program. Why doesn't this also rule out any system which a human sets
> Your observation that "human technology can be defined as a closed
> system by including the human component as part of the system" is of
> course correct, but for this particular challenge/contest introduction
> of a human ingredient into the "closed" system, of course, greatly
> weakens your proposal (look at my statement number 2 immediately
> following below). What I'm saying, I suppose, is that you may argue
> the above, but most likely you won't get the prize.
> If we focus on the criteria and objective of the challenge, what it
> seems to be asking are the following:
> 1. a perfectly closed system where no other outside forces are
> available except for "Energy and blank materials" (quoted from Brig
> Kyle paper).
> 2. Contents/ingredients within the closed system, and I assume that
> these contents have previously been proven to have no capacity for
> innovation. Not innovation in general but maybe innovation for a
> particular obstacle.
> The quintessential biological experiment to answer this challenge is
> to have a perfectly quarantined space containing nothing--a vaccum--
> and then blasting the space with pulses of energy. In this experiment
> only a positive result would be conclusive. A positive result would be
> if an "organism" with the ability to replicate grows inside. Most
> likely, however, after two years, the space would remain empty and no
> significant conclusion can be made.
> I sate this example to highlight certain problems in designing this
> experiment. Issues such as:
> 1. Contamination. Considering that a negative result is almost
> impossible to answer the challenge (because only two years are
> available to perform this experiment and a negative result may mean
> that not enough time have elapsed before innovation has occured), a
> positive result will always be shadowed by the possibility of
> contamination. What control can one design in order to rule out the
> possibility of contamination?
> 2. "Innovation is nearly synonymous to invention" This does not apper
> to be what I understand with the challenge. Invention denotes a
> deliberate act to solve a particular problem at hand. Innovation,
> however, in biology, involves random mutations, which 99% of time
> fails and the organism dies but which succeeds 1% of the time and the
> organism flourishes, for example. There is no deliberate intent to
> overcome the obstacle to growth and survival. A certain random/
> stochastic event occurs that become beneficial for survival.
> Also, the challenge is asking that in order for the criteria of
> "innovation" to be satisfied, the innovative quality must demonstrate
> a capacity for further innovation, as opposed to random event or
> simply a stroke of luck.
> May I enquire whether the above assumptions I've made are accurate?
> Please clarify, if possible. Thank you.
> Cheers,
> I. Borisen
> On Aug 21, 1:39 pm, Keith C <carmi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The assertion, "Of course human technology is an open system because
> > it receives input from human agents" shows the bias of those posing
> > the question.
> > Since they claim to be looking for judges, how about posting proposed
> > solutions here and allowing readers to vote, with explanations?
> > My problem with the assertion quoted above is that human technology
> > can be defined as a closed system by including the human component as
> > part of the system. For example, all humans who have ever lived and
> > all technology as one extreme. One isolated human plus computer +
> > operating instructions etc trying to write a computer program without
> > assistance as a more limited and specific example.
> > If the proposers can rule out human interaction with a computer
> > program, then they are equally capable of ruling out any program in
> > which the human has built in some pre-programmed logic to change
> > objectives or other aspects of operation.
> > On Aug 21, 8:42 am, bkl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > There is more explanation available on the innocentive website after
> > > you login as a potential solver. Also, a website for the contemplated
> > > main prize was set up two years ago athttp://www.evolutionprize.net/
> > > . There you will find links to abstracts and more discussion.
> > > "Quarantined" is explicitly defined and "Innovation" is illustrated by
> > > examples, mainly from biology.
> > > On Aug 20, 3:11 pm, i borisen <briones...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > I need to understand the qualifying and the quantifying parameters of
> > > > the question. Can someone explain it further?- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
