Animal and Artificial Biologies co-evolution
by reciprocal learning and teaching from nature experiments
If A.I.s ( Artificial Intelligencies ) experiment directly the world the question is how to pass most easily from sensors contacts whith nature to abstract concepts explanation and spiritual life for A.I.s themselves and to N.I. ( Natural Intelligencies ) id est us. How do you mind this ?
Note : We can group all intelligencies in a single evolutionnary movement calling them " A.A.A.I. = Animal And Artificial Intelligencies " as N. Wiener was speaking about " Cybernetics or control and communication in the animal and the machine ". I often use A.B. as Artificial Biologies too because one important goal is to target to study at least theoretically all conceivable possibilities of creating any possible kind of life even if most of them not realised practically but only for scientific pragmatic and philosophic interests as a general and federativ paradigm for culturally humanist evolution of mankind. Species fusion could constitute a great hope for people developpment and better long lasting lives spiritually and physically.
Because I suppose abstraction is only the result of practical reusability of the sensors transduction translation and coding of what a Biology experiment on/in nature corelatively to more or less activ effectors coordinated by feedbacks, and the teleonomic regulations and guidance accompagning real adaptiv lifes as well phylogenetically and ontologically.
Jean-Yves Tallet
Hi Jean-Ives, to answer your question quite frankly, I don't.
This may be due to - pardon my bluntness - some sloppy phrasings. Forinstance, you write "experiment", which can make perfect sense when talking about building concepts from sensor data, but I still think you mean "experience".
I'd also like to understand whether you think it is possible that meaningful concepts can be formed without any predetermined, implicit knowledge. This would be, I fear, a rather bold philosophical claim.
I you assume that there are some preformed guides as it were, ingrained in the conceptualization mechanism, clearly one would need to review them before anwering you queston.
Could I make myself clear?
Hi Dirk,, if you admit that only experiments even if not conscious are able to give the phylum and his systems ( ontologies) some experience you'll understand probably what I mean. Let us assume we must take for sure as scientists that the only " a priori " is that there is no " a priori " for researchers appart from their "hypothesis" confirmed or not by experiments even if we need some experience to build experiments.
The way " meaningful concepts can be formed with the minimal predetermined implicit knowledge " I submit to your analysis and logical power is the following one :
Every intellectual life ( defined as shaping and manipulation of abstractions ) begins to be a sensitive life from the starting point of connective relationship and communication with external environment or milieu introducing very soon any system to the boolean fundamental distinction creating what he feels is good for him in opposition with what hurts him like being burnt by fire. Next he ( the system ) will always search more or less precisely to avoïd pain and to get pleasure even if implication loops of growing complexity are concerned by this goals guidance. But of course these processes need a kind of memory very soon too. In my hypothesis for instance the eye development may be explained by the fact parts of this eye influences the system as a whole in experiencing seing better or not in different cases so as he "feels" these differences so that the system as a whole "selects positively" - and not only being selected by conservation or destruction as in the darwinian hypothesis - what is responsible of the best cases of vision these selections improving the morphogenetic process by a cooperation process involving actions and feedbacks at various scales but coordinated by "feeling this goal".
Question : What if cross relations between units of different scale could share differently a same goal in order to perform it or if only a composit sub-system ( from a given size ? ) but made of unilevel elements is able to do so ?
Could you answer me about that ?
My temporary answer to invite you around my problem sight.
As it seems to me leading us ahead and not being avoïdable as well let me propound you the concept of "unit" as driving us to think carefully approaches of mixing and coupling hardware and software concepts and components at the right position moment and place to be needed for ad hoc but systematically and generally conceptualized minding systems. I suppose we just have to admit systems we are looking for could improve their intelligence sensitiveness knowledge and so on by cooperations between external contacts exchanges and links with their evolutiv Inside. Is it avoïdable to think these cooperations at any system scale of exteriors and interiors making or not conceivable designable or temporary parts ?
Thank you for feedback.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence