Added: 5 years ago
From: brdido
Views: 30,300
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (76)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • SOURCE CODE!

  • @Machuse Hey! You can ask for Karl Sims! Just updated the description for the video!

  • This is fucking amazing.

  • Viewing this, and seeing the second top comment, I cant help but think that Spore was a bit of a letdown.

  • @Kabitu1 I agree. 

  • 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*

  • @Sandcat87 Why would our heads explode just because you admit to being an imbecilic nincompoop..?

  • @Sandcat87 How do you define "god?"

  • Great video. Certainly pwns the "It looks designed therefore it is argument"

  • That is SO COOL :D:D:D

  • the video is so simple thats its brilliant :)

  • 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 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.

  • oh and... this video is not about proving the evolution, it's about research on the evolution. It's not the same at all.

  • 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

  • "prove anything the christians that you will prove anything" = "prove anything" sorry for the repetititive part lol

  • 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

  • "The same people that a Darwinian Evolutionists"

    Just shows what type of people believe in Creationism.

  • @DeadMindWorking

    Wow you are a pathetic excuse for a human being.

  • the crab one is tight, fuck the cube ima beat this fool up.

  • and even funnier. You say it proves CHRISTIAN belief... fuckin asshole

  • 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.

  • is spore only for computers?

  • 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.

  • good. kill the christians

  • once spore games out; everyone will have fun with evolution.

  • 1994??

  • So cool, so very very cool.

  • haha.. cool critters!

  • I want this program, I could watch them adapt all day long.

  • my frontal lobe agrees with inquisitor. definitely.

  • cool

  • you're theory is void because you believe aliens visit this planet, according to your youtube page.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • "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.

  • 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.

  • big words are always right!

  • DanFrederiksen = fucktard

  • @DanFrederiksen Except if qualia are mechanistic.

  • @Whatsifsowhatsit it is not

  • make a screensaver out of this somehow

    that would be awesome

  • 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

  • That kicks ass. It's kinda sad seeing them fight over a block though... damn emotions.

  • unkie888, you certainly can.

  • what i meant was - can you evolve a create that can react in a number of different ways.

  • those things are hot

  • 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.

  • and this proves that there's no god phoenixx2007...

  • wow, read the description. he/she wasn't trying to prove anything. its just a cool video of block people.

  • oh my bad, you were replying to someone earlier. sorry.

  • You read the description again!

    "Demonstration of research results shows simulated block creatures performing various evolved behaviors. "

    EVOLVED BEHAVIORS!

  • "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?

  • I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.

  • phoenix2007 came across as a religious type who hates anything related to "evolution", so I cut to the chase

  • too bad breve dont have the capability to simulate air/water environments :(

  • watch the video again, one creatures stratagies one land as a sidewinder after having evolved as a water creature.

  • Look up brevecreatures

  • You can do this stuff on something called the Breve platform.

  • can this be downloaded?

  • ... and this proves ...

  • nothing.. but it's cool; And it can be implemented[somewhere].

  • It shows how mutations combined with selective pressure results in new forms.

Loading...
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more