Sunday, January 03, 2010

Getting sure IT should be 50% working, 50% continuous research

I'm getting more and more sure IT should be 50% working, 50% continuous research. As for medicine research means fixing more mankind problems, IT research means getting closer to artificial intelligence, not necessary to unviversal computation pourposes, but to solutions from a science that is cross boundaries for all the others.

“...clouds on the left and clocks on the right and animals
and men somewhere in between.”

(K. Popper 1965)

Emergence from systems, of intelligent new features. Evolution hits cells and logic, order, caos at the same time ? Is there a fractal model for all ?

Emergence showed in "Game of Life"



(look at it on Google, or on "Feltz - Self-organization and emergence in life sciences, Springer", if you are a rich man) is very strong but there are other mechanisms by which simple rules lead to complex dynamics. The neuron in brain is a simple,
deterministic machine that cannot lie or make an cannot make errors, but emergence ensures that we (the brains) can lie, using and being made of neurons. There is so hope that a more complex "Game of Life" built on structured and meaningful representations of information could evolve from simple rules to self generated and generating complex schemas ? Does it mean that a simple but well generalized "Game of life" could produce new schemas or rules (entities involved and rules moving the entities) able to seem intelligent, NOT BY CREATION, BUT BY ITS OWN EVOLUTION ?

IS INTELLIGENCE SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE ACTUALLY CREATED, BUT SOMETHING YOU CAN PUT THE BASIS FOR AND WAIT FOR "EVOLUTION" TO CREATE IT FOR YOU ?

From the "Game of life" I saw that new entities and entities' distribution schema appears. Not new rules. Could new rules be self defined like it happens in the above mentioned "Game of life" for entities' distribution schema ?