Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote (cryptoguru @ Feb. 19 2015,17:47) | | Quote | | The Avida instruction set includes mov-head, jmp-head, and set-flow. Turing-completeness implies that if the Avida instruction set is inadequate to model what Cryptoguru wants modeled |
actually yes you are correct, I forgot that non-linearity is modelled as part of the instruction set through the ability to move the head. I was being stupid about that ... Scratch that part of my argument.
The rest of my argument still holds ... Avida is rewarding by comparing to a known target on the level of complexity directly above the instruction set, not on the level of the organism. Even if it was on the level of the organism it is still cheating by having knowledge of an advantageous target.
Comparing to a known target (in Avida's case, known logical functions) is a confessed cheat of the Weasel algorithm by Dawkins, the same logic holds for Avida. |
Well, of course we'll scratch the "linear vs. non-linear" part of Cryptoguru's argument, since we long ago recognized it as rubbish, provided the explanation of why it was rubbish, and had it resurrected as a pathetic zombie argument.
All Cryptoguru's premises have been wrong, but the argument is still just fine.
Riiiiiiii-ghghghghght.
I've already addressed the "level of complexity" issue, and that was irrelevant to the original challenge. If Cryptoguru wants to move on from the original challenge, that is easy: he can just admit that his original challenge was met and *then* propose another challenge.
I've also addressed the level of selection issue, and Cryptoguru remains mistaken on that point. Looking back...
Me:
| Quote |
Avida does not examine the genomic instruction sequence to recognize something. It examines the output from the IO instruction of the Avidian that indicates that it correctly performed a behavior, in the Lenski et al. 2003 paper the rewarded behaviors comprised a set of nine logic operations. An Avidian can internally compute every logic function around and receive exactly zero extra CPU cycles of merit if it fails to output the results to the environment via the IO instruction. I've already mentioned this before. The assertion that things are otherwise is a persistent misunderstanding on Cryptoguru's part.
Avida's award of merit for Avidian behaviors is analogous to biological organisms getting better/more nutrition, or greater movement efficiency, or better artifact construction (nest, hive, or tools) due to a favorable trait. There is really nothing to object to on this point, and this is no problem for the model.
As far as the final quoted sentence goes, some traits have to have relative benefits in order to simulate natural selection. This has to happen in the model since it happens in biology. This is not a problem for the model.
|
And, no, "the same logic" does not hold for Avida as for "weasel". It's pretty breathtakingly inane to think it would.
Cryptoguru seems to think that repetition somehow makes discredited claims better.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
