Difference between revisions of "Talk:RoundTable"
m |
|||
| 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. | ||
Revision as of 18:47, 25 October 2005
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. Griztalk 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 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.
