HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King)
Subject: Lionel, Evolution and the Theory of Games
Keywords: Survival, environment, games
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:09:16 GMT




Lionel

Well, the subject line sort of says it all.  Robert Axelrod, William
Hamilton and John Maynard Smith have done what you've suggested,
although with a different game (i.e. the prisoner's dilemma).

You see, your solitary chess program which randomly mutates isn't 
contained in an environment where natural selection can work over time.

Try this though:  Have a few thousand chess programs play each other.
Insert a random mutation factor which changes the structure of some programs
periodically.  Now, insert a kill-rule, and a reproduction rule as follows:
At set points in time, more successful programs (i.e. more wins) are allowed 
to reproduce themselves, while less-successful (i.e. less wins) ones are not.
Further, programs die after a certain number of games, and losses hasten 
death.

Now you've come close to simulating natural selection of mutations which 
yield strategies more successful for survival in a given environment.




Suggested Reading for Lionel:

Axelrod and Hamilton, "The Evolution of Cooperation" Science 211 (1981).

Maynard Smith, Evolution and the Theory of Games (Cambridge UP I think, 1982)

Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (The UK edition of this 1984 book has
                                       a neat intro by Richard Dawkins.  The
                                       US and Canadian release, by Basic Books
                                       NY, does not).

... these are pretty easy-going.  After this, consult a few volumes on the use of
genetic algorithms in the simulation of evolutionary processes.



___________________

Loren King
MIT
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun, idiot or moron?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:56:41 GMT

In article <ksand-101192184411@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
}However,
}remember that there's a human at the other end, and it's not fun
}taking part in person flame wars.

Two items:
1. "human at the other end" - that does not seem to be a supported asertion.
2.  "not fun taking part in person flame wars" - that appears to be a major
driving force for some,  hence the "not" does not appear universally correct.
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 03:57:50 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

> In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

> >To us, however, the most striking feature of life is the fact that it is
> >conscious. We observe consciousness in living beings. Although there may
> >be little or no physical difference between a living body and a body
> >which has recently died, we intuitively know that there is a difference:
> >in a living body there is consciousness, or a soul, and in a dead body
> >there is not.
> 
> I see. Are trees conscious? Is a virus conscious?

Yes, trees and viruses are living beings, are they not?

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Emergent Properties. I. Introduction
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:16:53 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

David Tinker (dtinker@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: -----
: Bibliography and Footnotes:
: ==========================

Absolutely wonderful!

But, for we real morons, let me also add one book to the list.
Although not a rigorous workout, it is a remarkably intuitive
romp into this territory.

Godel, Escher, and Bach - by Douglas Hostader

(and a lot easier to find that R.Thompson's lofty tome)

In GEB, loosely speaking, emergent properties are called
epiphenomena.  They are not vitalistic, but in some sense do
show (claim) that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

And that is what consciousness is -- an epiphenomena of the
organic constituents.  And when the organic constituents are
degraded beyond some as yet unknown point, the property of
consciousness retreats, and ultimately disappears.  

But when?  At the moment of death?  When, exactly, is that?

We have no idea.  As someone pointed out in a wonderful
"rat" story, some of the organic components will continue
to valiantly try to maintain life even after the brain,
the generally accepted seat of consciousness, has been
removed or destroyed.  Is a body, whose head has been 
recently removed, dead?  Not if you ask the components
doing their best to maintain the life.

And do we know, now, that it is impossible, even at some
future date, armed with neurotechnology beyond anything
we can currently conceive, to pull a body out of the ground,
a day, a week, a month, later, and not retreive part if not
all of the consciousness that once was an "I"?

Further, can we really say that a person in a severe
schizophrenic catatonia can be described as having
consciousness, even though the organic components are
operating perfectly?  There was also a baby born, once,
with no brain, only the basic neural functions, which
were ultimately no more than a basic life support for
the body.  But the epiphenomena of consciousness was
missing and not emergent and had no possibility of ever
emerging.  Where was the ultimate moment of death here?
Was there ever even a moment of life?

