To return to the begginings of this thread. One of the first A-Life experimants was called TIERA(sp). The guy wasn''t even into computers. He learned how to program to do this thing.

The critters in the simulated environment were allowed to reproduce, interact, and die. The first critter was pre-programmed and injected. All it could do was slit, much like a single cell. The ''food'' for these critters was processor time. So itt was in their best interest to minimize their code size.

Sexual reproduction EVOLVED in this program. Seperate genders that required each other to procreate.

Something else happend to. Virii dveloped. Critters that would ''borrow'' other critters reproduction time and code.

The whole thing is very trippy and worth a look.

The_Minister, no, I don''t get it, I can read through it how often I want, but I don''t get it. Must be something wrong with it.
kill, now I''ve to ask you what is "to be aware of"?? A virus is a DNS molecule and some protein molecules I think. Is it aware of infecting cells? You''d probably say no. Is a bacterium aware of something? Is a fly aware of something? I think you''d also say no. Is a dog aware of something? Now some people would say yes, and nearly everybody would say a human is aware of what it''s doing. All of these creatures have the same fundaments. Computers are only able to emulate some of them. Doesn''t sound very logically.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

A dog could be an organic robot for all we know.

ga, what exactly here doesn''t sink in? I''d say a fly is able to see, hear and feel the world around him. I''d also say that a dog would be, but how can one be sure? A computer isn''t alive, like all the other creatures you''ve mentioned. And therefore you can''t compare it.

And if you bring up the issue of being alive again, I''m not going to explain it for the tenth time.

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive

"...but how can one be sure?"
That''s also an important point. Also if you think there''s something like consciousness how do you know that a dog, I, an other human or a computer is conscious?

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

A computer isn''t alive like all other creatures?

Yep, sure.

Computers aren''t carbon based mechanism''s, creatures are.

Creatures are based on a series of chemical reactions, computers aren''t.

But you can''t prove conciousness and the mechanism is unimportant when it comes to the outcome and the level of functionality of any organism organic or inorganic. (Yes, organism probably originated from meaning an organic object but meanings change and you know what _I_ mean).

I don''t think our particular set of chemistry is special except in the ordering that creates our form. Having a silicon based lifeform isn''t unreasonable (in fact chemically silicon is as close to carbon as you can get).

I think silicon based life is an inevitability, it''s just a question of when.

Mike

MikeD: Silicon isn''t close enough to carbon, you couldn''t substitute our carbon with silicon. Sure, it has the same number of reactive electrons, but it''s electronegativity is lower than the electronegativity of hydrogen whereas the electronegativity of carbon is above the EN of hydrogen, and that is the reason that there are no silicon-hydrogen molecules which are similar to propan, butan, pentan... and as stable as carbon-hydrogen molecules.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

Hi,
I also came up with a somewhat simmilar idea about 2 years ago. the basic principles were however the same. Create a world with it''s own laws and let the creatures evolve in their
own way. But I tried to incorporate neural nets instead of your "matrix" and it worked quite well in theory. Every creature would evolve a neural net input environmental info in it and wait for the brain to give it a command in a form of an "impulse". As I said it workedf well in theory, but the problem I faced when I started to code it is that I realised that the program worked and all BUT in order to have evolution you need masses of life forms. And I''m not talking about a hundred or a thousand I''m talking about millions and billions of lifefroms. You can do the odds yourself. Say you want to get the lifeform to do something. It has to evolve a series of commands to do it. Say you have like a thousand possible commands that can be put togeather in different combinations the chance of getting the same command repeated twice in a sigle statement would be one in a million. So you see my point you''d need billions of lifeforms in order to have a realistic chance of getting something really life like in the end. But the problem is that no computer can deal with so much data. You simply don''t have the speed you need. And don''t forget that in order to produce some good lifeforms you''d have to keep your computer turned on for a couple millions of years. Hey if nature - that by the way had those billions of lifeforms to play with - couldn''t do it in less that 5 billion years I don''t think that y PC could do it in any less time.
And let''s not forget that our computers are a part of our universe and so they cannot simulate events that take place in the universe faster then it takes them to take place - at least not with thr same detail level as in reality.

So in conclusion you cannot even come close to the kind of proccesing powerd you''d need to pull this off today. Maybe in like a couple of decades or something like that. But until then it''s back to the old drawing board.

Yes, computers can simulate life-forms.
No, computers can''t become life-forms.

A concensus?

And yeah I thought about that, how the hell do I know that I ain''t in some Matrix-style game?? *closes curtains and looks around suspiciously*


The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive

Hi again, (I posted the message before this one)

I decidet to post another message because I came accross some post that delat with the question of life itself. I think one person said computers aren''t ALIVE BUT WE ARE. And it remembered me of a debate I had in school a couple of months ago. The fact is that we CANNOT define life.
Let''s say that again WE CANNOT DEFINE LIFE. Ok now let''s see an example. Most people would say that a "thing" is alive if it is born, it lives, consumes food, reproduces, and eventually dies. Well it sounds good, but sadly a simple forst fire fits that profile - it is born(or started by a match) it eats up trees and oxygen in order to stay in it''s present state, creates more fires in the process and finally goes out in smoke.(This is a very simple example but it does the trick) If youu''re still not convinced read on.
Most people would also say that an ant is alive right? Hey it eats, moves around, gathers food and does all the things a good little ant should. It''s alive no doubt about it.
But hey what if we were to construck a simple robot that would (with the use of sime sensors) search out complex organic compounds and convert them into methane or something else that can be used as an energy source. It your search for food move around and in a sence do all the thing an ant does. SO WHY is it so hard for us to say that it''s alive - it doesn''t sound right huh? YOu simply must seek out differences between it and the ant like hmm.. well it doesn''t do this and that and blablabla... the bottom line is that in theory you cold build a robot that would respond exactly like an ant and we still would''t call it alive. This is because "alive" isn''t a logical word. Let me give you another short example of an illogical question.
"What happened before the beginning of the universe?" That is an illogical question because there was no "before" because time itself started with the universe. Quite similar to this is when we say this is alive, this is not alive. Ants are alive but robots aren''t. What about viruses?
Even the scientist argue about those. Are they just complex molecules or are the a lifeform? they sure don''t look like one. The simply float around and do their virus stuff.
the whole concept of arguing about when you can call something alive is illogical and futile. You cannot argue about something you cannot define - it''s silly. It''s like arguing about what color the grass on some distant planet is. Logic only let''s us say that we (humans) have within us more complex reactions that an ant has. Furthermore we can say that when a person dies those complexs reactions fall back to a more simple level or shut down.
THIS IS ALL WE CAN SAY. So it''s pointless to argue if a robot is alive. By george it''s like a god to a virus. I wonder what a virus would say about a robot that can actually move around and grab stuff and see things - viruses can''t do that and some people insist they are alive.

THINK ABOUT IT!
I''M SURE YOU''LL SEE IT.

Jurij Dreo

Hi,
I dont think theres a fence that hold us back from programming life. We cant simulate life exactly, but theres a way to come a bit close to it! The only thing what has to build is a program that generates a better code for the lifeforms. And real smart robots can almost be included in the life class. Who says wood isnt life? Wood was a part of a tree that was a sort of life form. Everything lives! But not everything moves and breaths. We are a bunch of atoms, and its all life. While scrubbing your skin and remove some atoms, the atoms arent apart of you anymore. Its not defined as life anymore, but it was and still is. The same atom can become of a animal or alien rase in

So life is defined in 2 ways: objects with dna or objects like trees which can grow and needs oxigen

life is everything

The statement that life is everything is the most correct one. We are all part of nothing, and at the same time we are part of everything. We are 1 variable, in 1 giant program. Object x is created, Object Z is created
The source code is interacting, receive functions are set. X and Z are part of the whole program. A changing function of X will effect Z, Z will effect X. After a while Y has been created. Y has both Z and X gens. ( Z and X was created , and compatible with each other)

So the main thing is to create this virtual life, is to make the program{} generate a code that has 2 functions.
1) as a brain for creatures
2) dna code ( X code compatible with Z code)

After that Y is created. A Y code has to work together with (x,y,z) So the Y code has to MAINTAIN the old code to be compatible with XYZ. So its like adding a Patch to the Main file. The generated code can be saved in a file format which has to be read by the whole matrix.

So we are speaking about identities, identities that have to work with older identities, or all life will be gone . So each life form has to be
1) different and updated ( new.x->updated )
2) compatible with all identities from history file
a new update can be made (new.x->updated & (new.x->updated_old))

Now we got the identities. But we need the creatures to envolve. This is very hard. But its possible. We may not add Variable Tail to the source code. Tail has to be made by our program itself! It may not be called Tail by the program, it maybe called (*#$&*@# or whatever the computer generates. The computer has to make a X upgrade for the creature , and a Y possibility for the creature to KNOW what it has and what it does. Movement generation has to be set by the program, we cant do it because we may not mess with it! So we may not make CLASS MOVEMENT()
It has to be generated by the code. So there has to be made a function called envolve()
Envolve has to include variable generations, for the computer to recognize. For example: computer has generated (*@($&@ , and creature can moves like twice as fast. But we need to make a set of nature laws, like gravity. Or else the computer will generate a code , that adds +99999~ speed and we cant even see the creatures anymore. The computer has to search for possibilities to get faster to the food, or better. Food has to be == to creature within a certain time, or the creature will die. Computer found a function to improve stummic, so it needs less food. So Food == creature (time ++) , Time limit has pushed away. But the stummic is improved but cant be handle by legs, so time to find food has been increased. Computer notice that NEW.time >= OLD_time and it generates code back again. The reason food was found later can be because of a other reason. A other creature already ate all the food, or the creature swim into the wrong direction. So it is a mistake what is made, that keeps the creatures not being perfect. And it keeps envolving.

A reason why we keep envolving its because its a mistake in the gens. A mistake wont be made by the program, its not found as a mistake. The program keeps working on a better source, but not knowing about centain cercumstances of the world, its thinking it has improved. But it isnt true, because its just that the program has improved the source for particulary circumstances. The source keeps changing , till all circumstances are being written, and a change calcuation can be made. Thats the final answer for the envolvement.

Its not possible to make something like this, but we are slowly going to it. I am working on a game called TNW, and it would be a great idea if I could add it in the game! The game will be published by Voltage Dreams.

Sites: http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/application/1003
http://tnw.ezain.com
http://members.aol.com/GregKisaragi/

Greetings, michael