Artificial life?

Electron · 2000-11-25T08:08:32

Ok, this is not a question that needs a concreet answer. I just want to show my theory and listen to others oppinion about it. At present, many ppl work with developing artificial life. They try to create a program that can learn itself from it''s own mistakes, break the border of logic, and so on. Yet, they only succeded creating a robot (as i know of =) that has the intelligence compared to a child with the age of 3. Of course, you cannot make a program with the same capacity as the human brain - not with present hardware, anyway. For instance, the human brain parts works simultaniously with eachother. the common computer can only work with one part of the time. Thus, i don''t know the number of cells in the human brain, but it''s in the count of bilions. if you wanna write a program that can be compared with the human brain, the program must contain billions of procedures! Good luck, i''ll visit you in about thousand years. However, it''s not impossible! the human brain itself is the evidence of that! So how did the human brain come to this almost-impossible-state? the answer is the only law of nature: Survival of the fittest. let me give you a demonstration. Let''s say you have a creature, that only has one arm and a mouth. He lives in the water. He also have the capability of dividing himself. (like a bacteria). this creature can only reach for the food around him and multiply, until he food drain and he dies. the only way his kind can survive is of multiplying and spread. O -> OO -> OO -> O ->OO ->O ->O -> O O OO OO O ..And so on. notice how the creature''s kind move. the creature itself cannot move, but the kind does. What if one of this creatures born with a ''malfunction''. instead of an arm, he got himself a tail. now he can move around by waving the tail! if the food around him drain, so what? let''s move somewhere else! With this new ability, he will live longer than the others and multiply more times, carrying his new genes to the new ones. Soon the kind will have a new face, and the old will evantually die, or create another speacy. At the next "mutation", a creature will born with both tail and arm. now they both can move for food, and reach the food around him without making energy-draining movements with the tail. now THIS kind is the best kind, and it will push the older away. Now, at the next mutation,the creature had both one arm and one tail, but he had no mouth! this creature didn''t multiply at all. he just died. get the point? the creature with the best capability will push away the less good. and so we have the developing on a new spiecy. Gosh, this is turning out to be a LOONG post, but hang on! i''m at the finish line. My point is: Instead of making billions of procedures, why don''t we just let the computer do it? For example: Make a program that simulates a simple world. Say a 2d world with the dimensions 100x100. One square can contain only one unit at the time. Now, make a food unit, and random some out in the world. Next, make a creature. ABSOLUTELY NO AI!! only the body itself, containing the position of the creature, and a vaule that indicates life. the life value will decrease with one each cycle, but if the creature eats the food, it will gain, say, 3 life. Summon: if the creature doesn''t eat, it will die. Now, make the AI. Make some simple functions, like go left, got up, eat, look down (is there a creature/food on the square velow?) , etc. Now, make the real AI - a matrix containing bytes - that''s all. got you, didn''t i? =) ok, let me explain. say that the matrix look like this: 1, 5, 56, 34, 9, 7, 12, 87, 45, 12 the ai look at the matrix[0] - and recieves ''1''. the ai knows that 1 means "go". go needs parameters, therefore it reads the next byte also. 5 means "left". aha! let''s go left! after he had done this, he reads 56. 56 means "if". need parameters. 34 means "hungry. (life below 10) ok, lets read what i shall do. (he''s not hungry, he will forward the matrix until he finds 12, which means "else".) 9 means "go to matrix number..". parameter indicates ''8'', and so it jumps to matrix[8], and continues reading from there. Now, this example cannot work in practical - it needs MUCH more advanced deconding and some sensing attributes, but the theory is the same. Now, if the creature succeed to eat, and gain some high value in the life attribute, another creaure will born beside him, with a copy of the father''s matrix, but with some randomed adjustements. Now it''s only to lie back and see if some kind of AI is born of theese randomed numbers. *Phew* if you''ve come all the way down here, i congratulate you. Now, i want YOUR oppinion about it! is this a way of facing the mystery of intelligence? Electron"Who need more than 640kb of RAM?" -Bill gates -89

Artificial Intelligence Programming

Started by Electron April 30, 2000 02:52 PM

159 comments, last by Electron 24 years, 2 months ago

Anonymous

May 15, 2000 12:10 AM

Just for the record: trees(and plants for that matter) have DNA.

Jurij Dreo

Joviex

250

May 15, 2000 12:00 PM

quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster

Just for the record: trees(and plants for that matter) have DNA.

Jurij Dreo

Just for the record ;0 ANY ORGANIC MATERIAL contains DNA.

And brother did this topic take a dive. The original idea was to make an emulated system of life, in which the "robots" mimicked life and learned new ways of doing things.

I do believe the emulation is possible, but then everyone started in saying how creation of new life forms is possible only with the modern desktop computer. I find that interesting in the way that you are comparing 5 billion years (just for this galaxy) and 15 billion years of universal evolution to a mere desktop computer (or any man made device at this and/or the present future of at least another millenia).

Read, Learn, Go outisde the box, and enjoy.

When Quality Matters

Send all mail to amorano@bworks.com

The_Minister

122

May 15, 2000 12:04 PM

No, I swore I won''t say it again, and I won''t.

The_Minister
1C3-D3M0N Interactive

[email=mwronen@mweb.co.za" onmouseOver="window.status='Mail The_Minister'; return true" onmouseOut="window.status=' '; return true]The_Minister[/email]1C3-D3M0N Interactive

kill

146

May 15, 2000 12:15 PM

The Minister: I completely understand what you meant by "computers can''t see", and I fully agree with you. Everyone who doesn''t is wrong, it''s not my opinion, it''s proven, just read some literature. However, I can''t agree with the fact that computers cannot become a life form. I don''t know about dogs and flies, but let''s talk of something that''s "aware". Dogs and flies are AWARE of the environment around them, but they are not SELF-AWARE. Humans are AWARE both of their perception of reality, and of themselves. Computers are not aware of anything. How do you simulate this awareness? I don''t know. May be there is a soul that''s not a material thing, and one of its properties, is awaraness. Once again, I don''t know, and neither do you. How can you state that computers will never become either AWARE or SELF-AWARE? You can''t make that statement.

126

May 15, 2000 02:37 PM

kill, where is the prove that computers can't see? Maybe in the bible?
You said seeing is being aware of the pictures. And you said that computers could have awareness in the future. But it doesn't make sense if you say it's proven that they can't see.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

Edited by - ga on May 15, 2000 3:38:22 PM

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.stGA

Anonymous

May 15, 2000 02:38 PM

This conversation has again degenerated. And I won''t repeat this again: you cannot argue about stuff like life, being aware of one self etc. etc. Simply because these words don''t make sense in the REAL universe. You cannot prove someone is "aware" and neither dissprove that something is aware. How can you say that dogs and flies aren''t aware if you can''t even prove that I''m aware. All I could be is a very sophisticated program that is trying to "deceive you".
Read - Turning TEST. (I admit it''s old but it does the trick quite well). - READ MY POST ABOUT ILLOGICAL statements like that above (4th page at the end I think)

Oh yeah and JUST FOR THE RECORD: I don''t know what Joviex meant by ANY ORGANIC material contains DNA, but it sounds like someone is trying to convince me that polymers or a couple of peptide molecules have DNA. Please rephrase your statement Joviex.

126

May 15, 2000 02:41 PM

quote:

ANY ORGANIC MATERIAL contains DNA

CH4 is called organic but it doesn''t contain DNA.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.stGA

Anonymous

May 15, 2000 03:20 PM

I have to agree that evolution cannot be simulated because it is not just a creature trying to fit certain parameters.creatures are responding to environmental stimulus.too many factors,like behavior are involved.creatures have too many variables,like internal organs that are also involved.but it is a cool idea.then if you could do this you could just have a program that writes programs

126

May 15, 2000 03:47 PM

Anonymous Poster: With better computers you could make the simulation closer too reality. Certainly you can''t simulate a world perfectly with a computer which is inside the world.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.stGA

126

May 15, 2000 03:49 PM

... or only in a fractal world.

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.st

GA

Visit our homepage: www.rarebyte.de.stGA

Artificial life?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Artificial life?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines