Dead way 

To say the truth I thought a lot about writing a program like this(i
mean alife).

And I came to the same idea that the best way to achieve something
unexpected and unpredictable like Earth life evolution is to create a
world where everybody is made of
what may be called atoms or quants.To say the truth it's obvious idea
:)

And at last what I gonna say : the world you've created is VERY pour,it
is limited with
very strict laws:body is made of only sticks,a bit of receptors and same
bla,bla,bla about
brain,I think you understand what I mean.So the great idea about atoms
written above doesn't
works in full strength.Dead way.No reason to develop this any
more.You've got an ordinary alife(i guess you wanna get something
better),not the Earthlike evolution.

My (right) opinion on what is your mistake:world is to be more
complicated :more sorts of
atoms ,more relations between atoms.This is the only way to obtain
something worth saying:
"Yes,it resembles life and very likely it may produce thinking
creatures".

>
> To say the truth I thought a lot about writing a program like this(i
> mean alife).
>
> And I came to the same idea that the best way to achieve something
> unexpected and unpredictable like Earth life evolution is to create a
> world where everybody is made of
> what may be called atoms or quants.To say the truth it's obvious idea
> :)
>
> And at last what I gonna say : the world you've created is VERY pour,it
> is limited with
> very strict laws:body is made of only sticks,a bit of receptors and same
> bla,bla,bla about
> brain,I think you understand what I mean.So the great idea about atoms
> written above doesn't
> works in full strength.Dead way.No reason to develop this any
> more.You've got an ordinary alife(i guess you wanna get something
> better),not the Earthlike evolution.
>
> My (right) opinion on what is your mistake:world is to be more
> complicated :more sorts of
> atoms ,more relations between atoms.This is the only way to obtain
> something worth saying:
> "Yes,it resembles life and very likely it may produce thinking
> creatures".
>

Why not write your program instead of making arrogant pronoucments about the
efforts of others.

From what you have said, it would seem that you have little grasp of what
you are talking about.

Sorry to be so blunt.

Cheers,

Ander

Maciej Komosinski's picture

A few more comments...

> And at last what I gonna say : the world you've created is VERY pour,it
> is limited with
> very strict laws:body is made of only sticks,a bit of receptors and same
> bla,bla,bla about
> brain,I think you understand what I mean.So the great idea about atoms
> written above doesn't
> works in full strength.

Atoms also obey rules.

> You've got an ordinary alife(i guess you wanna get something
> better),not the Earthlike evolution.

The ways of approaching Earth-like evolution are also somewhere
else, not only in simulating atoms, which is simply unreal.

> My (right) opinion on what is your mistake:world is to be more
> complicated :more sorts of
> atoms ,more relations between atoms.This is the only way to obtain
> something worth saying:
> "Yes,it resembles life and very likely it may produce thinking
> creatures".

This is definitely not the way we want to achieve complexity.
That is not the problem to introduce such a great number of
relations that you won't be able to understand what happens.
Or you will say "that resembles real life and I also don't
understand it, I need thousands of a-biologists to help me".

MacKo

Maciej Komosinski wrote:

> >So the great idea about atoms
> > written above doesn't
> > works in full strength.
> > You've got an ordinary alife(i guess you wanna get something
> > better),not the Earthlike evolution.
>
> The ways of approaching Earth-like evolution are also somewhere
> else, not only in simulating atoms, which is simply unreal.

Atoms I wrote above are "atoms" :),"atom" is a something what cann't be
divided into smaller parts,they are not atoms existing in our world or
physics(although they could)
For instance,you can imagine a world where "atoms" are eyes,hands,legs,body
and brain
and all creatures in that world made of that "atoms".
But I'm saying again : the more complex system the more interesting things
can be achieved.

> > My (right) opinion on what is your mistake:world is to be more
> > complicated :more sorts of
> > atoms ,more relations between atoms.This is the only way to obtain
> > something worth saying:
> > "Yes,it resembles life and very likely it may produce thinking
> > creatures".
>
> This is definitely not the way we want to achieve complexity.

So what's this way?

> That is not the problem to introduce such a great number of
> relations that you won't be able to understand what happens.
> Or you will say "that resembles real life and I also don't
> understand it, I need thousands of a-biologists to help me".

Do you think that aim of alife-ingeneers is to get a copy of Earth life?
It's even more amazing to get X-Life (s).

Maciej Komosinski's picture

> > The ways of approaching Earth-like evolution are also somewhere
> > else, not only in simulating atoms, which is simply unreal.
>
> Atoms I wrote above are "atoms" :),"atom" is a something what cann't be
> divided into smaller parts,they are not atoms existing in our world or
> physics(although they could)
> For instance,you can imagine a world where "atoms" are eyes,hands,legs,body
> and brain
> and all creatures in that world made of that "atoms".

Yes. For Framsticks, sticks and neuroitems are atoms.

> > > My (right) opinion on what is your mistake:world is to be more
> > > complicated :more sorts of
> > > atoms ,more relations between atoms.This is the only way to obtain
> > > something worth saying:
> > > "Yes,it resembles life and very likely it may produce thinking
> > > creatures".
> >
> > This is definitely not the way we want to achieve complexity.
>
> So what's this way?

To achieve complexity out of the smallest possible number
of simple parts. To study dynamics and abilities of
evolutionary processes. If you miss complexity, evolve a frams
for speed or finding food and explain its brain.

> > That is not the problem to introduce such a great number of
> > relations that you won't be able to understand what happens.
> > Or you will say "that resembles real life and I also don't
> > understand it, I need thousands of a-biologists to help me".
>
> Do you think that aim of alife-ingeneers is to get a copy of Earth life?

