Emergent Systems

[Ulciscor]

providing a great deal to choose from ...
but allowing the 'choosing' to be a result of behavior that
works plus mutations.

Surely a large % of mutations would work if sequences have redundancies.

Changing a value would make a small change to a sequence which may or may not translate to a different function.

Deleting a value would change all concurrent sequences and would likely make massive changes to the organism. But since there is a redundancy the organism might be able to manage.

[PurpleYouko]

perhaps that is how it already works, don't know.

That is exactly how it works now.

10 .up store makes a bot accelerate forward at a rate of 10.

This DNA command is passed on to the bot's descendents and is prone to mutation.

It could come through as 12 .up store

or 10 .dn store

Numerically .up is command 1 and .dn is command 2 so the two are very prone to cross mutate.

[Zelos]

we have humor, but the thing is I take things to literely.

[Numsgil]

I'm not understanding the modus operandi of the DNA to the world.  Explain it to me in terms of the current system.

Currently, DNA manipulates packets of information (memory cells) into other packets of information (sysvar commands).

Are we still doign that or comming from a new direction?

I am thinking along parralell lines to DB. We have to have some kind of register system like the DB memlocs otherwise no variability of commands is possible.

....
I envision each command to be simply a string of bits (possibly varying length) that contains a whole bunch of instructions that will be either carried out or not depending on whether a previous command has enabled or disabled it.

Certain instructions could (for example say) skip next command IF condition X. But all instructions in the current command would be carried out.

I haven't really fleshed out my entire idea yet, not even fully in my own mind.

Okay, bear with me while my concrete mind is blasted into bits and reassembled...

To me, it sounds exactly like you've just described a gene in the current system.  A string of commands that are executed or not depending on wether it's been enabled/disabled.

[Numsgil]

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.

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.] ;)

That makes so much sense that as far as I can tell that's exactly what we've been doing for the last 3 years.

All sorts of stupid behaviors are possible in the current system.  Bots can eat their own babies.  Bots can reproduce constantly until all descendants die of exhaustion.

The only things that are handled more or less automatically are internal matters.   Feeding and storing body, etc.  And even then a great deal of stupidity is allowed.

[Numsgil]

I am thinking of analogies in biology. And I'm starting to think DNA is not the best way of describing bot script any more. 'Neural pathways' seem to be much more accurate, since sensory inputs or prompts are linked to some sort of output.

I was thinking that too.

The present DB DNA is more like a behavioural program than true DNA. It is more what the bot is thinking than what is going on in the real metabolic pathways. There is some crossover though.

Maybe we should have two parallel programs, one for behaviour (the brain) and the other for metabolism and stuff.

Third the motion.  The DNA is strictly as it now stands behavioral.  Phsyiological effects should be a seperate but related idea, in a seperate but related part of the organism file.

That's sort of along the same lines as the bit string for enzymes we were talking about way back when.  But broadened.

[Numsgil]

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

The sysvars are sort of a mess, but yes, that's the basic idea.  The problem is that some groups are quite self evident.  All moving things go together.

There are other sysvars that lend themself less well to a single group.  They could belong in one large group or another equally well, or belong in no group and are really alone.

[Numsgil]

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.

...

perhaps that is how it already works, don't know.
or perhaps this is completely off the wall. don't know that either. ;)

I could be grasping at straws here, but is it possible the program works more in the way you want than you think it does?

[Griz]

I could be grasping at straws here, but is it possible the program works more in the way you want than you think it does?

possibly. ;)
if it's still going to be about evolving behavior and not a combat robot sim ...
or attempting to emulate human behavior or relativity and who knows what ...
which imo distracts and complicates what we should be working towards.

so the priority hasn't changed in my mind ...
to first and foremost get a stable version that works ...
that users can ustilize to explore evolving bots ...
without having to be programming experts ...
although that to me, is also of interest.
but to explore even that part of it ...
I first need a platform that works ...
before I can play with it and tweak/recal/expand.

if I had that ...
that's what I'd be doing instead of being here busting your and PY's chops. ;)
good way to keep Ole Griz from ravaging your camp ...
is to distract him by giving him something better to do.
throw me the fish of a 2.37.4 that works as advertised ...
and I'll be happy as a bear in the woods ...
or as some swedes might say ... "a gris in shit" ;)

[Numsgil]

2.4 is actually shaping up on my computer to be rather stable and (surprise, surprise) rather backwards compatible.  Well, with everything but sexrepro, most Multlbots, and some otehr various relatively minor features...

Just a plug ;)

Don't forget that just because users can make their own bots, it doesn't mean that evolution can't.

Speaking of which, evolution has a very sloppy coding style.  ;)

[Griz]

Speaking of which, evolution has a very sloppy coding style.

which may be exactly why it works ...
and will never be duplicated ...
our ideas/concepts of what it is ...
and emulations/simulations always falling short. ;)

[Numsgil]

Well, Ideally Darwinbot would fall less short than others ;)

[PurpleYouko]

To me, it sounds exactly like you've just described a gene in the current system. A string of commands that are executed or not depending on wether it's been enabled/disabled

Very similar actually.

Differences are that one "gene" if you like, is capable of switching off the following "gene" in a way that is not now possible.

Also the "genes" themselves are more like pseudo-protein factories than artificial inteligences.

My thought is that actual actions could be triggered directly by the current concentrations of pseudo-proteins. Perhaps protein A makes the organism rotate left while protein B makes it rotate right. If the two are in balance then no rotation but as one or the other becomes dominant, a rotation occurs.
All the different proteins will have different effects so the overall action taken by the organism on each cycle will be a combination of all the push-pull effects of all the proteins.

You are right that this is rapidly turning into a somwhat expanded version of the bitwise enzyme system.

[Numsgil]

That actually sounds like a good way to handle chromosomes (remember those) with conflicting commands.

If chromosome 1 wants to go left and chromosome 2 wants to go right...

Have each gene or chromosome or whatever logical unit you want produce somethign (at a cost) that instructs the cell on what to do.  It can produce many or very few.  The effect on the cell is then the weighted average of all these.

[PurpleYouko]

That's what I'm thinking!