. It also used reason, curiosity, and experimentation as its guidelines. I contrasted that with the emotional manipulation tactics and demand for mindless obedience from religion and found science to be a great liberator.

Science made sense. Science told you to trust your reason and your senses. Science put the power of living into the hands of people rather than having things dictated supposedly from God to the power structure ... individuals you were supposed to fear, obey, and (sickeningly) love.

At a point, however, science seems way too complex and is the domain of a certain elite who were trained rigorously from youth. It kinda saddens me. I still latch on to what interests me and try to delve, but I can only delve so far.

I don't have Wolfram's A New Kind of Science ... but I am sure I'd love to give it a look over. :)

Back to the original subject ... I feel that it's important to speak clearly and to not romanticize or anthropomorphize too much. But then, sometimes I think, well, it's attacked in some places where it may be appropriate. For instance, some science people go as far as to say that feeling pain when an animal is crying out is anthropomorphizing because, well, how do you know it experience pain like you do? I think they use that as a way of distancing themselves from the animals they experiment upon. It's rationalization in that case, because when a dog yips and yelps from being hurt, I kinda know what that feels like, you know?