4 ms·

> Have you worked much with evolutionary algorithms? Not really, like I said, there's usually better algorithms than genetic algorithms. They're fun to play ar

> Have you worked much with evolutionary algorithms? Not really, like I said, there's usually better algorithms than genetic algorithms. They're fun to play around with, though. > It also seems you think that evolutionary algorithms are somehow analogous to biological evolution. To what degree do you think that is true? The general principle - selection and random mutation - is the same.

yters 7y ago
What gives you so much confidence in GAs? Also, I am surprised you've followed this discussion for so long. Most people fire off some canned phrases and then disappear.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > What gives you so much confidence in GAs? Do I sound confident about them? I've said multiple times that they usually aren't very good and that usually you have a better algorithm. Usually, you can apply intelligent design. The fundamental difference between us is probably that you'd look at life in nature and say something like: "This species is so remarkable, it must've been designed!". I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. It's only remarkable if it emerged naturally. If it was designed, then I would have to point out all sorts of obvious flaws in the design.
  - yters 7y ago
    I haven't said anything about design. You are making assumptions. I said Darwinism appears to be completely useless when it comes to practical application, and has been replaced by other mechanisms that are identified in the biological data. In this new thread I said there is a conservation of information law that the book authors apply to artificial life simulations. I am talking about what we know through mathematics and quantitative empirical analysis. Regarding GAs, the conservation of information applies to how much information we can expect from a single random sample. If we can sample from the entire space of possible solutions, then there is a chance of sampling the optimal solution. The conservation of information applies to the necessary input to the algorithm in order to bring the chance to a certain level.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > I haven't said anything about design. You are making assumptions. Of course I am, just like you assume "materialism" on my part. I have trouble believing that you're not an ID proponent, even though you're not upfront about it. Otherwise, why bring up books by people with a clear ID agenda? I'm honestly not sure what your goal is here, anyway. You rarely address any questions that I ask. Making assumptions is all I can do. > I said Darwinism appears to be completely useless when it comes to practical application, and has been replaced by other mechanisms that are identified in the biological data. You actually called Darwinism "quackery" and said that it is "dead". This is the least strong version of your position so far. I don't disagree that Darwinism, in the sense that it describes the origin of species, has no direct practical applications. Nobody is in the business of simulating entire ecosystems for thousands or even millions of years. Using that fact as some sort of criticism of the theory itself seems rather hamfisted. > Regarding GAs, the conservation of information applies to how much information we can expect from a single random sample. If we can sample from the entire space of possible solutions, then there is a chance of sampling the optimal solution. Fair enough, but GAs are awful for finding the optimal solution. However, nature doesn't require the optimal solution. It just looks for the next best thing, over and over. GAs tend to converge to some level of fitness and stay there. In fact, it's likely that a random algorithm outperforms those GAs that can get stuck in local maxima. Again, this has no bearing on nature. Nature is fine with local maxima.
      - yters 7y ago
        My goal is to discuss the topic of the thread. In this thread the book I mentioned, which is just about artificial life simulations, not biological evolution. I think it will confuse the discussion to try and bring in biological evolution and intelligent design. I've researched GAs and information theory to a fair extent, and am happy to answer questions and discuss on that topic.
        gridlockd 7y ago
        > I think it will confuse the discussion to try and bring in biological evolution and intelligent design. Fair enough, I was looking to continue where we left off in the other thread. > I think it will confuse the discussion to try and bring in biological evolution and intelligent design. I've researched GAs and information theory to a fair extent, and am happy to answer questions and discuss on that topic. Again, that's fair enough. However, if we're leaving out biological evolution, I don't think there's much of an argument to be had.

yters 7y ago

What gives you so much confidence in GAs? Also, I am surprised you've followed this discussion for so long. Most people fire off some canned phrases and then disappear.

gridlockd 7y ago
> What gives you so much confidence in GAs? Do I sound confident about them? I've said multiple times that they usually aren't very good and that usually you have a better algorithm. Usually, you can apply intelligent design. The fundamental difference between us is probably that you'd look at life in nature and say something like: "This species is so remarkable, it must've been designed!". I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. It's only remarkable if it emerged naturally. If it was designed, then I would have to point out all sorts of obvious flaws in the design.
- yters 7y ago
  I haven't said anything about design. You are making assumptions. I said Darwinism appears to be completely useless when it comes to practical application, and has been replaced by other mechanisms that are identified in the biological data. In this new thread I said there is a conservation of information law that the book authors apply to artificial life simulations. I am talking about what we know through mathematics and quantitative empirical analysis. Regarding GAs, the conservation of information applies to how much information we can expect from a single random sample. If we can sample from the entire space of possible solutions, then there is a chance of sampling the optimal solution. The conservation of information applies to the necessary input to the algorithm in order to bring the chance to a certain level.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > I haven't said anything about design. You are making assumptions. Of course I am, just like you assume "materialism" on my part. I have trouble believing that you're not an ID proponent, even though you're not upfront about it. Otherwise, why bring up books by people with a clear ID agenda? I'm honestly not sure what your goal is here, anyway. You rarely address any questions that I ask. Making assumptions is all I can do. > I said Darwinism appears to be completely useless when it comes to practical application, and has been replaced by other mechanisms that are identified in the biological data. You actually called Darwinism "quackery" and said that it is "dead". This is the least strong version of your position so far. I don't disagree that Darwinism, in the sense that it describes the origin of species, has no direct practical applications. Nobody is in the business of simulating entire ecosystems for thousands or even millions of years. Using that fact as some sort of criticism of the theory itself seems rather hamfisted. > Regarding GAs, the conservation of information applies to how much information we can expect from a single random sample. If we can sample from the entire space of possible solutions, then there is a chance of sampling the optimal solution. Fair enough, but GAs are awful for finding the optimal solution. However, nature doesn't require the optimal solution. It just looks for the next best thing, over and over. GAs tend to converge to some level of fitness and stay there. In fact, it's likely that a random algorithm outperforms those GAs that can get stuck in local maxima. Again, this has no bearing on nature. Nature is fine with local maxima.
    - yters 7y ago
      My goal is to discuss the topic of the thread. In this thread the book I mentioned, which is just about artificial life simulations, not biological evolution. I think it will confuse the discussion to try and bring in biological evolution and intelligent design. I've researched GAs and information theory to a fair extent, and am happy to answer questions and discuss on that topic.
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        > I think it will confuse the discussion to try and bring in biological evolution and intelligent design. Fair enough, I was looking to continue where we left off in the other thread. > I think it will confuse the discussion to try and bring in biological evolution and intelligent design. I've researched GAs and information theory to a fair extent, and am happy to answer questions and discuss on that topic. Again, that's fair enough. However, if we're leaving out biological evolution, I don't think there's much of an argument to be had.