GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (Nomad @ April 16 2014,06:43) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 15 2014,14:22) | |
| Quote | | As far as the theory and I are concerned Avida and such are antiquated by models that have to include Grid, Place, Border and Time cells and do well in a shock zone arena test for rat level navigational intelligence. It's nothing personal just science advancing past GA models, in part from what I'm now explaining and must get back to work on. |
The thing I still don't get is that something like Avida is used specifically to investigate evolutionary processes. As such it models reproduction, random mutation, and selection. You think you have a superior program, but you don't even begin to model any of that.
How is your bug even relevant? It's not past Avida, it can't investigate anything that Avida can be used for.
As to it being superior to other GA models, you're just delusional there. GAs solve real world problems. They're being used commercially now. That's the thing, with all your obsession over intelligence we're using a program with no intelligence at all to solve problems better than our human intelligence can.
Your virtual bug that you claim possesses either real or artificial intelligence (you waffle on that point) is stuck fapping with virtual food and virtual shock zones and will never be able to do anything else. |
It is unrealistic to expect models of extremely puzzling cellular and molecular systems that are still not even understood yet. But as I said before: What we do know about how neural brains helps understand the other levels of intelligence that are to be modeled.
Genetic Algorithm systems allow pattern generator locomotion (not intelligent brain) and other oversimplifications like being able to “select” certain features in order to fudge a random variation towards one thing or another. In a human example someone who does not like brown M&M's ends up with brown ones to get rid of. Someone else who does not like the blue ones has those to trade with them for their brown ones. But so what? You can make the logically simple process look as sophisticated as you want but it's still child level logic being hyped like an explain-all, where all M&M's end up “selected out” via intelligences willfully “trading” them with each other for their mutual benefit.
Intelligence Algorithm systems have no “natural selection” crutch, once started they intelligently go where where they want go. What goes on inside the nucleus of our cells (molecular intelligence level) is easily as complex as our brains, and with less known about how they work than it may seem from reading the science news. Knowing the DNA “code” (contents of its RAM memory) only helps show the (as per theory) “Addressable Memory” requirement has been met by the molecular system that produces the cell around it that use protein network RAM (not DNA strands) to produce cellular intelligence (though not all cells are expected to be intelligent at that level). The way any amount of intelligence sends the algorithm into behavior no (also modeled as per David Heiserman as Alpa class) random behavior system can ever achieve takes away the big-fuzzy as to what “intelligence” is and is not, it's something easily detectable by no longer being a flat-line when charted as shown in the IDLab. Once that controlling force gets started it's quickly off learning how to increasingly control its environment, where proofreading and other strategies to as much as possible control the integrity of its DNA coding is expected, so that it is not a random process more expected to invite random scrambling of its DNA-RAM and not need it (otherwise never changes at all due to no intelligence in the system that causes most changes to happen). The only time a random generator is used is to take a required “Guess” where at the DNA level that happens during immune cell hypermutation that makes controlled changes to molecular level RAM, from among the available choices, not a purposeless random scrambling. Whether the system is intelligent or not does not even matter, it's something determined by putting it in an IA model that makes it obvious by whether all requirements are met.
All in biology only makes sense in the light of the modeling method I have long used (and more recently used for fast and easy modeling of unintelligent grid, place, border and time cell network behavior) that in turn makes sense of the premise of the theory the Discovery Institute promotes as a challenge for all, as I similarly did from Planet Source Code as a programming challenge that comes from the IDLab model. All that is possible within bounds of science makes the controversy go away, by having come of age to serve a useful purpose, for a change, from the Dover days when almost everything was left up to the imagination and with no model to show a “mechanism” that Judge Jones needed to see too. I was thankful Wesley and all showed that there was essentially no theory there, but had to change my mind as to the usefulness of the theory in science after discovering the great use for it, which in turn helped explain why it's so luring. There actually is something important missing from EA/GA models that routinely leave intelligence out of the equation. Conclusions pertaining to intelligence that are based on them deserve protest, as is now happening at the ID journal dissing Avida gnawing at the hard to word weaknesses in Darwinian theory based models. I hope them success, in something they only scratched the surface of (the other side had an itch at) that only goes way deeper into science from there. Showing more requires an ID model that scientists of the world prefer over GA models with the “natural selection” variable mucking them up in a way that already dooms them from that alone. Darwinian extremists need to end up pointing at what the ID paradigm can in the future model while chanting “natural selection” wherever the generalization applies, even though fancy words for what on its own happens anyway does not change what is happening in the virtual world. Without a model to show what else is wrong with Darwinian models there is nothing to compare to.
