Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - deoxymoron

Pages: [1]
Suggestions / veg energy extraction
« on: April 27, 2010, 10:44:48 PM »
hm true, point taken... im trying to find the balance still. + i think body/nrg ratio is works effectively as the same thing.

Suggestions / veg energy extraction
« on: April 27, 2010, 01:00:38 AM »
new suggestion.

make an option so it is harder to extract energy from a veg as its energy lowers.

Suggestions / sensitivity bar
« on: April 26, 2010, 09:38:05 PM »
It's ok now, i figured wrongly that the settings about dynamic cost were overrided by dyn cost... so i just have the 'cut cost to zero when pop is:' on now. all good.

+ i dont like the idea of negative costs, my bots usually become slackers when thats on.

Biology / Selfish Gene
« on: April 26, 2010, 09:33:55 PM »
actually i retract that about the gene being the only thing that matters... :/ change of thoughts. i suppose groups can be seen as reproducing entities themselves... even of its a gradual constant reproducing, evolutionary forces could act primarily on them rather than gene. but still a perspective change in a way.

this should probably be in biology forum now.

but bringing it back to DBs dna. i think it's unlikely to see interesting group behaviour if bot pop is under 200ish. or atleast what needs to happen is you have to create several stable populations of bots, then allow them to become adapted to their environment; seperate from the other populations (also their environment should be different, maybe different shapes) then i think some group selection may occur. i realise this can be hard.

another way would be to have one group and two environments in the hope that they evolve into two groups.

also, i can seem to have more than one stable group because either one or the other eats all their food, then stave. (i usually have veg pop dependant on how much the bots can eat. so if their pop gets too small, harder for bots to find. then they repop. if too big, easier to find, thus die out a little)

Biology / Selfish Gene
« on: April 26, 2010, 05:48:23 PM »
Just the opposite in fact. Or that's the commonly accepted scientific consensus. On a quantum level things are uncertain (probabilistic). And the consensus is that this is not a measurement problem, but a fundamental nature of the quantum world. (See: Copenhagen interpretation). There is even a hypothesis that there can not be any hidden variables. Here's the wiki article.

There is an argument to be made for "superdeterminism", but it is not considered probable or even testable, so it can't be theory.

Well, this is why i'm still open minded and uncertain that everything is certain. i have still got some research to do with quantum theory, but i have read 'briefer history of time' and other bits here and there about it. i just find it hard to imagine that everything on our level is essentially predictable, then you get down to a certain level and you can't really go any further predicting things. it doesn't make sense for something to just randomly happen; even for pro-god (not necessarily religious god beleivers), they might attribute this randomness to a source- god. or in other words, give the randomness a reason thus meaning it's not random any more. it makes it even harder when  seemingly never changing qualities of the universe like time come into question, and string theory with its 11 dimensions isn't helping lol. but i'm always open minded, just leaning towards determinism however.

also, in the world of genes and behaviours of living things, the world is effectively deterministic i think. quantum randomness doesn't really change anything.

anyway, not quite biology any more, so Dawkin eh..

i think his view is most definitely simplistic, i agree. and multi selection theory, as far as i can tell, is an elaboration so they're not mutually exclusive (i need to read up on multi selection theory). though i think some times its better to see it one way, and some times the other; for DBs, probably Dawkins. i suppose the man saving his kids using dawkins view was not really the best way to see it, but it still holds that dawkins view is still valid. And its a good way to remember it comes down to the genes (unless you claim its not?), however misleading this view can be in other ways (btw, yes probably thousands of genes, not just one).

as for the case given in evolution of social behaviour. the case about populations of humans thousands of years ago purposely limiting their population, perhaps this is because a well feed group is healthier and stronger overall than a group that, while at first may be 'more successful' in terms of genes because they have produced more of themselves. the other healthier groups would win out if conflict ever occured between the two groups, dispite the fact, the other group would have more people, because those people would be less able to over due to thier group habits (not limiting thier pop)

so following the gene based view, Dawkins would easily explain this. but viewing it group-wise, and keeping genes in mind, also does. just mutually acceptable theories i think. the genes for making people choose to limit their population would flourish, even if not so in a 'reproduce like mad' group... suppose this is just a variant of the haystack model lol. so all in all i agree. (i havent read the whole article yet)

the main thing is, it holds that it always comes down to the gene. it's an important thing to remember i think because it just wouldn't make sense that there are genes in a population, without their own survival in mind. it would be like finding a city with flourishing businesses which are all losing money, surely they'd all go bankrupt. no matter how complex their dealings are with other companies and customers (other species and food) their bottom line profit should be priority.

anyway it's a complex issue so it's best focus on perspective.

Also my link didn't go through about 'Life is just a product of the laws of entropy', so it should be attached now. it's also worth a read. (i cant figure out how to attach it here with a 'link')

Darwinbots3 / Idea for the physics of bots environment.
« on: April 26, 2010, 05:46:43 PM »
cool, i look forward to seeing that!

Off Topic / Robots learning environment
« on: April 25, 2010, 07:32:06 PM »
Very interesting site about actual robots learning their environment. food for thought- relatable to DBs, kind of...


robot learning:

Suggestions / sensitivity bar
« on: April 25, 2010, 07:23:26 PM »
I often find that using the dynamic cost adjuster leads to extinction.

i figured this is because it is too slow at lowering the cost, usually after a pop explosion caused an increase in cost.

proposed changes:

have two sensivity bars. one for how fast the cost lowers & one for how fast it increases.

Darwinbots3 / Idea for the physics of bots environment.
« on: April 25, 2010, 05:36:45 PM »
Hm, thought so... oh well. It seems like an important effect for evolution of multibots (something i'm trying to achieve)

is there any other (non-cpu hungry) system that could produce this effect. i mean, i really think the bots need a medium to be able to manipulate. i suppose it doesnt hav to have absolute real physics programmed into it, just something for the bots to push. this is how it would differ from normal vicosity simulator, i think? lol :/

I'm quite sure its currently not happening in this simulator? is it? i dont know. im still a dawinbots noob for now.

Nope, no supercomputer for me.  
currently using q6600, 4gb ram, 1gb video mem. win xp

Darwinbots3 / Idea for the physics of bots environment.
« on: April 25, 2010, 03:01:35 AM »
I have an idea for the physics of the bots environment.

instead of having qualities applied to the area, like the vicosity for example. perhaps instead this effect could occur if actually particles representing the medium which the bots live in could be used.

what i'm imagining is little tiny dots representing water/air/whatever particles as the medium.

The advantages:

*bots could develop way to manipulate the meduim to perform better. ei. swimming (perhaps with help from other bots)

*tiny tiny bots would be at a disadvantage as the medium would seem thicker for them- harder to push the dots out of the way.

*Also if random movement for the dots is used, tiny bots would find it hard to have a useful dna code to find food if they're constanly being pushed around. bigger bots won't have this problem.

*overall more accurate simulator of reality, esp if modeling bots on 'replicators' like RNA or just cells.

The Disadvantages:

*seems like a cpu hungry system to enact to program?

*would mean more complicated settings.

hope this hasn't been brought up already, if so disregard

good idea? discuss.

Biology / Life as a manifestation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics
« on: April 25, 2010, 12:25:40 AM »
I thought I'd post a paper that i stumbled across recently as it seems highly relevant to Dawinbots.

It is about biology/life (albeit vaguely), which is why i posted it here. it is about some fairly technical ideas which are hard to wrap your mind around, but well worth reading. at least read the introduction.

It's a pdf. and isn't just some crackpot's dilusional theory. It's along the same lines of 'What is life', the book, if you've heard of it.

anyway enjoy and discuss if you like.

Biology / Selfish Gene
« on: April 24, 2010, 05:25:05 AM »
Hm, i think we have roughly the same picture of evolution, i guess. Probably just seeing it differently. i'm sure you have done your research a bit more thoroughly than me though. lol, by the looks of it anyway.

Although, about the absolute reasons for life occurring in nature, I'm strongly leaning towards these main ideas in shaping my thoughts:

1) The universe is deterministic.

I think Plancks quanta just means we can't be certain, not that the universe is actually uncertain to a degree. Although ironically I'm the least certain of this idea as some things about quantum mechanics aren't completely clear to me, yet.

2) Life is just a product of the laws of entropy. (At least a good way to view it)

So most of the time, this law is used to describe simple happenings like hot/cold water becoming warm when mixed. In the case of 'life', it has favoured a completely opposite direction of complexity (insert understanding of evolution here). The sun's rays is the 'hot water' in a way. I think I have a pdf. paper that explains this if you're interested? (should be attached)

3) Evolution favours the gene, always.

Though i understand you're point that altruism and group selection do occur. but often, thinking in terms of groups leads to people thinking that evolution thinks for it's self. This is why i asked if you had read Dawkin's book.. (dw, there's no anti-creationist rants in there)

So for example, a man might save his 3 kids in full knowledge that he will die in the process. no he's not a 'mutant' defective person (speaking in evolutionary terms ). He does this because all his behaviour is only occurring to increase the population of his gene's, at least that particular gene that caused him to save his 3 kids. There are now a 150% (on average) increase of those gene's in the gene pool that caused him to die saving his kids, and thus, they were successful gene's.

This all being said, i'm sure dawinbots hold a lot of promise, even if it's somehow used in the future for something completely different, like developing bahaviours for the enemy in pc/ps3 games?

At the moment i haven't even attempted creating my own bot, i've used I flammas and others with the algae. i've just started using bots from this site. I'm thinking if i can create different environments (with the shapes) in different areas on the map, maybe different species will develop in each area giving them a 'safe zone' then allowing the 'in between' zone to be fought over. constant fighting between two would then lead to favour on complex bot, as simple behaviour could be exploited (not sure, maybe, if they can remember another bots likely bahaviour. probably) The more complex behaviour, met only with even more complex behaviour? well hopefully!

I found a good way to create an environment is to use lots of tall/thin and wide/short shapes crossing each other. Perhaps they will just learn the environment, even so, that would be a good outcome.

BTW thanx Houshalter for the tips!

It's actually a good case for a god: without occasional (non-Armageddon) disruption, things stagnate. Life on Earth was not more complex than bacteria for a billion years. Along the same vein, this chart makes interesting food for thought.

It would be funny if you did come to this conclusion after all you're work on dawinbots lol

Veggies / Alga Parasite 1 (V)(Maheshjr2000)-19.06.06
« on: April 24, 2010, 01:11:13 AM »
try using this as algae, pond mode (lots of sunlight) then pit it against the fruitfly with high mutation and dynamic cost adj on for epicness! lol...

better have a fast computer, cycle go's to .5 cycles/sec for a while... be quick with turning off dynamic cost adjuster. usually to slow to lower itself then all fruitfly die.

Biology / Selfish Gene
« on: April 23, 2010, 10:11:29 PM »
Well, that may be true of what Gould says, (i'm unaware of his ideas, positions btw, but will look him up) but isn't this program about creating life from the absolute, or at least, a very low level, then letting it become more complex as the bots evolve. All these higher level competitions could theoretically start occuring naturally? This is what i was hoping to accomplish anyway- not, design all the complex behaviours/essence of the bots, in the hope that it will just continue in the evolutionary spirit so to speak, and become more fit and complex in it's environment- Though i like the ability to design bots of the program in it's own right.

For example, one thing that may be hampering 'evolution', is the way the gene's are effective in dawinbots. for example, in Dawkin's understanding of a gene, gene's overlap and a reason this could not really be implemented into dawinbots is because, the genes instruction consists of words, not four basic chemical acids. i realise it would be impossible/incredibly difficult in trying to mimic gene's exactly in essence as they behave in reality. lol

My original idea for creating a program, was to start from the very very bottom, and just have 3D atoms, floating around in a large simulated (early earth) environment, making sure all atoms behaved as they do in reality. Then, either allow for amino acids to form or design them, or even design basic RNA replicators and go from there.

I realise this idea was very idealistic/naive and was probably not going to happen as it would take a lot of computer space/programing prowess, of which i lack. but interesting idea, right? perhaps with a supercomputer.

Anyway, I'm still trying to create some genuinely interesting bots, without resorting to creating them myself. Do you know where i can find advice on applying the right settings for creating interesting behaviour? maybe it's already been covered somewhere else; i can't find where though. i've managed some group behaviour but i want my bots to start increasing thier dna length, not slowly decrease and simplify (even with all dna cost off)  And is it possible for venom, poison etc to develop in a bot, without me programming it in originally? would love to see that happen.

Btw, i sort of agree with what you say about dawkin's militant group, though this too could be seen in evolutionary terms? The tendancy for humans to form their views based on majority rules, laced with a splash of rational thinking (seemingly never enough) because this is what worked in the past. And when i say in the past, i mean, way back in the stone age. I'd prefer a bunch of dawin advocates running aroun than creationists telling me earth is 4000 years old, and if i think differently, i'm going to hell. it seems more a fight between ignorance and rationalism. while climate debate has bureaucratize into crap, politically, and most people don't really understand it (including me) but are willing to have such concrete positions. :/

sorry about bulk questions

Biology / Selfish Gene
« on: April 23, 2010, 07:03:46 PM »

How many people have read The Selfish Gene by R. Dawkins?

I was wondering this because this is the book that inspired me to look, and discover this program, only a few days ago. I was actually considering learning to program myself just to make a program like this, but seems i was beaten to it.

I think this book could be very influential to the programmer of dawinbots, numsgil? (i don't know as i just discovered Dawinbots a few days ago) If they haven't read it already. If not, I highly recommend it as it would almost definitely lead to a better 'dawinbots', Even though i'm very impressed with it already- It's a lot better than the rest that i've seen.

Anyway, discuss!

Pages: [1]