woww this was just 1994?! what is possible now? did people already programmed worlds where the creature's goal is something like reproduction and survival? that would be pretty interesting!
@jeroenman yes. see swim bots dot com, it's a 2D simulation that you can run on your own computer where genetic algorithm swimmers compete for food and mates.
Makes you wonder if predators arose as herbivores well adapted to killing other herbivores in order to keep all the grass for themselves, then realised there's bigger cubes in the dead herbivores than in the grass...
P.S. I believe in God AND evolution. *waits for the petty YouTubers minds to explode*
@Justinio2 it's a program based on evolution of cubes yes. but it's a little bit more. stellaralchemy dotcom add this in and you'll see what this is have fun
1 slightly terrifying aspect of the program, is that the creatures were never programed to beat the crap out of each other, the behavior evolved independently, just like in reality, so then we have the predator equations.
it's not by insulting you that you will prove anything the christians that you will prove anything. And saying that this is a prove of god, as nothing to do with it... I thing that anyone here should first read a book about the evolution, and a book about the religion, and after that, thinking about it... Because now you'r just doing some speculation
What is funny is that the yecs try to disprove the 'evidence' for evolution that this video supposedly made.
Unfortunately for them a video of a computer program that shows a bunch of blocks isn't going to prove evolution, nor was it meant to. So saying that it is just a bunch of blocks and nothing like real things is just pointing out the obvious.
Although it does make a great straw man argument for them.
lol yeah and those two people who programmed it also live outside space and time, are eternal, all loving, and all powerful. LOLOL intelligent design is fuckin bullshit. The fact that we may not know how it started doesn't mean it doesnt happen because I could say "hey how the fuck does gravity work??? why are objects attracted to each other??? zomg that means its false!!!" or someshit like that. fuckin creationist dick suckers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yeah it's funny and they are almost cute.
it will no doubt fool many into thinking the theory of evolution is true but try to realize that evolution is a strictly mechanistic concept and that our consciousness and the sensations in it (qualia) are not mechanistic thus voiding the theory with certainty. a machine biological or otherwise have no need nor could it ever manifest sensation. many of you will confuse deterministic drive with emotion and disagree violently but you are wrong
no. the computational perception of a situation requires nothing but a reaction. no sensation is required. the same as an IF THEN in code requires no sensation. for instance if a sensor indicates body damage then it could retract the hand. the sensation of pain was never necessary nor could be manifested. think about it.
I don't see anything about the fact that we experience qualia that contradicts evolution. You differentiate in some special sense between machines and biology, but your brain is a collection of trillions of cells, and the functions of each of those cells can be reduced to mere chemistry and electromagnetism. The functions of machines can also be reduced to the same. We're not made of magic stuff, we are machines. Just far more complex machines than anything current technology can achieve.
that is your blind belief. does a watch experience qualia? does a computer?
I do not differentiate between machines and biology. I merely observe that qualia cannot be mechanistic. the concept of the mechanistic contains no notion of nor need for qualia. it's very simple but it's heavy in consequence. you can understand it if you want to
What exactly do you mean when you say qualia cannot be mechanistic? Why can't it? I don't disagree I just don't understand what you mean by that.
Do you mean that it can't be deterministic, or that it has to involve some spiritual or numinous element? I don't know if a computer experiences qualia, or a lizard, or for that matter, any other human being I meet.
My original question however was about why this in any way contradicts evolution. It seems to do nothing to contradict it whatsoever.
it doesn't contradict as much as show there is more than the mechanistic and evolution is inherently a mechanistic notion. in other words it means there is an element to what we are that evolution cannot touch.
your problem is that you can't believe it. do please try to realize that the mechanistic notion that is a computer or any mechanism entails no qualia. don't ask questions. try to understand it. once you try you will also be able to see that qualia cannot come from the mechanistic
Also there's a very important physical distinction between the human brain and even the most advanced supercomputer. While computers can process at great speeds, there is not the interconnectedness that there is in a neural network. Of the trillions of cells in the brain, each is connected to thousands of others. This connectivity leads to emegent complexity. If you could build a computer that had similar architecture, why wouldn't it be conscious?
that's the part you should try to understand. you are asking questions without mental effort. thus doomed to never understand. do try. contrast mechanism and qualia. cause and effect has no need for sensation
You're not explaining anything, you're just insisting that it's true and you're calling me mentally lazy? Do you determine truth just by going with your gut level prejudices and feelings? If you can show some evidence for what you're saying or give me a line of logical reasoning then go ahead. Otherwise you're just posturing with nothing to show for it. Don't ask questions? Ha, I'm the inquisitor, I must inquisit.
