Talk:RoundTable - Revision history

Griz at 15:53, 24 December 2006

2006-12-24T15:53:35Z

Numsgil at 16:33, 26 October 2005

2005-10-26T16:33:32Z

Griz at 02:27, 26 October 2005

2005-10-26T02:27:35Z

Numsgil at 22:48, 25 October 2005

2005-10-25T22:48:27Z

Numsgil at 22:47, 25 October 2005

2005-10-25T22:47:25Z

Griz at 16:43, 25 October 2005

2005-10-25T16:43:43Z

66.91.141.218: Endy Talk bout RoundTable

2005-10-25T03:38:47Z

Endy Talk bout RoundTable

New page

Glad you liked the opening line :) I thought it'd be pretty funny to reference our titles at DB :)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 24 December 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~Glad you liked the opening line :) I thought it'd be pretty funny to reference our titles at DB :)~~

−	~~relagating this to the back room. ;)~~
−
−	~~:The bullet points are long term goals I am reaching towards. In the end I want to create a~~
−	~~:system when multicellular critters evolve from single celled animals. In looking~~
−	~~:at the Cambrian explosion, some key factors seemed to have developed all at once:~~
−
−	~~::arrgh! it is this sort of 'imposition' that i object to. attempts to replicate some idea~~
−	~~::that we entertain as to what life is or isn't ... rather than simply aid/allow the alife/evo~~
−	~~::sim to 'discover' what it will! now if we want to play god and create life in our own image ...~~
−	~~::fine ... but that's creationism, not evolution!~~
−	~~::this seems to me to be just another form of anthropomorphism ...~~
−	~~::which i think should be avoided if the goal is to produce an ALife/Evo sim ...~~
−	~~::rather than someting 'pretty' and some sort of game. {{User:Griz/sig}} 09:43, 25 Oct 2005 (MST)~~
−
−	~~:#Sexual Reproduction~~
−	~~:#Pooling of genetic resources into a nucleus and chromosomes (important for the above)~~
−	~~:#Some more I forget off the top of my head.~~
−	--
−
−	~~I think I undestand now.~~
−
−	~~::reading the below ... no .. i don't think so. ;)~~
−
−	It's important that we realize the specific bit of complexity I'm hoping to model. I think that's where alot of misunderstanding originates. I care rather little about the internals of cells. That's where I think you want to simulate complexity. That's perfectly fine! It's just not my goal.
−
−	~~::no. not at all!!!~~
−
−	My goal is to see complex ''behaviors'' develop. That is, interactions of the cell with other cells and the environment. Towards that end, I tend to just sort of give the bots ready made tools to interact with their own innards. I care less about ''how'' a cell divides than I do about ''why'' it decided to. I worry '''more''' about how a cell learns to use its poison than how it constructs it. You: he opposite.
−
−	~~::incorrect ... you could not be more wrong!!!~~
−
−	~~Not that we don't both recognize the merits of the other's position, just that we feel our own priorities are the more important/pressing/interesting.~~
−
−	~~::Num ... you can't recognize the merits of my positon because you haven't a clue as to what it is!!!~~
−	~~::this is quite unbelievable!!!~~
−
−	~~Tell me if I'm spot on.~~
−
−	~~::not at all!!! you so far off i am baffled as to how you could see it in this way.~~
−	~~::simply amazing. you have totally misunderstood. i may as well be speaking chinese.~~
−
−	I think what we're witnessing here is the developement of political parties within Darwinbots. Two seperate design philosophies that are bullying for programmer time to be implemented. I don't think they necessarily conflict, they just both take time, and time is a limited commodity. --[[User:Numsgil\|Numsgil]] 15:48, 25 Oct 2005 (MST)
−
−	~~::well Nms ... obviously you haven't heard a thing i've said ...~~
−	~~::missed my point completely. 180 degrees out.~~
−	~~::not only are you on some other page ...~~
