In the end, living systems and computational systems turn out to be the same thing. They may not seem that way now, but that's because we've got some wrong ideas about what machines and life really are.
The T2 Tile Project is building new hardware and software to help make living computation more real, more understandable, and more useful. Follow the project's progress at the link below!
Having just implemented creature classes and genomes this speaks to me! OEE is something I’ve grappled with. I was planning to move up a level to multi-cellular life but haven’t managed that yet!
I found you and T2 via Todepond. After decades of asking people "efficient at *what*?", and trying to show them that efficient systems tend to also be fragile, you're such a breath of fresh air. Thank you
ive been trying to understand the prng in slots machines if you know the seed is datetime i feel like you could fine patterns if you graph out outcomes overt time down to the .001 of a second
It's interesting to watch the encoding of the video go to absolute crap on your face once you begin running the twister really fast. lol. And then when you stop it, your face is clear as day once again.
Some nice ideas here. Ever heard of Gordon Pask? I think you might enjoy some of his ideas - they cut extremely, extremely deep. A bit eccentric and unusual on the surface, but very intentional and very profound underneath. It seems he has figured out a way to do (mechanical) philosophy & (applied) epistemology with near-mathematical precision. A good place to start would be his wiki page or his former student Paul Pangaro's website. A couple interesting papers there to check out and get a flavor might be "Physical Analogues to the Growth of a Concept" or "Consciousness". His ideas will be very difficult to understand at first. One thing to keep in mind is that all of the formalisms he uses have a very rigorous and intentional meaning. He does not throw symbols around arbitrarily, but it may take quite a bit of work to untangle one's mind in order to enter his world of rigorous clarity.
I have only a glancing knowledge of cybernetics and the system theory folks but their stuff seems fundamentally right as far as it goes! Thanks for the comment!
Thank you sooo much wise dude Dave, even in the epoch of A.I. it is so nicer just to listen smn with a deep voice explain everything like, with structure and professionalism 🤌
Thank you for the API Framework! I have been stuck in an error state for some time now, and your code was what I was looking for; some of these ideas have the power to save machines from early failstate crashes! Much love from Canada! ❤
Very good talk. It struck me how computer viruses are life a little before code red hit, when it was found that computer viruses in the wild were interacting with each other and other programs to actually mutate into new forms that had features of both and were resistant to either identification or removal by the normally effective procedures to kill them. So just by being out in the wild, existing in so many different and unpredictable computer environments where their code could potentially be modified by some other program, and having that ability to reproduce themselves, the viruses had actually managed to spontaneously evolve ways to survive threats that used to kill them. Either by hiding, becoming resistant to removal, or in some cases evolving to fight back and attack antivirus code, This was real evolution. The infections that didn't adapt or had their code altered in a way that was fatal to them, died, the ones that managed to mutate or combine with the right other malware or program to be resistant to common antiviruses, reproduced and survived, and so new strains would become common as one would be dealt with by new antivirus definitions. And this wasn't even a rare thing. It was common to the point that MOST strains of the most widespread viruses hadn't ever had their code touched by a human hand since the original virus was released, but had literally evolved to their forms in the wild on their own.
Thanks for your thoughts! Back when, as far as I knew, computer virus 'evolution' was all human-mediated somehow, like the polymorphic viruses. I heard anecdotes about 'spontaneous and in the wild' computer virus evolution, but never saw a solid citation.
@@DaveAckley Hmm, yeah, I guess it's possible these are all tall tales, It's something I'd think was rather improbable, but it's not impossible, there were tens of millions of infected machines for many of these after all, and malware isn't known for taking much effort to be thread or memory-safe. Fascinating to think about the possibility anyway.
Hey Dave, I finally made the time to listen to this. This is amazing. The idea of "second implementation" is so elegant and motivating that I felt like making a tattoo based on that (not gonna do it, don't worry). The video was so good that it made me forget my coat at the gym!
awesome! im writing a phd on memetics of music and im very inspired by your thoughts. in fact have been for years! thank you for this video and congratulations.
i think that for your assessment of mass media and culture as stuff that longs to be computed the memetic paradigm fits very neatly. memes and perhaps other replicators dont need to have a will of their own and they can still 'behave' as if they do. simply because natural selection is operating all the time. so the ones that dont have a certain proclivity to replicate will simply go extinct very soon. so we're left with the ones that have the properties which let them replicate freely. of course thats just my thoughts, im more than certain that you know more about replicators than i do. if you can recommend some literature between memetics and living computation id be very thankful!
These days I think what memes lack is not will but metabolism. So, like viruses and cellular automata patterns, they require an external power source sufficient for replicator operations. Thanks for your thoughts! I'm so happy when people get it!
Thank you for the response and for the wonderful insight about metabolism in memes. Please forgive me if this is not the right place to discuss it further, but I wanted to share some further thoughts. Doesn't all metabolism require external energy at some point? I understand metabolism as taking in some external energy and transforming it to one's needs. I'd say that if we understand memes as informational structures jumping from brain to brain, they do use the external energy needed to fuel the cognitive process and they metabolize it by becoming updated versions of themselves. But maybe that's just an empty metaphor? Also, I think all artificial life replicators are forms of memes too, so some more complicated memes definitely have some kinds of metabolism. Or don't they? Sorry if that's offtopic but then - is anything offtopic regarding a theory of everything? Thanks! 🤗 @@DaveAckley
For sure always a spectrum. It takes work to copy code, repair, transmit.. Cyanobacteria gets by with just air, water, and sunlight, while a virus needs a whole live cell - and we'd say the cell has most of the metabolism. It's not empty, but appealing to 'informational structures' does incur a pretty big implementation gap!