Although the premise of the theory of ID does not require ending up being faith friendly (as per Creation Science where staying in step with Genesis is vital) it's a good thing that it turned out evidencing holy Trinity and chromosomal speciation Adam and Eve moment after starting off with wording from scripture making most sense to explain in scientific context, to those taught to think that way too. Through childhood I was Methodist trained to be a religious leader, for those who do not want to be leaders they only want to be followers of something there on Sunday (or whenever) worth their believing in. I was in the Sunday School class for the leader types who helped perform the service including choir (even did a solo I think when very young but barely remember it). I was one of the “church rats” that would scurry around the place when all else are gone with the place to our own. I understand the religious mission part of it even though science must be first or I fail my scientific mission to make sense of big questions like why there are leaders and followers of what is called religion including the Theory of Intelligent Design that later came around to stir us all up real good.
Where I need to be to achieve the Wedge Strategy is where the science sinners are who are making science dreadful for others where some are church goes, but since I was glad to not HAVE to go to Sunday School or church after “graduating” my congregation gathers in this electronic forum where I at least give you a respectable reason for not regularly attending more formal services either. What is important is that you use your need to be one of religions leaders wisely, even though you do not much notice being that way when just complaining about religion like its something that science can make go away. I need to show you that the branch only supported by GA's are not as safe as they look from your perspective, or you just get hurt from it being a good place to be to begin with, for scientific reasons. I understand what the Wedge Strategy is against, but what is real about that is is a scientific problem that is only solved by a scientific theory that makes sense of what the Discovery Institute has been talking about that you are powerless against. But thankfully its having to be real science makes it expected that you don't end up having to hate it, you only have to accept the new theory the scientific novelty that it already is, by understanding what is very much different about it that makes this modeling method what comes after the GA's are no longer novel like they once were while the ID movement work on ways to explain their reasons for finding them scientifically boring. In this case the ”A Change Would Do You Good” and you can say you helped tease it to life, be glad for that. We all otherwise end up forever fighting over models that can be beat, and by the very thing the ID movement is describing being possible, by arguing using irreducible complexity arguments that do not work on you anyway. The change will do the ID movement as much good, as it will for you, by what it adds to what is already there to help make sense of why there is such a controversy over a Theory of Intelligent Design that premises a theory to explain “intelligent cause” that helps make Sunday School less boring for future generations who find themselves having to go but later not regret having been forced to attend, which did help get me out in the greater social world including Cub then Boy scouts and “out of my parents hair” for at least a couple or so hours a week. I was a handful, not in all a bad way of course, so in hindsight I say they deserved the break.
I have nothing against the mainstream religion that I experienced, even though it was for me scientifically boring from all it left out in detail regarding our creation. How there could be a Trinity was unknown. But being able to connect three levels to literally everlasting source of consciousness (in physics not biology) that does not need to be intelligent to exist makes it real easy to conceptualize such a thing being true. I have no idea how such a thing could have been known, cannot rule out it having been intuitive insight from maybe millions of years of wondering how many levels of intelligence it takes to produce us, where without theory and model that shows how that's possible has to be taken on faith. It is for me even more sacred knowledge now that it's possible to put such a concept in scientific context you can also understand and experiment with. You just have to be willing to not be satisfied with Avida and all else you once thought were forever, in which case can easily admit they are limited instead of worrying about having to defend them from dissing that in time leads to theory that shows why it's true in other ways that get you in the end anyhow. It's not worth fighting. You are otherwise a proverbial sinner, against something that you cannot win against, in part of the real science that helps show why I for good reason find GA's a big yawn that must be antiquated by what the Theory of Intelligent Design premises, or we all stay forever lost, in science...
--------------
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.
|