No; you seem to think so! Remember you said:
>This is the only way to obtain something worth saying:
>"Yes, it resembles life and very likely it may produce thinking
> creatures".

MacKo

Well,strange thoughts:

> If you miss complexity, evolve a frams
> for speed or finding food and explain its brain.

It seems that your notion of alife evolution doesn't includes
such things like creation of new types of body by means of existing "atoms".

String strMessage = Do you accept following: "if you want to get birds introduce
to your world wings!"?;

if ( accept(strMessage) )
{
In my mind this is very wrong opinion that cann't lead to something interesting

}
else
{
Are you sure that it can be reached by means of little number of frams,neurons
and sensors?
This is same if you would to say : "if you want to get all variety of Earth
life,start from
a set of "atoms" that describe human : brain,hands,legs,eyes,ears etc. and and
from these you will get everything :
plants,viruses,dinasours,mushrooms,worms,fishes"
Nonsence!
}

"Redreev Denis G." wrote:
>
> To say the truth I thought a lot about writing a program like this(i
> mean alife).
>
> And I came to the same idea that the best way to achieve something
> unexpected and unpredictable like Earth life evolution is to create a
> world where everybody is made of
> what may be called atoms or quants.To say the truth it's obvious idea
> :)
>
> And at last what I gonna say : the world you've created is VERY pour,it
> is limited with
> very strict laws:body is made of only sticks,a bit of receptors and same
> bla,bla,bla about
> brain,I think you understand what I mean.So the great idea about atoms
> written above doesn't
> works in full strength.Dead way.No reason to develop this any
> more.You've got an ordinary alife(i guess you wanna get something
> better),not the Earthlike evolution.
>
> My (right) opinion on what is your mistake:world is to be more
> complicated :more sorts of
> atoms ,more relations between atoms.This is the only way to obtain
> something worth saying:
> "Yes,it resembles life and very likely it may produce thinking
> creatures".

Hey buddy, there are a few problems with what you are
saying.

1) You gotta crawl before you walk. Framsticks has lots
of problems, but of all the programs I've tried in
this arena, it is the best. The developers are working on
all sorts of way to decrease the limitations on what can or
can't evolve. This program has a lot of potential.

2) Is the goal of alife, in general, to replicate Earthlike
evolution? Not really. That's been done--for the bast 4
billion years on a buggy platform called Earth. Evolution
simulations need only to have a mechanism for selection and
change in order to achieve the goal of, well, simulating
evolution.

3) Currently, your proposed method of simulating evolution
in not feasible. One, it too a few billion years on Earth
and would take a similar amount of time with present
computing technologies. Even if we increase the speed by a
million times, we are still looking at thousands of years.
And I doubt most users are willing to wait that long to see
some movement in their organisms. Two, the complexity of an
entirely atom based simulation is also much too high for
current computers.

4) What, exactly, do you mean by "you've got ordinary
alife"? First, there is nothing ordinary about alife.
Second, life is life, and if Framsticks were to achieve
alife--which I don't think they have, but may
eventually--that would be one step ahead of just about
everyone.

Your (wrong) opinion is unfeasible and not particularly
interesting. Nothing here is said that the developers don't
already know. I suggest you write your own program and see
how difficult it is.

Sincerely,
Zach

Zachary Strider McGregor-Dorsey wrote:

> 1) You gotta crawl before you walk. Framsticks has lots
> of problems, but of all the programs I've tried in
> this arena, it is the best. The developers are working on
> all sorts of way to decrease the limitations on what can or
> can't evolve. This program has a lot of potential.

I agree,but it would have more potential,in case developers applied
more complicated theory to the world they've created.
What is the reason to develop easy-to-create program?
I hope Framsticks (in a near future,not in 4 billions years) will be improved
in respect of
theory (pseudophysics,pseudochemistry or any other relationships in that
world).

>
> 2) Is the goal of alife, in general, to replicate Earthlike
> evolution? Not really. That's been done--for the bast 4
> billion years on a buggy platform called Earth. Evolution
> simulations need only to have a mechanism for selection and
> change in order to achieve the goal of, well, simulating
> evolution.

There's a bit of misunderstunding:saying Earthlike evolution,I mean such its
feature:
it is unpredictable,when no one could imagine what will be next step:at first
there
were just single cells,then they joined into large organisms(who could
predict that),
then appeared neurons(brain)(is it obvious thing when what you know is just
cells),and
at last human(could you expect it).

> 3) Currently, your proposed method of simulating evolution
> in not feasible. One, it too a few billion years on Earth
> and would take a similar amount of time with present
> computing technologies. Even if we increase the speed by a
> million times, we are still looking at thousands of years.
> And I doubt most users are willing to wait that long to see
> some movement in their organisms. Two, the complexity of an
> entirely atom based simulation is also much too high for
> current computers.

Why not?Is the purpose of science is fast getting result.
In addition,just 50 years ago computers were funny slow one,not like ours.
Don't you believe in a progress?

> 4) What, exactly, do you mean by "you've got ordinary
> alife"? First, there is nothing ordinary about alife.
> Second, life is life, and if Framsticks were to achieve
> alife--which I don't think they have, but may
> eventually--that would be one step ahead of just about
> everyone.

Ordinary alife - things which doesn't satisfy what I answered on 2),
or for example you wrote a program where creatures can have just 2
features:heavy and light
or green or red.Is it interesting to observe that alife(it is alife!!!,isn't
it) world?

> Your (wrong) opinion is unfeasible and not particularly
> interesting. Nothing here is said that the developers don't
> already know.

I know that.I've just wrote what I think about it all.

> I suggest you write your own program and see
> how difficult it is.

Of course it is difficult,writing such program requres really large group of
developers,
but what do you want to say at last?

Do you want to say that all my ideas is nothing.

Denis Redreev