It's neat. I really like this kind of thing. Although the creatures only have one strategy - they don't seem to be able to modify behaviour depending on what the opponent is doing. I wonder how efficient evolution is at developing a generic strategy.
Surprisingly so. The generic strategy is sexual selection. The biggest, strongest male who can get the most food is accepted by the females, who in turn breed the biggest, strongest offspring. If one deviates in a bad way, it dies. If it deviates in a good way, it thrives and passes it on. Natural selection in action.
yes, after a fashion. in robotics, it's common to discribe the 'tendencies', the 'means of acheiving a goal', the 'actions taken(as opposed to ones not)' as behaviors.
Trying to grab the box is one behavior.
Running away would be another.
Blasting ones opponant would be yet another.
Were these coded into the creatures?
or did that emerge from removing failures from the bottom of the pile?
SOURCE CODE!
Machuse 1 month ago 2
@Machuse Hey! You can ask for Karl Sims! Just updated the description for the video!
brdido 1 month ago
This is fucking amazing.
tossThisInTrash 1 month ago
Viewing this, and seeing the second top comment, I cant help but think that Spore was a bit of a letdown.
Kabitu1 1 month ago 16
@Kabitu1 I agree.
tossThisInTrash 1 month ago
woww this was just 1994?! what is possible now? did people already programmed worlds where the creature's goal is something like reproduction and survival? that would be pretty interesting!
jeroenman 7 months ago
@jeroenman yes. see swim bots dot com, it's a 2D simulation that you can run on your own computer where genetic algorithm swimmers compete for food and mates.
bitplane 1 month ago
Makes you wonder if predators arose as herbivores well adapted to killing other herbivores in order to keep all the grass for themselves, then realised there's bigger cubes in the dead herbivores than in the grass...
P.S. I believe in God AND evolution. *waits for the petty YouTubers minds to explode*
Sandcat87 10 months ago
@Sandcat87 Why would our heads explode just because you admit to being an imbecilic nincompoop..?
xarcaz 6 months ago
@Sandcat87 How do you define "god?"
NinetytoFirst 3 months ago
Great video. Certainly pwns the "It looks designed therefore it is argument"
YesIamJames 1 year ago
That is SO COOL :D:D:D
intboom 1 year ago
the video is so simple thats its brilliant :)
duppymaker09 1 year ago
What is this? Is it a program that gradually evolves cubes to then be tested? Or, is this purely a physics demonstration, pre-made by someone?
Justinio2 1 year ago
@Justinio2 it's a program based on evolution of cubes yes. but it's a little bit more. stellaralchemy dotcom add this in and you'll see what this is have fun
gabeandglory 1 year ago
1 slightly terrifying aspect of the program, is that the creatures were never programed to beat the crap out of each other, the behavior evolved independently, just like in reality, so then we have the predator equations.
DCFGS3 2 years ago 3
oh and... this video is not about proving the evolution, it's about research on the evolution. It's not the same at all.
mooviies 3 years ago 4
it's not by insulting you that you will prove anything the christians that you will prove anything. And saying that this is a prove of god, as nothing to do with it... I thing that anyone here should first read a book about the evolution, and a book about the religion, and after that, thinking about it... Because now you'r just doing some speculation
mooviies 3 years ago
"prove anything the christians that you will prove anything" = "prove anything" sorry for the repetititive part lol
mooviies 3 years ago
What is funny is that the yecs try to disprove the 'evidence' for evolution that this video supposedly made.
Unfortunately for them a video of a computer program that shows a bunch of blocks isn't going to prove evolution, nor was it meant to. So saying that it is just a bunch of blocks and nothing like real things is just pointing out the obvious.
Although it does make a great straw man argument for them.
lol
caveantnumeri 3 years ago
"The same people that a Darwinian Evolutionists"
Just shows what type of people believe in Creationism.
