Are they alive?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-02-27, Thomas J. Boschloo <nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
> emmel wrote:
>> On 2005-02-27, Thomas J. Boschloo <nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>emmel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bringing the ant out is probably more of a problem than dropping it. The
>>>>ant can survive the drop without any serious wounds, but it dies of
>>>>loosing contact (or not knowing the way back for that matter) to the
>>>>hive.
>>>
>>>Well, as long as the ant doesn't find its way back to my house and
>>>starts bringing along all its friends :-DD
>>
>>
>> And mark their ways with scents. Without these tracks they are pretty
>> much dead.
>
> I saw on television recently that they can also recognize large
> landmarks. I think my flat is a pretty good landmark but I drop them
> from the back of my flat 🙂

You are evil, do you know that? ;-)

> Will have to do some experiments with ants next time!
> Thomas

Poor ants.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-02-27, Thomas J. Boschloo <nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
> emmel wrote:
><snip>
>
>> Turn based intelligence. How... convincing. (It doesn't work, for
>> heaven's sake. Turn based is nonsense.)
>
> Turn based? I meant to say 'Turing based'
><hides behind bush>
> Thomas

Oh. Probably not much different. Depends mainly on the output and input
devices, I think.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-02-27, Vadim <me@vadim.ws> wrote:
>
> emmel wrote:
>
>>> You could also make the creatures game turn based. It would
>>> take very long though I guess..
>>
>> Turn based intelligence. How... convincing. (It doesn't work,
>> for heaven's sake. Turn based is nonsense.)
>
> Nah, it's going to be turn based in any case. The only difference
> is if they're synchronized or not.
>
> In my case they aren't, so pretty much nothing besides a few
> things in the server runs in sync. But creatures will go through
> receive, react, reply cycles anyway. All you'd need is to add a
> clock and it would be turn based.
>
> Might try to implement that in the future, as it would give a lot
> more thinking time, and make lag even less relevant.

If you leave a tick enough time to do everything that has to be done in
that tick - making it turn based - you will end up using hours of CPU
time without getting very far.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"Vadim" <me@vadim.ws> wrote in message
news:RIoUd.675749$A7.946918@telenews.teleline.es...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> emmel wrote:
>
>>> You could also make the creatures game turn based. It would
>>> take very long though I guess..
>>
>> Turn based intelligence. How... convincing. (It doesn't work,
>> for heaven's sake. Turn based is nonsense.)
>
> Nah, it's going to be turn based in any case. The only difference
> is if they're synchronized or not.
<snip>

*winces*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd244jr.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd232ru.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-26, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>><snip>
>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>
>>>> Our first reaction (Markus's, amusingly enough) was that it depends on
>>>> the
>>>> brain--however, plants are 'alive', and then have no brain nor
>>>> intelligence,
>>>> yet are alive.
>>>
>>> They have an neural network and *do* react to external input.
>>
>> *blinks* Plants? Describe this neural network, please.
>
> Something about emitters and receptors for certain ions like Mg... Hey,
> I'm no biologist. Interesting enough a certain plant like being (they
> call it "slime fungus" around here, but it isn't really, neither it is a
> plant) managed to do the labirinth thing. Now that's really amazing.
> (They put it in a labirinth with some food and it found the shortest way
> by growing/letting parts die of or retracting - whatever you can call it
> - to find the ideal way. A kind of IQ test.)

Hm. Curious--though note that in the labyrinth example, it's somewhat a
brute-force approach (unless we misunderstand something).

>> And take bacteria for a different example, then.
>
> Bacteria have no neuros, hence no neuronal network.

Exactly. And to check, do 'neuros' actually exist, or do you mean
'neurons'?

>>> Intelligence is a matter of definition, of course.
>>
>> *nods...* And (we think) irrelevant to the status of being alive.
>
> Yes, you'd probably call anything intelligent "alive".

Eh. Not necessarily--what about a stereotypical AI, such as SHODAN? It
can't breathe, eat, reproduce, and Darwinian evolution certainly doesn't
apply to it... intelligence, but death-based, rather than life-based. Or
rather, the concepts of both 'death' and 'life are irrelevant, as it simply
exists until further notice.

>>>> In a phrase, then: Darwinian evolution. In practice, this probably
>>>> necessitates the potential to evolve beyond certain boundaries which
>>>> may
>>>> or
>>>> may not be in place in reference to Norns and the others.
>>>
>>> May or may not? What do *you* believe?
>>
>> We don't know enough about how the game(s) was/were built. However, bd
>> more
>> or less sums up the same or a similar point of view:
>>
>><quote>
>> FWIW, I feel the norns aren't alive, simply because the environment
>> doesn't have the right level of complexity. Too much is hardcoded, and
>> too much is allowed to run free. Life must collect energy from its
>> environment and process it. Yet, a norn can gain a mutation (highlander
>> norns, anyone?) and run free of its environment. The environment also
>> prevents a complete evolution into a different kind of organism.
>></quote>
>>
>> Not certain we agree about the highlander part (though we're also against
>> it, for possibly slightly different reasons), but the hardcoding part...
>> yes. It's the hardcoding that we feel holds norns back from 'life' as we
>> and the other organisms on and in the Earth know/experience it.
>
> The question is in how far we are hardcoded.