Now enters the Kalkster with his arms laden with the
weight of mathematical analysis of information systems,
and it tries to convince us that on one hand its guru
has absolutely reduced the properties of life to
mathematical formulae based in information theory, and
on the other hand declared the mystification of life
through the "soul".  Stand here, the K is a Positive
Realist.  Stand there, and K is a Mystic Dogmatist.

As the Firesign Theatre once said, "How can you be in
two places at once, when you're really nowhere at all?"

The K recently asked if what it had written was easily
digestible.  The answer is, Yes, is is very easy to
digest, just impossible to swallow.
--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 7 Nov 92 11:05:24 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>There are many biology textbooks which start out by attempting to give
>definitions of "life". They usually enumerate a list of properties of
>certain types of physical objects called "organisms". Commonly, things
>such as reproduction, homeostasis, metabolism, presence of DNA/RNA,
>etc., are mentioned as characteristics of "life".
>
>To us, however, the most striking feature of life is the fact that it is
>conscious. We observe consciousness in living beings. Although there may
>be little or no physical difference between a living body and a body
>which has recently died, we intuitively know that there is a difference:
>in a living body there is consciousness, or a soul, and in a dead body
>there is not.

I see. Are trees conscious? Is a virus conscious?
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   custts@cc.helsinki.fi)                       00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:30:26 GMT

>> 
>> I see. Are trees conscious? Is a virus conscious?
>
>Yes, trees and viruses are living beings, are they not?
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa
>

Viruses alive????? Are you sure you aren't too much into New Age, Gaja and that 
stuff?


Onar.
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 03:21:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.112019.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>>bkorb@starbase.Convergent.Com (Bruce Korb) writes:
>>>> 	The flood did not cover mountains.  It covered a giant fertile
>>>> 	valley where humans lived at the time.

>Then how did Noah's Ark get on top of a mountain?

Another interesting question is why Ray Cote chose to respond to such a
trivial point, while ignoring the dozens of other problems of the global
flood idea.  Could it be that he thinks that if he ignores the problems,
they'll go away?

Ray, would you like me to send again the list of problems with a global
flood, so that you can address all of them?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Summary: Why do you ask?
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 01:45:49 GMT

In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>What is consciousness?

Before we answer this, it might help if you first answer a couple other
questions.  Namely:  What purpose will be served by having a definition?
And, Why are you dissatisfied with standard dictionary definitions?

>What, then, determines the instant of death?

A death certificate.

Seriously, death isn't such a great mystery as you make it out to be.  Heart
and lung function rely on a complicated arrangement of neutrons in the brain
(among other things).  All cells, including said neutrons, require heart
and lung to circulate blood to supply oxygen and nutrients.  When brain
function degrades past a certain point, heart or lungs falter, causing
oxygenation of the brain to falter, making heart and lungs fare even
worse, etc., causing a catastrophic failure of the entire system.

>We would answer by saying that the soul, or the consciousness, has
>departed, and therefore the organism is no longer alive.

How can you say this if you don't know what consciousness is?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
	<1992Nov6.111851.29067@city.cs>
	<ksand-061192230308@wintermute.apple.com>
	<1992Nov9.184833.16734@city.cs>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:58:11 GMT

Lionel writes:
>OK, I issue a challenge. Take your favourite chess program on
>your favourite computer. Randomly change any number of bits or
>bytes in the program's executable file. If you manage to find
>a random change which makes the program better at chess, I will
>accept it as evidence that significant AND beneficial random
>mutations are possible. Oh, and I'll eat my flat cap.
>
>There you are, this is my "SW program that simulates how
>impossible evolution actually is", your common or garden game
>of computer chess. Please report back in say ten years.
>
>BTW to forestall any objections, please note that a computer
>chess program is much simpler than a human brain.