−	~~::you've checked out a different book! ;)~~
−	~~::and i honestly don't know what to say.~~
−	~~::it's bizzare ... and beyond me.~~
−	~~::well. i have my theory on why that is but ...~~
−	~~::i don't think you have room for it in there with~~
−	~~::all the vast knowledge you have stashed away. ;)~~
−	~~::i can't even offer you a cup of tea ...~~
−	~~::as you cup is already filled and overflowing.~~
−	~~::all i can say is ...~~
−	~~::things may not be as you think they are.~~
−	~~::in fact ... odds are they aren't. ;) lol~~
−	~~::good luck. {{User:Griz/sig}}~~
−
−	~~:::Damn, and that all made such good sense to me. It'd be like if someone told you that you should learn wiki markup. "I thought I :::did" you say.~~
−	~~::: "Nope, not even close. Way off."~~
−	~~::: "Um, well, can you give me an example of what I need to work on?" you ask~~
−	~~::: "It's not just one thing, it's an overall philosophy"~~
−	~~::: Somewhat frustrating isn't it ;)~~
−
−	~~::: Let's start over. You're wanting me to impose nothing on the bots at all. You want to see them spring up from inorganic rules?~~
−	~~::: Is that it? Like in Avida, where self-replicating critters develop from simple commands? So only define abstract rules~~
−	~~::: of materials and then let life spring and work from that? If so, again, I say I am interested in the use of tools, not~~
−	~~::: their construction.~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 26 October 2005
Line 59:		Line 59:
	::in fact ... odds are they aren't. ;) lol		::in fact ... odds are they aren't. ;) lol
	::good luck. {{User:Griz/sig}}		::good luck. {{User:Griz/sig}}
		+
		+	:::Damn, and that all made such good sense to me. It'd be like if someone told you that you should learn wiki markup. "I thought I :::did" you say.
		+	::: "Nope, not even close. Way off."
		+	::: "Um, well, can you give me an example of what I need to work on?" you ask
		+	::: "It's not just one thing, it's an overall philosophy"
		+	::: Somewhat frustrating isn't it ;)
		+
		+	::: Let's start over. You're wanting me to impose nothing on the bots at all. You want to see them spring up from inorganic rules?
		+	::: Is that it? Like in Avida, where self-replicating critters develop from simple commands? So only define abstract rules
		+	::: of materials and then let life spring and work from that? If so, again, I say I am interested in the use of tools, not
		+	::: their construction.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 I think I undestand now.
 It's important that we realize the specific bit of complexity I'm hoping to model.  I think that's where alot of misunderstanding originates.  I care rather little about the internals of cells.  That's where I think you want to simulate complexity.  That's perfectly fine!  It's just not my goal.
-My goal is to see complex ''behaviors'' develop.  That is, interactions of the cell with other cells and the environment.  Towards that end, I tend to just sort of give the bots ready made tools to interact with their own innards.  I care less about ''how'' a cell divides than I do about ''why'' it decided to.  I worry '''more''' about how a cell learns to use its poison than how it constructs it.  You: he opposite.  Not that we don't both recognize the merits of the other's position, just that we feel our own priorities are the more important/pressing/interesting.
+::no. not at all!!!
-Tell me if I'm spot on.  I think what we're witnessing here is the developement of political parties within Darwinbots.  Two seperate design philosophies that are bullying for programmer time to be implemented.  I don't think they necessarily conflict, they just both take time, and time is a limited commodity.  --[[User:Numsgil|Numsgil]] 15:48, 25 Oct 2005 (MST)
+::well Nms ... obviously you haven't heard a thing i've said ...

