Code center > Suggestions
Non-Determinstic Bot DNA flow
Greven:
--- Quote ---I could be misreading you, but I think you have this totally backwards.
--- End quote ---
You did. I cant think of anyway to implentment Müller's Rachet (MR for short), you put biological terms /hypothesis onto DB, that is what I meant. Well MR is still just a hypothesis, not a true rule in nature, like the thermodynamics is for physics (you know what I mean). And Num stop lecturing me if I was some sort of imbecil idiot.
I have read hundreds of books about evolution and thereby biology.
Have healthy pile of books about artificial life.
My only problem is that I have a hard time expressing my self (in english) properbly, so the native speaker of english can fully understand me.
Well you see the DB Algorithm (DBA for short), has one problem.
It is extremely fragile and nowhere near robust.
Example placing 10 in memory slots 299 does nothing, placing it in 301, makes the bot reproduce. There are no correlaction between this, but it happens. The search space for DB is multi-multi-dimensional.
For a minute forget about Genepool etc., I havent even mention them, and actually I dont like them becuase of the optimizition algorithme they really are, nothing (reallly) interesting will ever happen here.
Take Avida in has an instruction set with 28 default instructions. Tierra about the same, cant find the documentation.
(Edit: 32, I am so stupid, I knew that Tierra coded its instruction in a binary string of length 5, damn)
But DB has 48 basic instructions, and here we should then add all the possible numbers. Which I will not do no. That smart thing about DB is the stack, were numbers are placed, and instuctions works on. With this it would have been extremely messy. But 1000 memory cells, is way to much, in the way it works has it is. I cant even imagine how the search space looks like in DB, it is easy enough for Avida. But DB there are so many factores that it is impossible to extract any usefull info. Well I will return later, right now I should make my Examination project in functional programming (Moscow ML / SML if anyone knows that)...
But bytheway:
--- Quote ---QUOTE (Greven @ Oct 23 2005, 05:01 PM)
--- Quote ---In short when generalizing, you lose much specialization ( ). You can do a little of this, and a little of that and so on. But nothing more.
And even the above quote don't even give any meaning. Artificial Life is much more that just simulation, what about GP, EP, other GA's etc.
--- End quote ---
I only recognize GA (genetic algorithm), don't know the other acronyms...
--- End quote ---
GP ~ Genetic Programming
EP ~ Evolutionary Programmering
EA ~ Evolutionary Algorithm
GA ~ Genetic Algorithm
These are mingled and blend into each other and cannot be, on a certain level, distinguised between exactly.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---And Num stop lecturing me if I was some sort of imbecil idiot.
--- End quote ---
Well, when you stop sounding like one... :lol:
Okay, that was probably a little too :pokey: and not enough :wub:
--- Quote ---But 1000 memory cells, is way to much, in the way it works has it is. I cant even imagine how the search space looks like in DB, it is easy enough for Avida. But DB there are so many factores that it is impossible to extract any usefull info.
--- End quote ---
Ah, now we're getting to the root of the problem. 1000 memories is probably way too much. But its had 1000 memory spaces per bot since the beginning of DB time.
So that's not really a criticism of how PY or I have modded the program, more a criticism of the basic architecture of the program.
To change it now would really break alot of bots. And whenever I make it so that older bots are even slightly less powerful in newer versions I tend to hear whining <_< ;)
Maybe I should add tags to the DNA so bot programmers can indicate they want their DNA run a certain way...
Griz:
--- Quote ---Maybe I should add tags to the DNA so bot programmers can indicate they want their DNA run a certain way...
--- End quote ---
LOL. This is about trying to CONTROL ...
and that isn't evolution ... that is Intelligent Design ;)
--- Quote ---We may be just arguing over simantics. Griz, perhaps you could point something out specifically that pushes the program in the wrong direction in your opinion, if even slightly.
--- End quote ---
I wish!!!
no ... it is not at all semantics.
and it isn't a light push ... it's a violent shove, imo. ;)
it is a fundamental difference in how we view the process of 'evolution'.
it is exactly what I said above ... you are attempting to 'control' all aspects ...
to tell bots how to act/react rather than allow alife/evoloution to be simulated ...
for bots to develope the interconnections and interdependency that comes from evolving
together within an environment we provide.
as the programmer/user ... we should be setting them up with an environment ...
and the abilities to sense/exist/reproduce and develop within it ...
and then get out of the way ... let them determine what works and what doesn't.
to not impose our own ideas of how they should behave onto them from the get go ...
rather then setting them up to find what works and what does not.
now if you don't see that ...
then there isn't anything I or anyone is going to be able to say
that will reach you ... that you will hear.
so it goes.
but I don't want to rain on your parade ...
it is obviously something that interests you ...
that you are passionate about ...
and that's great.
you have your vision, your perception of how evolution works ...
and perhaps it is exactly as you imagine it to be.
or not. ;) lol
not much I can do about it ...
other then to learn VB for starters and play on my own.
so thanks for the glimpse and the motivation to do so.
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---as the programmer/user ... we should be setting them up with an environment ...
and the abilities to sense/exist/reproduce and develop within it ...
and then get out of the way ... let them determine what works and what doesn't.
to not impose our own ideas of how they should behave onto them from the get go ...
rather then setting them up to find what works and what does not.
--- End quote ---
The unfortunate thing is that I fully agree with this and I am pretty much 100% certain that Num does too.
In my opinion this is precisely what we are doing too. Everything that we change in the program gives the robots new avenues which they can explore, more variables with which they can experiment with, more options, more ways to fail or succeed.
How can this be control?
We aren't telling them what to do. We are merely expanding the possibilities of the things that they might do. The fact that it is possible to artificially write a DNA package merely shows what it is possible for the bots to do. Artificially written DNA code is most definitely ID but that is entirely beside the point.
I have heard it argued before that we should keep the program very simple.
My answer there is that a simple program can only produce a simple lifeform with an extremely limited range of possible interactions with its universe.
A behaviour simply cannot develop unless the universe in which the bots live, allow it as an option.
In the real world, a microbe can evolve a new enzyme that enables it to feed from a new food source. In DarwinBots (or any other computer sim) this is utterly impossible unless the possibility has been specifically allowed for by the program.
How could a multi-celled organism develop muscles unless we specifically program the possibility to do so?
Simple programs are fine if all you want is simplistic and unrealistic sims.
Simple rules are fine provided you want to place artificial limits on what might be achieved.
Num and I are attempting to make everything possible by expanding the possibilities and complexities. Only that way can anything truly complex ever emerge from the gene pool.
With each layer of complexity we add, we lose more of our control over the creatures who inhabit the DB universe. How can that be wrong? It is simply coming closer to reality.
Griz:
PY ...
I'm sorry ...
it is not about complexity ...
it is about keeping it simple ..
and letting the complexity 'evolve'.
let's look at the results ...
which is really the bottom line.
without going back to 2.21 or before:
do we have a Darwinbots version that actually works ...
one that people can use as an alife/evo sim?
no.
we do not.
I'll check back one of these daze and see it anything
has changed.
maybe by version 2.47.b27.fc101 or something.
but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version