Talk:Artificial life/Archive 1

message: In the first sentence, "human-made analogs"; shouldn't it be "analogues". I'm not too sure though.
There is nothing (I know of) that says that artificial (read intelligent) life cannot be a result of a neural net, artificial or not, either simulated in programmes or physically laid out.  I did not add the neural network reference, but I don't see why you are dismissing it out of hand.  Could you explain your position a bit more fully? - Reigh
Ehr. I dont agree with that! Life does not have to be intelligent - intelligence does not have to be incorporated into life. An neural network does not create children, instead it augments itself. Neural networks dosnt have any need for any incoming energy (food), and could therefor not be considerd to be alive in the TRADITIONAL meaning. A neural network is a mind without a body - that is no life, it is just an mind. what exactly is life? (i dont belive in life) - smaffy
First of all the fact that something does not have children does not mean that the element is not alive. Also from historical reasons, Neural Nets ARE part of the Artificial Life research. Neural Nets articles are a tool used by people in Artificial Life, and often a medium of research. Articles on Neural Nets, are part of an Artificial Life conference. So, I put it back. Pietro
----
The phrase particularly well defined doesn't make sense to me in:
*"The field is particularly well defined by the tools it uses"
Could we just say 
*"The field uses" ...
*"The field is defined by the tools it uses", or
*"The field is associated with tools it uses"
- Jeff 23:09 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)
:Yep, it does look weird, I have rewritten the section as "the field is characterised the extensive use of computer programs..." and also the surrounding sections quite a bit. --Lexor 11:22, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "reversible like a computation" is the best bet here. Michael Ralston 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of talk page 

message: I reverted this text out of the article.  I'll leave it to someone familiar with the topic to decide how/whether to incorporate this info into the article in a proper format. - Kbh3rd 05:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted text 

message: A lot has happened in A-Life since the 80's...
:Indeed - it might be an idea to add some information about Steve Grand, his Artificial Life projects (Lucy, the Creatures series of games for PC) and his books on the subject. ~Liamlala of the Creatures Wiki
::Although I should point out, Steve Grand's work is not universally accepted within the scientific world.
----
I notice that both John Von Neumann and Stephen Wolfram get fancy epithets. I doubt we need to inform the reader that Von Neuman is a "math and computer prodigy" or that Wolfram is a "brilliant and controversial scientist". They probably should be removed. - 69.105.95.207 16:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating

message: The History and contributions section is duplicated at:  http://www.artilifes.com/importantcontributors.html 
This section was contributed by User:CatherineMunro. Does anyone know if she copied it from there, or if they copied it from here? MakeRocketGoNow 02:12, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, I certainly didn't copy from elsewhere; I was making drastically summarized sketches of personages from the Levy book Artificial Life as I read.  (Really need to go back and add some more, I was about halfway through the book when I had to stop.)   The entire text of the website appears to be copied from this article, one section per page.  It's okay for them to copy, but they don't credit Wikipedia anywhere, and don't mention the GFDL; we should drop a mention of them at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks so someone can contact them about proper licensing.  — Catherine\talk 02:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible copyright violation?

message: :Computer scientist Christopher Langton coined the term in the late 1980s
I dispute that. The term was long in use. I found it being used in a list of 'predictions about the future' made by Glenn T. Seaborg et.al. in the 1960s. bogdan | Talk 18:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term coinage 

message: It is not correct to say that the field of Artificial Life has "has not generally received much attention from biologists."  The fact is that Eörs Szathmáry, a close associate (and seeming heir apparent of Maynard-Smith) is one such biologist who regularly attends academic conferences related to the field.
The lament of Maynard-Smith,
:: “One reason why we find it so hard to understand the development of form may be that we do not make machines that develop: often we understand biological phenomena only when we have invented machines with similar properties … and we do not make ‘embryo’ machines”.
is, in fact, a current hot topic of discussion.  Consider the subjects of interest in the upcoming Workshop on Machine Self-Replication (website not yet available), a component of the Tenth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems.  William R. Buckley 19:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion of Biologists 

message: I think the recent additions to the intro are too specific and give an inaccurate summary of the field: "...evolving software that is more alive than a virus. Theoretically later it will become intelligent life [Strong AI]."
# Much a-life does not require "evolving software" — swarm intelligence, cellular automata, etc. ("evolution" is a loaded word in this context and should be avoided if the actual mechanism or analog of evolution is not intended)
# Is the (biological) virus threshold of "more alive" widely accepted?
# Without a reference, the "Theoretically later..." sentence seems like speculation.
--Ds13 19:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: going to agree with Ds13 --Numsgil 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition in intro 

message: I removed the link to http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v6i42_kak.html because I felt it falls in the realm of original research, and doesn't seem to be more than casual link dropping.  I'm certainly for discussion of criticism about Artificial Life in the article, but I'd prefer it to be a generalization of many people's viewpoints, and I'd like it to go in its own section.  --Numsgil 04:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link to article by Subhash Kak 

message: The article now contains, in a comment, an argument as to why there should be no link to artificial consciousness.  The opinion that artificial consciousness is not readily attainable or achievable and therefore is not worthwhile linking to (I paraphrase the argument) is an opinion held by some but by no means all of those prominent in the field.  Artificial consciousness is considered practically inevitable by those who hold the strong AI hypothesis.  They hold the view that artificial consciousness will be real consciousness just as artificial intelligence will be real intelligence and, as expressed by others above (including he who does not want a link to AC), just as artificial life will be real life.  Paul Beardsell 06:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment is mine, artificial conciousness is in the realm of AI, not ALife.  The old article linked to it and its brethren, and that was the reason it was so terrible.  AC comes from the top down, while ALife comes from the bottom up.  AC has absolutely nothing to do with modern ALife research.  Things such as the Cambrian explosion, the advent of sex, altruism, and the baldwin effect are the current focus of Alife research.  AC has nothing to do with ALife, except as perhaps an extremely long distant goal for some participants in ALife.  I feel that the current link to AI fulfills any needs for links to AC.  --Numsgil 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP NPOV policy demands that all mainstream opinions are reflected.  Numsgil's insistence on one POV to the exclusion of others obviously denies other mainstream POVs exposure on WP.  Paul Beardsell 09:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What specific POV within the ALife community am I excluding?  AC isn't an POV within the ALife community (though some overlap of participants might exist).  --Numsgil 09:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Any particular reason why the removal of my comment requires reinserting a link to artificial consciousness?  Since you're the original contributor of the link, what made you feel it (and the comment you placed with it) should belong on the page?  --Numsgil 11:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, the only way the two are related is through their relation with Artificial Intelligence.  I just don't feel that artificial consciousness has anything to do with artificial life (though it has alot to do with synthetic life).  --Numsgil 11:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems profoundly wrong to me.  Artificial consciousness is surely a subset of artificial life?  Paul Beardsell 21:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My argument is that artificial conciousness is not artificial life.  The assertion that being alive does not connote conciousness is my axiom.  William R. Buckley 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am without doubt wrong here.  I agree: Alive things are not necessarily conscious and v.v.  Paul Beardsell 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Artificial life meaning synthetic life, yes.  Artificial life meaning a field of study, no.  There have been no published studies that I'm aware in any alife journals that even broach the subject.  --Numsgil 05:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[artificial consciousness]]