DeadMindWorking 3 years ago 18
@DeadMindWorking
Wow you are a pathetic excuse for a human being.
medlock01 1 month ago
the crab one is tight, fuck the cube ima beat this fool up.
chiefweezo 3 years ago 8
and even funnier. You say it proves CHRISTIAN belief... fuckin asshole
majav15mg 3 years ago 3
lol yeah and those two people who programmed it also live outside space and time, are eternal, all loving, and all powerful. LOLOL intelligent design is fuckin bullshit. The fact that we may not know how it started doesn't mean it doesnt happen because I could say "hey how the fuck does gravity work??? why are objects attracted to each other??? zomg that means its false!!!" or someshit like that. fuckin creationist dick suckers.
majav15mg 3 years ago 5
is spore only for computers?
lerox22 3 years ago
sort of. its on DS but that one is rubbish in comparison and it will be coming of on the 7th generation consoles however not to begin with.
joshuare94 3 years ago
good. kill the christians
majav15mg 3 years ago 3
once spore games out; everyone will have fun with evolution.
Gringoman911 3 years ago 7
1994??
closedmouth 3 years ago 2
So cool, so very very cool.
The11thgrape 3 years ago
haha.. cool critters!
Paxmax 4 years ago
I want this program, I could watch them adapt all day long.
BrianShaneRushton 4 years ago 2
my frontal lobe agrees with inquisitor. definitely.
vinzbrain 4 years ago
cool
sunyboy333 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeah it's funny and they are almost cute.
it will no doubt fool many into thinking the theory of evolution is true but try to realize that evolution is a strictly mechanistic concept and that our consciousness and the sensations in it (qualia) are not mechanistic thus voiding the theory with certainty. a machine biological or otherwise have no need nor could it ever manifest sensation. many of you will confuse deterministic drive with emotion and disagree violently but you are wrong
DanFrederiksen 4 years ago
you're theory is void because you believe aliens visit this planet, according to your youtube page.
Tri88 4 years ago
A machine biological or otherwise would have no need to manifest sensation?
What world are you living on, buddy. Sensation=reaction to danger=selective advantage.
hv2101 4 years ago 4
no. the computational perception of a situation requires nothing but a reaction. no sensation is required. the same as an IF THEN in code requires no sensation. for instance if a sensor indicates body damage then it could retract the hand. the sensation of pain was never necessary nor could be manifested. think about it.
DanFrederiksen 4 years ago
I don't see anything about the fact that we experience qualia that contradicts evolution. You differentiate in some special sense between machines and biology, but your brain is a collection of trillions of cells, and the functions of each of those cells can be reduced to mere chemistry and electromagnetism. The functions of machines can also be reduced to the same. We're not made of magic stuff, we are machines. Just far more complex machines than anything current technology can achieve.
theinquisitor 4 years ago 2
that is your blind belief. does a watch experience qualia? does a computer?
I do not differentiate between machines and biology. I merely observe that qualia cannot be mechanistic. the concept of the mechanistic contains no notion of nor need for qualia. it's very simple but it's heavy in consequence. you can understand it if you want to
DanFrederiksen 4 years ago
What exactly do you mean when you say qualia cannot be mechanistic? Why can't it? I don't disagree I just don't understand what you mean by that.
Do you mean that it can't be deterministic, or that it has to involve some spiritual or numinous element? I don't know if a computer experiences qualia, or a lizard, or for that matter, any other human being I meet.
My original question however was about why this in any way contradicts evolution. It seems to do nothing to contradict it whatsoever.
theinquisitor 4 years ago
it doesn't contradict as much as show there is more than the mechanistic and evolution is inherently a mechanistic notion. in other words it means there is an element to what we are that evolution cannot touch.
your problem is that you can't believe it. do please try to realize that the mechanistic notion that is a computer or any mechanism entails no qualia. don't ask questions. try to understand it. once you try you will also be able to see that qualia cannot come from the mechanistic
DanFrederiksen 4 years ago
"in other words it means there is an element to what we are that evolution cannot touch."
Evidence for this: Nonexistent. Proof of this: Zero. Reason for even making such an assumption: None.