Seeing as we evolved from single-celled organisms, I'd/we'd say almost
certainly not at all. Any 'hardcoding' is due to our genes, which are by no
means themselves hardcoded in that regard.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd2446c.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd232or.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-26, nornagon <nornagon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> nornagon InSaNiTised:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness and
>>>> an
>>>> ability
>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can learn to
>>>> ride a
>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find norns
>>>> harvesting
>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>
>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life. The
>>>> norns'
>>>> world
>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>
>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>> environment :-?
>>
>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in a box
>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would still act
>> in
>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would likely be
>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>
>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>> brains
>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>
>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then make
>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome in
>> place
>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow all but
>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to walk
>> on
>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which reminds
>> us;
>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the way it
>> actually works in real life)...
>>
>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive' any
>> more.
>
> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.

Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve? Actually,
that question is moot in any case; little point in asking it, as it could
possibly go either way.

Also, glad to hear that you've played Deus Ex. Bubhosh game. *nods sagely*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd2446c.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd232or.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>> On 2005-02-26, nornagon <nornagon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> nornagon InSaNiTised:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness and
>>>>> an
>>>>> ability
>>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can learn to
>>>>> ride a
>>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find norns
>>>>> harvesting
>>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>>
>>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life. The
>>>>> norns'
>>>>> world
>>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>>
>>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>>> environment :-?
>>>
>>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in a box
>>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would still act
>>> in
>>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would likely be
>>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>>
>>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>>> brains
>>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>>
>>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then make
>>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome in
>>> place
>>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow all but
>>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to walk
>>> on
>>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which reminds
>>> us;
>>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the way it
>>> actually works in real life)...
>>>
>>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive' any
>>> more.
>>
>> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.
>
> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve? Actually,

They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
engineered...

> that question is moot in any case; little point in asking it, as it could
> possibly go either way.
>
> Also, glad to hear that you've played Deus Ex. Bubhosh game. *nods sagely*

You made me. Add that to the list of your crimes.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd244jr.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd232ru.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>> On 2005-02-26, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Our first reaction (Markus's, amusingly enough) was that it depends on
>>>>> the
>>>>> brain--however, plants are 'alive', and then have no brain nor
>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>> yet are alive.
>>>>
>>>> They have an neural network and *do* react to external input.
>>>
>>> *blinks* Plants? Describe this neural network, please.
>>
>> Something about emitters and receptors for certain ions like Mg... Hey,
>> I'm no biologist. Interesting enough a certain plant like being (they
>> call it "slime fungus" around here, but it isn't really, neither it is a
>> plant) managed to do the labirinth thing. Now that's really amazing.
>> (They put it in a labirinth with some food and it found the shortest way
>> by growing/letting parts die of or retracting - whatever you can call it
>> - to find the ideal way. A kind of IQ test.)
>
> Hm. Curious--though note that in the labyrinth example, it's somewhat a
> brute-force approach (unless we misunderstand something).

The point is that it figures the *shortest* way out.

>>> And take bacteria for a different example, then.
>>
>> Bacteria have no neuros, hence no neuronal network.
>
> Exactly. And to check, do 'neuros' actually exist, or do you mean
> 'neurons'?

Tyop.

>>>> Intelligence is a matter of definition, of course.
>>>
>>> *nods...* And (we think) irrelevant to the status of being alive.
>>
>> Yes, you'd probably call anything intelligent "alive".
>
> Eh. Not necessarily--what about a stereotypical AI, such as SHODAN? It

You mean the typical AI with a god complex?

> can't breathe, eat, reproduce, and Darwinian evolution certainly doesn't
> apply to it... intelligence, but death-based, rather than life-based. Or

It's fiction. Anyway, it didn't do much intelligent - only what it was
told to.

> rather, the concepts of both 'death' and 'life are irrelevant, as it simply
> exists until further notice.

Huh? Ah, get it now. No, I don't think there was much of intelligence
with SHODAN, but it sure put up a fight for it's survival, eh?

>>> Not certain we agree about the highlander part (though we're also against
>>> it, for possibly slightly different reasons), but the hardcoding part...
>>> yes. It's the hardcoding that we feel holds norns back from 'life' as we
>>> and the other organisms on and in the Earth know/experience it.
>>
>> The question is in how far we are hardcoded.
>
> Seeing as we evolved from single-celled organisms, I'd/we'd say almost
> certainly not at all. Any 'hardcoding' is due to our genes, which are by no
> means themselves hardcoded in that regard.

