Can we discuss the question?

[i borisen]

I need to understand the qualifying and the quantifying parameters of
the question. Can someone explain it further?

[bkl...@gmail.com]

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 at http://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.

[Keith C]

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/

[i borisen]

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

> > > the question. Can someone explain it further?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Keith C]

The assertion, "Of course human technology is an open system because

it receives input from human agents" is from the first paragraph of
the Brig Klyce paper.
I am not bkl.
My concern is that it seems to automatically rule out any computer
'solution' because of human intervention, at least in constructing the
program. Why doesn't this also rule out any system which a human sets
up to intentionally win this contest? Isn't forethought just pre-
programed intervention which violates the quarantine?

I am quite happy to agree that a program built to perform some
optimization by using an explicitly programed routine should not
qualify.
I am much less certain of why random mutation/recombination with
rejection of poorly performing routines should be excluded. This is
rejected because it is 'only' optimization according to some pre-
programed objective. It seems also that a complex objective, which
combines several simpler objectives, (eg survival to reproductive age
and reproduction) would also be ruled out.
I think the important feature here is that human intelligence does not
help at all in the search for innovation. Only need is to reject poor
performance. Why is that not sufficient for the demonstration?