|
|
| 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.
| |
