Talk:RoundTable

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. Griz^talk 09:43, 25 Oct 2005 (MST)

1. Sexual Reproduction
2. Pooling of genetic resources into a nucleus and chromosomes (important for the above)
3. 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. --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. Griz^talk

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.