Notional Slurry Logo

Artificial Life subsumption

I’m afraid I had to miss Artificial Life X this year — the last Alife conference I attended was Alife III, in Santa Fe many many years back. I regret my indisposition not least because I missed an apparent attempt to take this important field of complex systems research and simulation science, and drive it into becoming a talking point for panspermic pseudoscience and what seems a quirky interstellar offspring of Intelligent Design:

The Klyce agenda makes claims such as:

  • life can never emerge from non-life
  • there was no Big Bang
  • genetic innovation comes from space
  • there has never been an example of an advantageous mutation (other than a gene becoming disabled)
  • open-ended evolution in a so-called closed system is not possible

I have to say, it would’ve been fun to watch. Takes me back to the days when a visiting “researcher” down the hall at SFI was seeking important crucifixes in cellular automata. Or the first time I actually saw Dembski’s No Free Lunch and thought, “Oh, good! Somebody’s popularizing Macready and Wolpert’s important results.” Or the ubiquitous self-aggrandizing marketing of the Gene Expression Programming cabal.

We form dynamic communities with soft boundaries. Look to Tom Ray’s earliest results on parasitism in Tierra for intuitions of how this plays out….

Jesse said,

June 17, 2006 @ 1:35 pm

Might I ask what Gene Expression Programming is?

Tozier said,

June 17, 2006 @ 3:27 pm

Well… On the one hand, it’s a “revolutionary” way of doing genetic programming—the automatic evolution of computer programs and structures—using innovative indirect representation and some other cool tricks. Better than sliced bread, says the main proponent and “inventor”. On the other hand, it’s a simple re-statement, with poor (or no) proper credit or bibliographic references, of the work of many hundreds of previous researchers, all of which is considered pretty mundane and not worth branding “revolutionary”. Unless you want to promote a particular researcher.

In other words, it’s a power-play by a member of a lively community to simply rename commonplace work into something special and owned.

Like Stephen Wolfram, who by giving scant credit implies he invented everything ever done in Complex Systems research personally, the folks promoting GEP imply it’s new and different and better.

This is, of course, my own opinion only. :/ Me, I’m a gadfly….

Jesse said,

June 18, 2006 @ 2:01 am

Thanks. I was wondering if it had to with the biological side of gene expression, and I guess it doesn’t.

By the way, and rather randomly, I proofread a bit of one of your book projects at Distributed Proofreading.

barbara said,

June 18, 2006 @ 12:19 pm

By the way, and rather randomly, I proofread a bit of one of your book projects at Distributed Proofreading.

Thanks! I hope you enjoyed it :)

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment