Darwinbots Forum
Code center => Suggestions => Topic started by: Numsgil on October 25, 2005, 04:40:39 PM
-
Since 2.4 has more dynamic sizes, I think a limited form of phagocytosis (that is, larger cells ingesting smaller cells) is feasible.
I just don't know what sorts of rules should govern it. Eating a veg whole is in many ways obviously better than eating it bit by bit over many cycles.
Maybe eating it all at once like that gives you heart burn... Or indigestion... or :puke:
-
You just can't leave it alone can you?
Every opportunity you just have to put it in. :rolleyes:
-
Yeah, I'm shameless. Consider it a character flaw.
-
Yeah, I'm shameless. Consider it a character flaw.
oh.
I just thought you puked a lot. ;)
-
I actually was thinking along the same lines. How about DNA command for forming a "mouth" on one of the four sides? You mentioned before about the possibility of distributing shell differentially to front, sides and back. How about allowing "mouth" to form on one of the sides as well. The limits would be that you can't form mouth where a lot of shell is and you can't shoot particles from that direction.
-
That sounds reasonable.
Should a cell being ingested be able to fight back? Maybe cells so eaten are only slowly digested (lose nrg and body). In the mean time, if it's alive, it can fire shots at you (and would be hard pressed to miss I imagine) tie to you, etc.
That would encourage bots to kill its prey then eat the corpse.
-
And along much the same lines, endosymbiosis (bots learning to live and survive inside a larger bot) follows along the same lines.
Of course, the eating cell would have to decide not to eat what's in it's stomach.
-
And along much the same lines, endosymbiosis (bots learning to live and survive inside a larger bot) follows along the same lines.
Of course, the eating cell would have to decide not to eat what's in it's stomach.
That would give a new dimension to MB's, I think. I love it! ^_^
-
Oh dear God this will complicate things so much.
Maybe a bot in another bot's stomach can resist digestion by having more body points? Maybe it can shoot its way out? Doesn't seem right to me though. Surely when a cell engulfs another cell its bye bye for good? Unless a new defense is introduced for bots...
Symbiosis/parasitism?! Awesome idea. Going to take a lot of thinking through though...
-
Unless a new defense is introduced for bots...
And new and artificial rules! DB will be so complicate in the end, that it will be impossible for a human mind to grasp an entire bot (which is both good and bad depende on who you ask, not much fun in evolving a bot and then you can't decipher what is does., but still interesting.)
I think if we add this, the shoot cabability should be removed! It is very artificial, and I think we can come up with something more in line with reality or what?
-
I totally agree (sort of). Hehe.
Shooting is artificial if we think of it as bots firing projectiles at other bots but makes some sense perhaps if we instead imagine them as streams of enzyme-like substances being ejected.
I also agree that adding a new defense will be artificial; instead the current features should be adapted to suit. Slime currently resists the entry of viruses; could it maybe be expanded to prevent/deter bots from eating their target?
-
No more rules! Let the bot them self find out...
(HINT: We find a way so the bots them self can find out, without introducing new artificial rules)
What I mean is DB already has 100's of rules.
This is want Griz is against.
Please think about... (THINK THINK THINK) Every time we add a new feature to DB, we add 1 rule, and 10 other rules so the new rule can cope with the older rules... Please lets think about this. I think DB needs a major overhaul some places. Lets start to make an enviroment the bots can live in. With substances, maybe only a few to start with, and the we can expand this later on, to see if we really what it in this way and then -> we get better simulations.
-
You have to introduce rules at some point. As [PY] said before you can't just have a complex system emerge from a totally lawless (as in without rules) system. I agree that the fewer laws you impose the more interesting and unpredictable the resulting system can be but you still need rules to start with.
-
Shooting is artificial if we think of it as bots firing projectiles at other bots but makes some sense perhaps if we instead imagine them as streams of enzyme-like substances being ejected.
Good point, I have never thought about it that way.
also agree that adding a new defense will be artificial; instead the current features should be adapted to suit. Slime currently resists the entry of viruses; could it maybe be expanded to prevent/deter bots from eating their target?
Precise, the breaking of older bots, can be the result, but then again, DB is evolving to, and can not continue to keep its junk code forever, now we need a new generation of bots!
You have to introduce rules at some point. As [PY] said before you can't just have a complex system emerge from a totally lawless (as in without rules) system. I agree that the fewer laws you impose the more interesting and unpredictable the resulting system can be but you still need rules to start with.
No that is logic, something can not emerge from nothing! No genesis!, and I did not say I were against rules, just that we have to many rules of a sort. But chaos theory say that complex system's emerge from simple rules. Like Conway's Game of Life, 3 very simple rules, have giving rise to AND-GATES, NOT- and OR-gates, from rules, which have nothing to do with LOGIC! Even a sort of replicating patterns, which can make a sort of reproducing (I mean multiply, become more,
1->2->4->8 etc)
Look that is emergent behavior that screams to heaven! Chaos theory is roughly about study complex systems and find the underlying [span style=\'font-size:21pt;line-height:100%\'](simple)[/span] rules.
-
Well I think it's just to make it easier to understand for people. If you have too few rules then the resulting behaviour that emerges is unpredictable, and it's harder to get the environment with the rules you want. Adding artificial rules gives restrictions on the behaviour that can emerge.
-
More to the point if you have too few rules, all you can ever get is complex patterns and not behaviours.
Conways game of life is a perfect example of this.
Sure the living cells make lovely complex patterns but they never actually do anything.
How many rules do you think were needed for real life to form? Think about it.
-
The Univeral Theory of Everything...
;)
All life on the earth (and in the univers of that matter) comes from the "simple" interactions of the atoms -> quarks and 4 "simple" natural laws, (plus a little here and there) and the you get human beings!!! Remember to add a little stupidity and the you have the perfect human... :lol:
-
OK then... you program a computer with those four forces and simple interactions and see if it can build organisms out of them. A quantum computer then yes. Common pc's, certainly not.
-
The Univeral Theory of Everything...
;)
All life on the earth (and in the univers of that matter) comes from the "simple" interactions of the atoms -> quarks and 4 "simple" natural laws, (plus a little here and there) and the you get human beings!!! Remember to add a little stupidity and the you have the perfect human... :lol:
Holy crap. :wacko:
He thinks atomic interactions are simple :blink:
They might look simple to the layman but when you start to study what really goes on, the shear complexity of it all will blow you away.
Atomic physics make regular Newtonian interactions look like Kindergarten math.
-
Easy. It was just an answer to PY about how many rules a real world simulation would have. Certainly it will be impossible to run, but no impossible to design in theory.
-
PY maybe you are a chemist, by behind chemistry is physics doing all the work! What I say is that all the possible interactions are govern from the "simple" physcial laws, that is emergent! The interactions comes from the 4 laws, added together with quantum mechanics etc.
-
As I said in another thread, you would need a simplified, stylized approximation of the real (or artificial) world laws.
Then you need a system where your creatures can interact with it.
-
PY maybe you are a chemist, by behind chemistry is physics doing all the work! What I say is that all the possible interactions are govern from the "simple" physcial laws, that is emergent! The interactions comes from the 4 laws, added together with quantum mechanics etc.
I am also a nuclear physicist (in training)
I have yet to see any simple physical laws.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Would you care to explain what your four simple laws are?
-
Gravity, EM, Weak and Strong forces?
-
My laws in Denmark are ;) :
The gravity
The strong nucleus force
The weak nucleus force
Cant remeber the last one...
Well they are not simple to the human mind, but computational they are simple (sort of).
-
Gravity, EM, Weak and Strong forces?
Not to pick fault too much but you have just listed some of the least understood areas of physics.
Gravity: Nobody knows what it is, how it is propegated or really anything about it except that it attracts things together. Simple? hardly
Weak and strong forces: These are nothing more than postulated forces that are required in some way to explain some of the interactions of sub-atomic particles. The foreces themselves have never been directly detected or measured in any way. Many modern physicists question that there is any such thing. There is a growing trend in modern physics to treat these as outmoded pseudo science like the philosopher's stone.
EM: Don't know much about that.
Good luck using these simple rules to make a sim. :D
-
I must say I don't think these are simple ways to make a sim.. I was just mentioning them 'cos Greven forgot one...
:)
-
Hehehe.
I know. I'm just messing too.
I also have to allow for the fact that I am privvy to a lot of scientific research that has yet to filter down to the public at large.
I just find it kind of amusing that obviously inteligent people like you and Greven are still using stuff like weak and strong forces where in my circles it is a little like attempting to convince an astronaut that the world is flat.
I guess they still teach the stuff in school don't they?
They taught me that electrons existed as shells around atoms when I was at school. Then when I got to college, the first day of lectures we were told to forget everything we had ever learned and start over.
Education is weird.
-
I was going to say gravity, electroweak and strong but wasn't sure if that was acceptable :)
-
I guess they still teach the stuff in school don't they?
Yes they do! Phycis in Denmark are not very well teached, jumping over large gaps of importent things, making the student only know a bit here and there.
But I have long since abandone that kind. Know only computer science (incl. math) counts for me!
-
Know only computer science (incl. math) counts for me!
That's the spirit!
Start delving into physics and you soon realize that you are in a bottomless pit that gets exponentially wider and more complex, the deeper you go.
The whole concept of simple basic rules of the universe is laughable.
What you have to settle for are simple abstractions that describe most of the universe.
Newtonian Physics fits that profile nicely.
-
Well in a couple of decades (century...?) maybe the computers will found about how the univers is built!
-
More to the point if you have too few rules, all you can ever get is complex patterns and not behaviours.
Conways game of life is a perfect example of this.
Sure the living cells make lovely complex patterns but they never actually do anything.
of course they don't DO anything ...
they have no input to the rules ...
the rules are all imposed upon them!
it isn't ALife nor should it ever be consider to be.
(I did at one time write a variation that allowed them to do so ...
and also imposed an age limit ... which was very interesting.
but lost all of those progs ... there are still some possibilities there.)
How many rules do you think were needed for real life to form? Think about it.
<semi-rant>
only the universal laws of physics.
no more.
here on earth ...
the condidtions/resources/environment ...
just happened to be conditions that gave the seeds planted an opportunity.
that life emerged and evolved into myriad forms is a result of a SYSTEM
in which the organisms were able to alter the very environment that they
were a part of ... and the environment reciprocating by applying pressure
on the organisms ... ie ... survival of the fittest.
they work together to do this ... can't have one without the other.
the environment undergoes change and evolves as well.
it has to ... or you end up with a stagnant pond.
this is what evolution is about ...
the basic 'rules' were never altered and cannot be altered ...
that's the physics ...
only the conditions of the environment and the organisms that are a part of it.
and it is up to THEM to do so.
or not.
there is no such thing as a failure in nature.
that an organism does not continue, but ends ...
is no less a part of evolution than are those who do continue.
our function ...
should be limited to providing the initial conditions ... the resources ...
and 'basic' bots with the ability to sense/ingest/take advantage of ...
those resources.
now I understand we can't wait billions of years to see some form of
'order' to arise. so we must also provide some 'basic' skills ...
or at least give them access to such skills ...
ie ... some way to fight (OR cooperate) with other forms.
fine. you have 'shots' which seem like they can do either ...
kill or share. and ties. fine.
but please people ...
let's not get into imposing exotic behaviors on them ...
or 'building' bots to act in predefined ways ...
just provide them the 'opportunities' to develope/evolve
their own behaviors, and to build themselves.
please?
then ... step back, get out of the way ...
and observe what 'evolves' ...
or does not.
you know ...
there is no such thing as chaos ...
chaos is only what we call something which we haven't recogized as
being ordered.
that doesn't mean it isn't there ...
only that we are not aware of it.
in nature there is no such thing as disorder ...
only what is.
</semi-rant>
"do not force something to happen ...
just have a sense of openess to the phenomena
you are allowing to come into exisence."
-
only the universal laws of physics.
no more.
And this is exactly my point.
Which ones to consider basic and universal. Do you want quantum physics, Newtonian physics, Relativity?
What about the laws of chemistry? Ionic or covalent interactions, acid/base interactions, electrochemistry?
Where do we stop?
The "universal laws of physics" are incredibly complex.
-
WOW, Griz going beserk!
-
it isn't ALife nor should it ever be consider to be.
(I did at one time write a variation that allowed them to do so ...
and also imposed an age limit ... which was very interesting.
but lost all of those progs ... there are still some possibilities there.)
anyone have a noncompiled vb version of Conway's Life?
I may be able to recall some of the alterations I made.
"always drink upstream from the herd."
-
Nope sorry.
-
only the universal laws of physics.
no more.
And this is exactly my point.
Which ones to consider basic and universal. Do you want quantum physics, Newtonian physics, Relativity?
What about the laws of chemistry? Ionic or covalent interactions, acid/base interactions, electrochemistry?
Where do we stop?
The "universal laws of physics" are incredibly complex.
just the basics.
we don't need to complicate things with quantum physics or chemistry.
why would we want to!!!
simulate what we see in the macroscopic world for starters.
this is what I mean by 'keep it simple'.
at least for starters.
make it work ... in as simple a way as possible ...
THEN ... somewhere down the road ...
add some complexity if you wish.
let's allow for the 'evolution' of the program over time as well ...
along with our own understanding of how such a program might
be written. we too, are at the beginning ... not the end.
my god ... talk of quantum physics and wormholes and relativity
and chemistry and who knows what all!!!!
let's get real people! this is NOT a physics sim.
it's an ALife/Evo sim.
it doesn't even have to follow any rules of physics ...
to demonstrate how entities come to evolve.
but of course, we want it to 'look like' something we know.
that's fine ... within reason. ;)
please let us not fall into the trap of anthropomorphism here
let us not impose ourselves upon these poor critters any more
than we have to.
simplify, simpliy, simplify.
well ...
again ...
if you don't 'get this' basic idea of the difference between
a physics sim and an ALife/Evo sim ...
there isn't a damn thing I can say that you will hear.
so it goes.
-
Holy crap. wacko.gif
He thinks atomic interactions are simple blink.gif
They might look simple to the layman but when you start to study what really goes on, the shear complexity of it all will blow you away.
not so.
it is only our feeble attempts to understand ...
to impose our own order ...
to make sense of what we 'observe' ...
that is complicated.
life itself is simple.
there is what is ...
and then there is what we think about what is.
different critters.
let us not confuse them. ;)
-
Griz!
Why are you arguing against me when everything you say is pretty much exactly the point that I was making in the first place?
I don't want a physics sim either, in fact I see no reason why anything from the real world should be included. Evolution will work just as well in a complete fantasy setting. All we need are a few rules and a LOT of interaction between organism and environment. That is where the complexity has to stem from. The interactions.
-
Hehehe.
I know. I'm just messing too.
I also have to allow for the fact that I am privvy to a lot of scientific research that has yet to filter down to the public at large.
I just find it kind of amusing that obviously inteligent people like you and Greven are still using stuff like weak and strong forces where in my circles it is a little like attempting to convince an astronaut that the world is flat.
I guess they still teach the stuff in school don't they?
They taught me that electrons existed as shells around atoms when I was at school. Then when I got to college, the first day of lectures we were told to forget everything we had ever learned and start over.
Education is weird.
any, all theories are only that ... theories.
they aren't the real world ...
only ways/attempts to describe what is.
and every one of them is subject to change/alteration ...
they better be!
they are our maps and menus ...
they are not the territory or the meal.
and again ...
if we find them to be complicated ...
that is only a mirroring of our own shortcomings and attempts
to 'understand' and impose our own sense of order.
they are 'tools' ...
which can be very useful ...
and are indeed ... essential for us to continue.
but they are not reality or life itself ...
life is simple ...
it is we who complicate it. ;)
-
life itself is simple.
I beg to differ but that really isn't the point here.
-
Griz!
Why are you arguing against me when everything you say is pretty much exactly the point that I was making in the first place?
I don't want a physics sim either, in fact I see no reason why anything from the real world should be included. Evolution will work just as well in a complete fantasy setting. All we need are a few rules and a LOT of interaction between organism and environment. That is where the complexity has to stem from. The interactions.
takes two to tango. ;)
I am not in disagreement with the basics of what you say here ...
only that the interactions are also part of what must evolve.
so let us not leave any larger footprint than we need to.
so that is the trick, eh?
and I suggest we err on the side of simplicity rather than complexity.
at least in the beginning ...
which IS where we are.
let's get the basics in place and working ...
start there ...
with a prog that gives access to as many users/progammers as possible
who can then tweak the bots and environment any way they wish ...
and out of that ... may come some interesting stuff.
I understand Endy has done a lot of work with 'evovling' bots ...
and it is this sort of thing that is of interest to me.
I don't want a 'bot out of the box' ...
just an environment/program that is stable enough to support
the evolution of bot behavior.
-
life itself is simple.
I beg to differ but that really isn't the point here.
actually ... it's at the root.
you think it's complicated ...
and therefore endevor to simulate complexity.
guess what ...
we find what we look for. ;)
ok.
I can see this is pointless.
go on as you will.
-
Um, back to the point of this thread...
I figured that an ingested cell can fire shots/ties at its captor. If the captor dies, it is set free. Each cycle the captive cell digests it (or not) using, say, shots or ties or a combination of both or neither and we invent a new feeding method altogether. It doesn't matter the mechanics, the effect is all the same.
So ingesting a cell is primarily a way to make sure that no one else gets to battle with it. Probably mostly useful in eating veggies and corpses.
Real cells generally eat cells much, much tinier than they are. Said ingested cells I'm sure can fight back, but I haven't really studied this to be honest, (or ahven't started anyway).
I mean, it's not like a cell goes "oops, I've been eated. Well, it was nice while it lasted."
-
Yeah. Cells can't talk for a start. :rolleyes:
-
apologies to PY and all ...
it's frustrating to be misunderstood isn't it. :banghead:
sorry ...
I'll give it a rest.