[FRIAM] not enough of Robert Rosen

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Joost Rekveld wrote:
> This is certainly a good point, but from what I understand of Rosen's  
> theories another limitation of GP has to do with the fact that the  
> language in which the programming is done can not evolve. 
I don't see why this must be so.   One could imagine that a robot had a 
field programmable gate array that could, in effect, burn an all new 
processor and bring it online.  But, usually when new computer 
architectures are being developed, the developers just write a software 
simulator for it in initial stages (that mimics the intended physics of 
the hardware design). 
Even the adiabatic quantum computer people at DWave are using existing 
silicon process technologies to design circuits..

> The syntax  
> will always be circumscribed by a subset of the programming language  
> that is used to set up the GP, and the semantics of what the symbols  
> represent in terms of real-world measurements or actions will be  
> fixed by the robot's senses and actuators.
Biotech, nanotech... ?