RE: [-empyre-] tangent: software / conceptual art

["Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>]

> Self modifying code was a popular strategy of the early (pre Dewdney
> and Redcode) Code Wars.  Competing programs would rewrite their own
> code and some could steal and adapt their opponents code.  Code Wars
> began in the 60's and was an early pre-cursor of alife (and viruses).
> This was about the same time that Holland published his papers on
> adaptive strategies (in 1962) - the root of today's evolutionary and
> genetic algorithms and a major taproot of alife.

Very interesting, thanks for that and the links.

Yes, to think, as Florian does, that:

"{5: No computer can reprogram itself; self-programming is only possible
within a limited framework of game rules written by a human programmer. A
machine can behave differently than expected, because the rules didn't
foresee all situations they could create, but no machine can overwrite its
own rules by itself.}"

is a misunderstanding of the nature of computers and what they are capable
of. There is no proof, and there is very likely never to be any--popular
falacies from Penrose not withstanding--that the processes which computers
are capable of are any less flexible than thought itself. Were Florian's
statement true, it would demonstrate that there's a thought process
(self-modification) of which humans are capable and computers are not. But
it isn't so. It does seem that this sort of misunderstanding is widespread
and often fondly held.

ja
http://vispo.com