|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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. --[[User:Numsgil|Numsgil]] 15:48, 25 Oct 2005 (MST)
| |
