GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ May 31 2015,06:45) | | Quote | Quote (N.Wells @ May 30 2015,21:59)
Models such as yours require ground-truthing. What I cited was an example that recognized ground-truthing to be a common and important practice, notwithstanding your ignorance of it.
Show me how you ground-truthed this favorite of yours:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news.......ce.html
|
It's not my research, so I didn't ground-truth it. However....
What science is about is developing a better approximation to reality. The acid test of what we do in science is does our model do a better job of predicting reality than the previous model? The process of running those tests is, broadly speaking, ground-truthing our model. You don't do that - you don't ensure that your model is grounded in reality. More narrowly, ground-truthing is checking a procedure or a routine to make sure that it behaves in a realistic fashion, that it produces results that have meaning in reality. You don't do that either.
http://beacon-center.org/blog.......ptation
More specifically, this is a very nice example of Avida developing a model and then ground-truthing it with an experiment involving E. coli. That alone answers your question.
More generally, Pennock here https://www.msu.edu/~pennoc....sEv.pdf
discusses why AVIDA is an instantiation of evolution rather than a simulation. That's ground-truthing (ensuring its grounding in biological reality).
http://www.nabt.org/website....014.pdf
This is a nice little classroom exercise showing how Avida can be used to ground-truth an evolutionary model.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article........ull
Not Avida, but the article just cited contains a lot about ground-truthing in evolutionary robotics in a really nicely written and far-ranging paper, although it doesn't doesn't use that term explicitly. In particular note section 4.4 re "the reality gap" and what to do about it, but also note that much of the paper is concerned with issues of making aspects of robotics better matches to their biological counterparts (that's all about ground-truthing the robotics end of the equation) and about possibilities for using evolutionary robotics to ground-truth models and theories about how evolution works.
Also not Avida, but the next citation shows a more explicit but ultimately less expansive and less interesting role for ground-truthing in an evolutionary simulation
http://eplex.cs.ucf.edu/novelty....llo.pdf
It also has provides a good review of previous work: Fogel et al. (1966) looks like it should be of interest to you, as they provide a vastly superior definition of intelligence to yours (albeit a regular definition rather than an operational one, which you also still need), “Intelligent behavior is a composite ability to predict one’s environment coupled with a translation of each prediction into a suitable response in light of some objective.”
Not ground-truthing but research by Clune (the second part of your Daily Telegraph article) showing the role of hypothesis testing, which would also be a good model for your work, should you ever decide to do something worth paying attention to:
http://journals.plos.org/ploscom....1004128
You are in dire need of ground-truthing your own thinking: "something obvious to you" does not mean "real and obvious to other people"; "something not obvious to you" does not mean "wrong". In fact, generally the opposite seems true in both cases. |
Yup, a con-artist.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