"do please try to realize that the mechanistic notion that is a computer or any mechanism entails no qualia"
I think what you mean to say is that we have not replicated "qualia" in machines, yet (if ever).
It's so easy to see through B.S. such as yours with any amount of reasoning skills.
sebulbaslovechild 4 years ago 2
Also there's a very important physical distinction between the human brain and even the most advanced supercomputer. While computers can process at great speeds, there is not the interconnectedness that there is in a neural network. Of the trillions of cells in the brain, each is connected to thousands of others. This connectivity leads to emegent complexity. If you could build a computer that had similar architecture, why wouldn't it be conscious?
theinquisitor 4 years ago
that's the part you should try to understand. you are asking questions without mental effort. thus doomed to never understand. do try. contrast mechanism and qualia. cause and effect has no need for sensation
DanFrederiksen 4 years ago
You're not explaining anything, you're just insisting that it's true and you're calling me mentally lazy? Do you determine truth just by going with your gut level prejudices and feelings? If you can show some evidence for what you're saying or give me a line of logical reasoning then go ahead. Otherwise you're just posturing with nothing to show for it. Don't ask questions? Ha, I'm the inquisitor, I must inquisit.
theinquisitor 4 years ago 3
big words are always right!
milkanddairy 4 years ago
DanFrederiksen = fucktard
tingtangs 3 years ago
@DanFrederiksen Except if qualia are mechanistic.
Whatsifsowhatsit 3 months ago
@Whatsifsowhatsit it is not
DanFrederiksen 3 months ago
make a screensaver out of this somehow
that would be awesome
DADShadowFox 4 years ago 2
this is really interesting. are there any projects where an entire simulated ecosystem is running and which i can log on and see in action? thanks
koilir2 4 years ago 2
That kicks ass. It's kinda sad seeing them fight over a block though... damn emotions.
Ifoundher 4 years ago
unkie888, you certainly can.
damianpoirier 4 years ago
what i meant was - can you evolve a create that can react in a number of different ways.
unkie888 4 years ago
those things are hot
superfisto 4 years ago
It's neat. I really like this kind of thing. Although the creatures only have one strategy - they don't seem to be able to modify behaviour depending on what the opponent is doing. I wonder how efficient evolution is at developing a generic strategy.
unkie888 4 years ago
Surprisingly so. The generic strategy is sexual selection. The biggest, strongest male who can get the most food is accepted by the females, who in turn breed the biggest, strongest offspring. If one deviates in a bad way, it dies. If it deviates in a good way, it thrives and passes it on. Natural selection in action.
Axelgear2006 4 years ago
and this proves that there's no god phoenixx2007...
marcdesm 4 years ago
wow, read the description. he/she wasn't trying to prove anything. its just a cool video of block people.
cheerizero 4 years ago
oh my bad, you were replying to someone earlier. sorry.
cheerizero 4 years ago
You read the description again!
"Demonstration of research results shows simulated block creatures performing various evolved behaviors. "
EVOLVED BEHAVIORS!
Ifoundher 4 years ago
"EVOLVED BEHAVIORS!"
yes, after a fashion. in robotics, it's common to discribe the 'tendencies', the 'means of acheiving a goal', the 'actions taken(as opposed to ones not)' as behaviors.
Trying to grab the box is one behavior.
Running away would be another.
Blasting ones opponant would be yet another.
Were these coded into the creatures?
or did that emerge from removing failures from the bottom of the pile?
damianpoirier 4 years ago
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.
Ifoundher 4 years ago
phoenix2007 came across as a religious type who hates anything related to "evolution", so I cut to the chase
marcdesm 2 years ago
too bad breve dont have the capability to simulate air/water environments :(
ulempe 4 years ago
watch the video again, one creatures stratagies one land as a sidewinder after having evolved as a water creature.
damianpoirier 4 years ago
Look up brevecreatures
Dirtfire 4 years ago
You can do this stuff on something called the Breve platform.
Dirtfire 4 years ago
can this be downloaded?
articfox2276 5 years ago
... and this proves ...
phoenixx2007 5 years ago
nothing.. but it's cool; And it can be implemented[somewhere].
khmaz 5 years ago
It shows how mutations combined with selective pressure results in new forms.
tingtangs 3 years ago