Hello again! I've been thinking about this for a long time and I did some reading. I have another idea. Do you think we can speak about the metabolism of memes in terms of information and entropy? Perhaps their fuel is not in the realm of energy but in ordered information. @@DaveAckley
It's cool to think of all the different types of flourishing cellular automata, and I'm interested to see what happens with Lenia as well. Here's to discovering new organisms and new diamonds! 🍻
I can't quite wrap my head around a fair number of the things you said, but I appreciate the scope and nature of your inquiries. Long live the MFM and T2 Tile Project, and here's to finally getting a comprehensive ToE!
It takes a lot of courage to present one's theory to the public. Whenever I do something like that and when I see the first or second comment, sometimes I get that feeling in the stomach - damn! What are they gonna say? And so I want to acknowledge that. I found the video to be interesting and a great conversation starter and I hope that my comment is just that - a conversation starter. In the beginning you lay out the main goal of this lecture - to send the message across. And if I understand correctly, your primary goal is for people to understand your model rather than agree with it. Going into the video, I was telling myself - I'll definitely get it! Dave is very well spoken and I am no fool, should be interesting! But by the end of the video I really have no clear idea what you are trying to say. And I think this has to do with the fact that you are not a professional philosopher, and so many of the key concept are left undefined. Additionally, you chose to position your worldview as the confluence of the religious/scientific approaches, while not defining either of them very well. Specifically, the religious/mind part were really vague, with world philosophy, religion and the rest slumped into a single entity. I personally had to force myself to listen on when you tackled the scientific worldview, because I felt that your take on it was either extremely oversimplified or uninformed. With all due respect to Steven Weinberg, he cannot represent the whole of science, nor is your summary of what physicists say about why we're here is anywhere near true. I mean, maybe some are saying that, but there are a lot of very thoughtful responses to that question from a plethora of theoretical physicists. And it is plainly not true that physics says "We're here because of Big Bang", that's just factually not what the physics actually says. I also think that you equivocate between definitions of what the Theory of Everything is supposed to be. For example, you talk about non-computability and chaotic systems, but this has nothing to do with the theory of everything in physics. The goal, as you yourself had said, is to come up with a formula - a mathematical model of how things operate. I don't need to be able to compute it for it to be the theory of everything. We can't compute what every gas particle does, but thermodynamics tell us which laws they obey without computing what every single particle does. I could also really relate to the counter-arguments against your worldview, but couldn't understand your responses to them. For instance, the traditional computational arguments make sense to me, your response does not. In fact, the whole notion of computation is not well defined. Like, if you are equating the computation computers do with human brains interpreting words and deciding to act in accordance - well, that's a REALLY broad definition of computation. I don't think such a broad definition is helpful, because you can then say that basically everything is computation. Finally, I would be really careful with worldviews based on metaphors. What you are basically offering is something that many computer people like to do - comparing the world around them with computers and software. Computers are complex systems and the parallels seem to be, as you say, obvious. But the moment you begin to properly define your terms, these parallels are likely to fade. For instance, it is just factually not true that our minds are somehow distinct from our bodies. Our minds are definitely not just software. And neuroscience has quite a bit to say about it. For instance, if you lose your arm, your personality might actually change, to supply a very simple example. In general, awesome discussion and I hope my comment was useful.
Great video, Dave! Glad to see you're still out there making computers come alive :) P.S. You should post the full version of the video that young Dave presented at that conference!
@@DaveAckley That's really interesting. I wonder how close what you have would be to a system where these "Bugs" would introduce new capability within the diamonds? Maybe something like that would be desirable and not categorized as a Bug.
Definitely agree with 3! Love the answer. First thing's is first, how does one find life in the shadows? Ya? When is a "thing" a "thing? What about pre-"things", they are important too, right?
@@DaveAckley 😂 - Would love to send you a thoughtful response. I have been meaning to reach out. Do you have a preferred email I can reach you with :)?
Hey Dave, really enjoying your videos! Quick heads up - I accidentally misclicked the thumb down, I have of course thumbs-uped the video, but I got a message saying feedback would be shared with the creator, so I just wanted to make sure to let you know that if you get any notifications of a thumbs down, it is a false alarm! Keep up the awesome work, can't wait to see what you have coming next!
@@DaveAckley Oh shoot , I didn't even think about it from the political side.. I can see why trolls might be disliking it on purpose. Literally in my case I just misclicked and was thinking it would be the only downvote. Slava ukraini!
I’m a big fan of dynamic system regulation like this, but how exactly is this architecture going to work to do something more complicated like play a game? I’m not seeing the bridge from the first steps to running a program
For that ancient Java demo, I'm not now certain, but it wouldn't be that different than the current code at github.com/DaveAckley/ULAM/blob/develop/share/ulam/core/DReg.ulam There, per event, it's 1-in-1000 to create a new DReg if an empty site is chosen, 1-in-200 to create a new Res assuming a DReg was not created, 1-in-10 of destroying a DReg if an occupied site containing a DReg is chosen, and 1-in-100 of destroying anything if an occupied non-DReg site is chosen.
I can guarantee if you have every sequence possible , you will at least get it right, the problem is , most outcomes will be wrong if your looking specifically for something.
