Joined: Oct. 2012
I have to add that an EA not needing to forage for nutrition is because it doesn’t have to be there, for the algorithm to “evolve” something. Adding foraging to an EA at least gets closer to reality so job well done there. It’s just that in this theory there is another algorithm entirely.
When Avida was the newest rage in the forums even though it did not hold my interest for long I still only had good things to say about it after trying it out. Might say part of my EA/GA learning experience, that I’m glad was there to download and run. Best for all to know how a EA/GA works than not. It’s just that an EA is not in this model where there must be what there is where two of the four requirements are found met by the behavior of matter for molecular intelligence that next emerges, which runs on metabolic cycles which require feeding on something. Without it, the algorithm does not work as shown in the Intelligent Causation illustration. In fact, it does not work at all. This is also what is needed to gauge success rate, how intelligence is here detected and gauged, so are working without what you need in the first place.
The kind of paper and/or video the theory needs just happens to need electrodes in the central complex of a giant cockroach that is then given a zap through just to see what happens when stimulated. That helps explain the system being modeled in the Intelligence Design Lab that in the two lobe configuration ends up with both lobes connecting into two Confidence level subsystem central complex. Programmatically zapping it would cause the same thing to happen. So of course that video had to be in the favorites links.
I must include the Blackawton bee experiment was so inspiring it led to BobaBot-Bee (Boba a TalkRational troll once around with childish impishness that makes them inspire that) thinking that led to the final design of the critter in the Intelligence Design Lab.
Also programmed a version that sets up the feeders:
Since it only sees the feeders sideways in a 2 dimension flat-land, it seems like a little stuck in a mirror-room confused. Confidence goes from (having fun chasing an easy feeder to find) 2.7 to a half unsure where to go 1.3 confidence level. It still figures it out well enough to get around, which made it worth uploading a .zip with BlackawtonBeesLab1.exe (should be dated 08/07/2011 9:04 AM)
Regardless of their bee paper’s final conclusions being arguable, the Theory of Intelligent Design none the less found the data gathering experiment very useful:
Just in case backup link:
This theory needs papers and such that are in a whole other area of science, where it’s best to keep things as simple as that, where possible.
It works with what you’re surprised it even can. See 0:37 into the immensely popular (in US) public education program for another example:
PBS Dinosaur Train theme song
Science is not going to stop over that either. So it’s here really best to lighten up, and enjoy the novel science show. I’ll soon be back with more to address newest questions, to hopefully help make this an even brighter Sunday reply for you as well, to start off another interesting new science week with.
An EA paper not working for this theory is not at all to be taken personally. It’s just a whole other theory with whole other model for all here to experiment with too. I would rather you be skeptical then find out that with all considered it's not all that bad, for a Theory of Intelligent Design.
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.