I posted something like this once and it didn't seem to work.  So if
this is a repeat just ignore it...

Ever take any AI Lionel?

Games like chess are sometimes played by computers using a lookahead
strategy.  The computer looks ahead a number of moves and, depending
on heuristics that evaluate the board state, picks the most beneficial
move.  One of these algorithms is called A*.

The farther a program looks ahead, the slower it is but the better it
plays. 

Some heuristics are very complex.  There was an early checkers program
that used a polynomial heuristic.  Each term in the polynomial was a
different ``game indicator'' and the coefficents were weights.  By
changing the weights you could give the different ``game indicators''
different levels of importance.

Here's something you could do with this game.  Take a set of these
games, each with different random weights.  Have a little tournament
then throw out the games that did the worst.  Duplicate the remaining
games and modify the weights in the duplicates by a small random
amount.  Repeat until you get bored.  Think that final set of games is
any better than the first batch Lionel?

Well even if you don't, the important thing to understand is that
different weights produce different behavior.  Some values of
weights will produce better games than others.

I'm sure you can easily see that if the memory location holding the
number of moves to look ahead is increased then, although the computer
game will be slower, the program will be better at chess.

If the program is using a polynomial heuristic, by modifying one of the
coefficients you just might make the program play better.

I think its time for you to eat your flat cap.

-Bill
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:12:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.195508.19453@hemlock.cray.com>, robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick) writes:

|> The Plot of T.O., as faithful as an old hound dog:
|> 
|> New face with "fresh" perspective crashes onto T.O. as a valiant crusader.
|> 
|> The "fresh" perspective is, underneathe its shiny new outfit, shown to
|> be the same old dirty laundry that has been aired here before, so many
|> times.  The T.O.ers hail the newcomer with derision and dung.
|> 
|> The tarnished crusader, knocked off of the high steed of authority,
|> engages in hand to hand combat, and gradually comes to realize that
|> he is up against a formidible foe.  Perhaps in league with the forces
|> of evil itself.  Blood is drawn.
|> 
|> As the crusader weakens, he starts to promise to return to the battle
|> soon with the Holy Grail, the Proof, the Theory, the Unassailible Truth.
|> 
|> Battle after battle is fought, the terrible foe ever scoffing at the
|> weakened and indefensible position of the horribly wounded crusader.
|> 
|> Finally, a pathetic little dagger is drawn by the crusader, probably
|> spoon shaped, rusty, with "Made Many Times Before" stamped clearly on
|> its blade, and weakly, he shouts, "Here it is; well, this is not all
|> of it, only part of it, and if I only had time I would return with
|> the real Sword Of Truth, but I have so many other pursuits, and I
|> am so very busy, and you are so mean, and heartless, and cruel, and
|> your evil is so total and complete that I doubt that even the Sword
|> of Truth could ever penetrate your horny hide."  Whereupon the 
|> trounced villein hies himself to a monastery to lick his scabrous
|> wounds and curse all villianous bullies of T.O.



	First rate.  This should be in the FAQ.




						Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hyde@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Ted cleans up his act
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:58:52 GMT

In article <105@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

.. Ted produces many quotes from the t.o crowd.

>Bruce B. Salem:
>
>        Bob is too lazy
>        I think you are lying

.. deleted ..

>        Furthermore, I think your capacity for rational thought is
>         very limited
>        You are so full of shit, Clayton.
>
>Matt Brinkman:
>
>        To continue this unjustified ad hominem attack makes you appear
>         to be childish, petulant and stupid.
>        I really think he is a rather boorish ignoramus.

So what is your point?  You and Bales and a variety of others have 
consistently shown yourselves to be incapable of following a logical
train of thought.  A lot of stuff you post *is* garbage.  You *do*
have a staggering lack of knowledge in a vast number of areas and
a certainty that you know better in most fields than respected scientists.
You are convinced that Sagan has it wrong and you have it right.  You
are sure that the folks who say dinosaurs can walk around are totally
full of it, but you know better.  You know more about myths than anyone
else who studies them.  Ted, no one is that smart.  You must have a
massive ego to think that you know better than most of the scientific
community.