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 --
-I think it's important that we realize the specific bit of complexity I'm hoping to model.  I think that's where alot of misunderstanding originates.  I care rather little about the internals of cells.  That's where I think you want to simulate complexity.  That's perfectly fine!  It's just not my goal.
+I think I undestand now.
-My goal is to see complex ''behaviors'' develop.  That is, interactions of the cell with other cells and the environment.  Towards that end, I tend to just sort of give the bots ready made tools to interact with their own innards.  I care less about ''how'' a cell divides than I do about ''why'' it decided to.  I worry more about how a cell learns to use its poison than how it constructs it.  You: he opposite.  Not that we don't both recognize the merits of the other's position, just that we feel our own priorities are the more important/pressing/interesting.
+It's important that we realize the specific bit of complexity I'm hoping to model.  I think that's where alot of misunderstanding originates.  I care rather little about the internals of cells.  That's where I think you want to simulate complexity.  That's perfectly fine!  It's just not my goal.
-Tell me if I'm spot on.  I think what we're witnessing here is the developement of political parties within Darwinbots.  Two seperate design philosophies that are bullying for programmer time to be implemented.  I don't think they necessarily conflict, they just both take time, and time is a limited commodity.
+My goal is to see complex ''behaviors'' develop.  That is, interactions of the cell with other cells and the environment.  Towards that end, I tend to just sort of give the bots ready made tools to interact with their own innards.  I care less about ''how'' a cell divides than I do about ''why'' it decided to.  I worry '''more''' about how a cell learns to use its poison than how it constructs it.  You: he opposite.  Not that we don't both recognize the merits of the other's position, just that we feel our own priorities are the more important/pressing/interesting.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 25 October 2005
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:#Pooling of genetic resources into a nucleus and chromosomes (important for the above)		:#Pooling of genetic resources into a nucleus and chromosomes (important for the above)
	:#Some more I forget off the top of my head.		:#Some more I forget off the top of my head.
		+	--
		+
		+	I think it's important that we realize the specific bit of complexity I'm hoping to model. I think that's where alot of misunderstanding originates. I care rather little about the internals of cells. That's where I think you want to simulate complexity. That's perfectly fine! It's just not my goal.
		+
		+	My goal is to see complex ''behaviors'' develop. That is, interactions of the cell with other cells and the environment. Towards that end, I tend to just sort of give the bots ready made tools to interact with their own innards. I care less about ''how'' a cell divides than I do about ''why'' it decided to. I worry more about how a cell learns to use its poison than how it constructs it. You: he opposite. Not that we don't both recognize the merits of the other's position, just that we feel our own priorities are the more important/pressing/interesting.
		+
		+	Tell me if I'm spot on. I think what we're witnessing here is the developement of political parties within Darwinbots. Two seperate design philosophies that are bullying for programmer time to be implemented. I don't think they necessarily conflict, they just both take time, and time is a limited commodity.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 25 October 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Glad you liked the opening line :) I thought it'd be pretty funny to reference our titles at DB :)		Glad you liked the opening line :) I thought it'd be pretty funny to reference our titles at DB :)
		+
		+	relagating this to the back room. ;)
		+
		+	:The bullet points are long term goals I am reaching towards. In the end I want to create a
		+	:system when multicellular critters evolve from single celled animals. In looking
		+	:at the Cambrian explosion, some key factors seemed to have developed all at once:
		+
		+	::arrgh! it is this sort of 'imposition' that i object to. attempts to replicate some idea
		+	::that we entertain as to what life is or isn't ... rather than simply aid/allow the alife/evo
		+	::sim to 'discover' what it will! now if we want to play god and create life in our own image ...
		+	::fine ... but that's creationism, not evolution!
		+	::this seems to me to be just another form of anthropomorphism ...
		+	::which i think should be avoided if the goal is to produce an ALife/Evo sim ...
		+	::rather than someting 'pretty' and some sort of game. {{User:Griz/sig}} 09:43, 25 Oct 2005 (MST)
		+
		+	:#Sexual Reproduction
		+	:#Pooling of genetic resources into a nucleus and chromosomes (important for the above)
		+	:#Some more I forget off the top of my head.