Code center > Suggestions
Emergent Systems
Griz:
--- Quote ---But doing that puts us right back where everybody who wants simplicity, hates being.
All these rules, commands and stuff are the ARTIFICIAL part of the program that we need to get away from. This is where all the complaints come from.
--- End quote ---
they do?
then I think you still misunderstand.
there is no problem with having rules ... they are essential.
let me use a real world example in an attempt to explain.
we have gravity.
if we do not have something to support us ... we will fall.
it's a rule. it isn't artificial. just how it is.
now ...
those of us who behave in such ways that allow us to fall and die ...
are less likely to survive and reproduce, eh?
and those of us who behave in ways that result in us not 'falling and
not being able to get up' ... those of us who don't jump off bridges ... will.
and as a result ... overall ... the majority of those decended from us are
going to be those who exhibit this particular pattern of behavior.
is this not so?
and so ... we might say that this is a behavior that 'emerged'.
the rule of gravity and falling was not altered or changed ...
only the behavior that resulted in falling is one that has not continued.
the behavours will evolve to conform to those basic rules ...
and I see no problem with that.
in fact ... it is these rules that will allow us to set up experiments ...
to manipulate the environment ... to alter the context ...
to impose some limitations ... WITHIN which ... behavior may be
observed to emerge.
does this make any sense?
am I saying something other than you are?
perhaps it has appeared so ... but underneath ... I think not.
where does this fit into your vision, PY? if it does.
[attempting to check out the same book and read from the same page.] ;)
PurpleYouko:
It makes sense and is about as complex as the thing needs to be.
Add to that a bunch of flexible rules and you have something that could work.
I still have issues with limiting the possible actions in the interpretter though.
The way I see it is this.
If the interpretter is simple (say 10 possible actions) then the behaviour HAS to be simple too. After all the organism can only ever do 10 things.
If the interpretter is VERY complex then the organism can do loads of stuff in loads of different combinations.
This is the very heart of my arguments to increase complexity in order to have LESS control over the behaviour.
IMO we need hundreds of possible actions and many of them need to be very similar. then we group them in a graduation from one thing to another and allow mutation to choose which one to use.
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---there is no problem with having rules ... they are essential.
let me use a real world example in an attempt to explain.
we have gravity.
if we do not have something to support us ... we will fall.
it's a rule. it isn't artificial. just how it is.
--- End quote ---
Gravity isn't a RULE in the sense that I am talking about.
Gravity is a physical law.
What I mean by a rule is if memory location 1 has a value in then the bot accelerates by that value.
If memory location 5 has a value in, it rotates by that value.
If memory location 300 has a value in, then reproduce.
Those are RULEs of the interpretter. They are arbitrary, not physical constants.
Ulciscor:
Well all the movement actions can be grouped together for similarity. In fact as far as I can tell you can group all the functions together because they are based on simple interactions. Move (substance), eject, reproduce, etc
Griz:
--- Quote ---If the interpretter is VERY complex then the organism can do loads of stuff in loads of different combinations.
This is the very heart of my arguments to increase complexity in order to have LESS control over the behaviour.
IMO we need hundreds of possible actions and many of them need to be very similar. then we group them in a graduation from one thing to another and allow mutation to choose which one to use.
--- End quote ---
ahha!. got ya. I see now your 'more is less'.
providing a great deal to choose from ...
but allowing the 'choosing' to be a result of behavior that
works plus mutations.
the 'gradation' is an interesting idea ...
even within a given action.
perhaps any one possible action could have a 'variable' ...
so the action could be 'scaled' in magnitude ...
iow ... we have one action defined for 'move' ...
but a variable that is assigned/gets picked up along with it ...
for how far to move ...
that gets passed along at reproduction.
same with a 'turn' ... with a variable assigned for how far to turn.
so as a result, our hundreds of actions ...
could result in 1000's or 10,000's of actions ...
by adding a magnitude to them.
perhaps that is how it already works, don't know.
or perhaps this is completely off the wall. don't know that either. ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version