You post these statements from the t.o crew, you have yet to show
that they are in any way false.

>Ted Holden

C Frog
From: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:20:22 GMT
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 0aH4TB11w165w@kalki33, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us () writes:
>libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>
>> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>> Who is "we", exactly?  Is this the royal form, or have you got a
>> rat in your pocket?
>
>I am Kalki Dasa
>We are devitees of Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
>
>Well excuuuuuuuuuse we!
>

I think what we would all like to know is why you (apparently there
is only one Kalki Dasa) are refering to yourself in the plural.

Makes us feel outnumbered. :)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Keywords: AWESOME
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:03:08 GMT



>In article <100221@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>The program is called Populus and is written by some folks at the
>>Ecology, Evolution and Behavior department at the U. of Minnesota.

lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) responds:
>Aha! I thought there was something rather dodgy about this program.
>So, its a vehicle for spreading the evilutionist progaganda!

>Its funny how games where one gets to play God are very poplular.

Isn't this a tacit admission that to tweak the parameters of
evolutionary mechanisms is equivalent to "playing God"?

Lionel Tun seems to be arguing theistic evolution!  Fancy
that!

Keith

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Summary: Lies have more information content than what Bales says.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 22:54:23 GMT

In article <7552@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>if you are going to judge creationism by what its supporters say on
>subjects other than the scientific evidence for and against it, . . .

What else do we have to judge it by?  Creationists rarely say _anything_
about Creationism, and they _never_ say anything scientific about it.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:08:27 GMT

In article <1L7TTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>There are many biology textbooks which start out by attempting to give
>definitions of "life". They usually enumerate a list of properties of
>certain types of physical objects called "organisms". Commonly, things
>such as reproduction, homeostasis, metabolism, presence of DNA/RNA,
>etc., are mentioned as characteristics of "life".
>
>To us, however, the most striking feature of life is the fact that it is
>conscious. We observe consciousness in living beings. 

Hmmmm...  I have two requests for Kalki:

(1) Define "consciousness."
(2) Explain how any reasonable definition of "consciousness" can be applied
to plants, viruses, bacteria, protozoa, sponges, cnidarians...

>Although there may
>be little or no physical difference between a living body and a body
>which has recently died, we intuitively know that there is a difference:
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>in a living body there is consciousness, or a soul, and in a dead body
>there is not.

No.  The difference is that in a living body there is metabolic function,
and in a dead body there is not.  You will find that your intuition 
fails to impress us, or even to begin to convince us of anything.

>What is consciousness?
>
>Consider a body at the moment before and the moment after death. What is
>it that is different between these two states? Except in cases of death
>by massive trauma (such as being blown up), the structural integrity and
>chemical constitution of the body are not very different at the two
>instants. What, then, determines the instant of death?

The instant of death is determined by the instant at which metabolic
activity ceases.  When my car breaks down as I'm driving it, the
structural integrity and chemical constitution of the engine do not
necessarily change.  Would you say that my car loses its consciousness
at that point?

Gee, Kalki titled his post "What is Consciousness," but failed to ever
define the term.  Odd.

>Kalki Dasa

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 08:13:48 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
>reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
>non-life?  Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
>scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it?

To answer your question, it may or may not be "scientific" to claim that
a pehnomenon has occurred in the absence of a model; it all depends on
what the the data is.  A model is an explanation of how things happen;
data is what happened.  Science deals in both models and data.

The data supporting the thesis of abiogenesis is good but not presumptive;
there are proposed theories of how this event might have come about; at
this point there is insufficient information to determine if any of these
theories are correct.

>No one has ever seen a living organism arise from an assemblage of
>lifeless matter, have they?

Yes.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins