Code center > Suggestions
Emergent Systems
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---I am thinking of analogies in biology. And I'm starting to think DNA is not the best way of describing bot script any more. 'Neural pathways' seem to be much more accurate, since sensory inputs or prompts are linked to some sort of output.
--- End quote ---
I was thinking that too.
The present DB DNA is more like a behavioural program than true DNA. It is more what the bot is thinking than what is going on in the real metabolic pathways. There is some crossover though.
Maybe we should have two parallel programs, one for behaviour (the brain) and the other for metabolism and stuff.
--- End quote ---
Third the motion. The DNA is strictly as it now stands behavioral. Phsyiological effects should be a seperate but related idea, in a seperate but related part of the organism file.
That's sort of along the same lines as the bit string for enzymes we were talking about way back when. But broadened.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---Well all the movement actions can be grouped together for similarity. In fact as far as I can tell you can group all the functions together because they are based on simple interactions. Move (substance), eject, reproduce, etc
--- End quote ---
The sysvars are sort of a mess, but yes, that's the basic idea. The problem is that some groups are quite self evident. All moving things go together.
There are other sysvars that lend themself less well to a single group. They could belong in one large group or another equally well, or belong in no group and are really alone.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---ahha!. got ya. I see now your 'more is less'.
providing a great deal to choose from ...
but allowing the 'choosing' to be a result of behavior that
works plus mutations.
...
perhaps that is how it already works, don't know.
or perhaps this is completely off the wall. don't know that either. ;)
--- End quote ---
I could be grasping at straws here, but is it possible the program works more in the way you want than you think it does?
Griz:
--- Quote ---I could be grasping at straws here, but is it possible the program works more in the way you want than you think it does?
--- End quote ---
possibly. ;)
if it's still going to be about evolving behavior and not a combat robot sim ...
or attempting to emulate human behavior or relativity and who knows what ...
which imo distracts and complicates what we should be working towards.
so the priority hasn't changed in my mind ...
to first and foremost get a stable version that works ...
that users can ustilize to explore evolving bots ...
without having to be programming experts ...
although that to me, is also of interest.
but to explore even that part of it ...
I first need a platform that works ...
before I can play with it and tweak/recal/expand.
if I had that ...
that's what I'd be doing instead of being here busting your and PY's chops. ;)
good way to keep Ole Griz from ravaging your camp ...
is to distract him by giving him something better to do.
throw me the fish of a 2.37.4 that works as advertised ...
and I'll be happy as a bear in the woods ...
or as some swedes might say ... "a gris in shit" ;)
Numsgil:
2.4 is actually shaping up on my computer to be rather stable and (surprise, surprise) rather backwards compatible. Well, with everything but sexrepro, most Multlbots, and some otehr various relatively minor features...
Just a plug ;)
Don't forget that just because users can make their own bots, it doesn't mean that evolution can't.
Speaking of which, evolution has a very sloppy coding style. ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version