Code center > Specialization, Metabolism, Digestions and Env Grid
Numsgil's Super Cool Specialization System
shvarz:
Makes sense to me BUT!
--- Quote ---Firstly, specialization in feeding needs to be defined at birth and only by evolutions.
--- End quote ---
... is incorrect. Nature is full of proof. We ourselves are proof that it is incorrect. We, humans, ourselves are a proof that it is incorrect. If you, PY, right now will switch your diet to pig fat and vodka, then a month or so later you will be much better than me in absorbing that. You will become "specialized" in that food. Your whole body will respond to this diet and adjust accordingly. We humans are omnivores, so we carry genes for a whole lot of different kinds of food. That is because our survival dependent on being able to eat different crap. The downpoint for that is that our genomes are so huge and some of these genes are bound to get messed up in some individuals (I.e. the alcohol-intolerance or lactose-intolerance mutations). Also, we spend a lot of energy to upkeep all these systems.
Other organisms do not have this ability, not because they chose to do so. Say a bacteria has a gene to utilize glucose. If it does not ever see glucose (because it lives near underwater volcano), then mutations in glucose-maintaining genes will not matter and eventually glucose-utilizing gene will be completely messed up. It is not because it distributed "points" to something else. It is a matter of evolution.
Numsgil:
I think what PY is getting at is that if you do not have an appropriate enzyme that you can make to digest a substance, you shouldn't be able to magically come up with it.
But if you have the blueprint for it somewhere in your list of enzymes, then you should be able to digest it.
An analogy:
Imagine the stomach is a hotel. Each room is for different substances.
First a carb comes in.
"Ah yes, Mr. Carb. Good to see you again. Room 315, here's your key."
A new substance comes in. "I have reservations," it says.
"Name?" asks the receptonist.
"Fat."
"Ah Fat, yes, we've been expecting you. Your room isn't ready yet. Can you come back in a few hours?"
Now, imagine something new coming in.
"Name?" asks the receptionist.
"Silicate based shell." responds the substance.
"I'm sorry, Messieur. Do you have a reservation? I'll have to ask you to leave."
You get the idea I think.
Botsareus:
--- Quote ---QUOTE
Firstly, specialization in feeding needs to be defined at birth and only by evolutions.
... is incorrect. Nature is full of proof. We ourselves are proof that it is incorrect. We, humans, ourselves are a proof that it is incorrect. If you, PY, right now will switch your diet to pig fat and vodka, then a month or so later you will be much better than me in absorbing that. You will become "specialized" in that food. Your whole body will respond to this diet and adjust accordingly. We humans are omnivores, so we carry genes for a whole lot of different kinds of food. That is because our survival dependent on being able to eat different crap. The downpoint for that is that our genomes are so huge and some of these genes are bound to get messed up in some individuals (I.e. the alcohol-intolerance or lactose-intolerance mutations). Also, we spend a lot of energy to upkeep all these systems.
--- End quote ---
That why I used to argue with you before Shvartz, I dont see how the quote and the information in your paragraph contradict!
--- Quote ---Other organisms do not have this ability, not because they chose to do so. Say a bacteria has a gene to utilize glucose. If it does not ever see glucose (because it lives near underwater volcano), then mutations in glucose-maintaining genes will not matter and eventually glucose-utilizing gene will be completely messed up. It is not because it distributed "points" to something else. It is a matter of evolution.
--- End quote ---
That stuff in the paragraph can work using any method, as long as evolution is enabled for that stuff. If the "Enzimes" change or the "Genes" change wont make a difference.
shvarz:
Well, yeah. My point exactly B)
Jasper:
In my humble outsider opinion (only been making bots for a week), I would suggest being able to specialise at any time. (at pretty high cost and some time) It it probably much simpler to write then having to specify all the specialisations when .repro storing, perhaps with starting default specialisations the same as parent. Or are you suggesting not being able to change specialisations at any time? Wouldnt multibots be unable to have specialised parts then, unless already consisting of a bunch of cells, missing the whole point of specialisations?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version