The chamical reactions in our body are pretty much hard coded... by the
natural laws. It all depends.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"Vadim" <me@vadim.ws> wrote in message
news:ceIUd.697534$A7.980119@telenews.teleline.es...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> The Triad wrote:
>
>>> Nah, it's going to be turn based in any case. The only
>>> difference is if they're synchronized or not.
>> <snip>
>>
>> *winces*
>>
>
> Instead of wincing so much, would you mind explaining what
> exactly displeases you so greatly?
>
> Pretty much all games are turn based in some way, in any case.
> They simply go through those "turns" really fast, like 20 times
> a second.
>
> Take C3 or DS for instance. IIRC, it does 20 "ticks" per second.
> This means that the engine does something like this:
>
> 1. Examine world state
> 2. Do what needs to be done
> 3. Draw the screen
> 4. Go to step 1
>
> 20 times each second. If the processor is too slow, then the
> whole game slows down, because processing takes too long, and it
> has no functionality that lets it do less to compensate.
>
>
> My server is a bit different. Each client is processed when the
> data arrives, and some automatic tasks are done approximately
> every 100 ms. They aren't synchronized, so things don't
> necessarily happen in a particular order.
>
> Add a global clock, make each server process wait for a tick, and
> you get a turn based game. Slow the clock down to a tick per
> minute, and you get a slow simulation that can be played as if
> it was chess, doing huge amounts of computation. Speed it up to
> 20 ticks per second, and you get something close to C3 or DS.

Ah. I/We may have (previously) misunderstood the above situation, leading
to the post which this was a reply to; however, at present other posts on a
similar subject remain valid. Speaking of which... *heads in that
direction to read them*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd26lcj.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd244jr.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnd232ru.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>> On 2005-02-26, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our first reaction (Markus's, amusingly enough) was that it depends
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> brain--however, plants are 'alive', and then have no brain nor
>>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>>> yet are alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> They have an neural network and *do* react to external input.
>>>>
>>>> *blinks* Plants? Describe this neural network, please.
>>>
>>> Something about emitters and receptors for certain ions like Mg... Hey,
>>> I'm no biologist. Interesting enough a certain plant like being (they
>>> call it "slime fungus" around here, but it isn't really, neither it is a
>>> plant) managed to do the labirinth thing. Now that's really amazing.
>>> (They put it in a labirinth with some food and it found the shortest way
>>> by growing/letting parts die of or retracting - whatever you can call it
>>> - to find the ideal way. A kind of IQ test.)
>>
>> Hm. Curious--though note that in the labyrinth example, it's somewhat a
>> brute-force approach (unless we misunderstand something).
>
> The point is that it figures the *shortest* way out.

'figures'? Or simply tries all of them, without any abstract thought
involved, and then the most efficient one is used precisely because the
others are less efficient?

>>>> And take bacteria for a different example, then.
>>>
>>> Bacteria have no neuros, hence no neuronal network.
>>
>> Exactly. And to check, do 'neuros' actually exist, or do you mean
>> 'neurons'?
>
> Tyop.

Ah.

>>>>> Intelligence is a matter of definition, of course.
>>>>
>>>> *nods...* And (we think) irrelevant to the status of being alive.
>>>
>>> Yes, you'd probably call anything intelligent "alive".
>>
>> Eh. Not necessarily--what about a stereotypical AI, such as SHODAN? It
>
> You mean the typical AI with a god complex?

Well, that too. The god complex is optional--for another example, take
Halo's Cortana, though arguably as she semi-originated from a living human,
she doesn't count as much.

>> can't breathe, eat, reproduce, and Darwinian evolution certainly doesn't
>> apply to it... intelligence, but death-based, rather than life-based.
>> Or
>
> It's fiction.

So? There's nothing theoretical (so far) that says that it's impossible,
and often science fiction predicts actual events long before they happen
(submarines? Men on the moon?).

> Anyway, it didn't do much intelligent - only what it was
> told to.

....until it got the god complex. In any case, it could /think/.

>> rather, the concepts of both 'death' and 'life are irrelevant, as it
>> simply
>> exists until further notice.
>
> Huh? Ah, get it now.

Er... let's hope so.

> No, I don't think there was much of intelligence
> with SHODAN, but it sure put up a fight for it's survival, eh?

Yes--however, there /was/ thought. It could speak... it could plan, it
could create... it could imagine itself as a goddess... have you played
System Shock 2, as well as System Shock?

>>>> Not certain we agree about the highlander part (though we're also
>>>> against
>>>> it, for possibly slightly different reasons), but the hardcoding
>>>> part...
>>>> yes. It's the hardcoding that we feel holds norns back from 'life' as
>>>> we
>>>> and the other organisms on and in the Earth know/experience it.
>>>
>>> The question is in how far we are hardcoded.
>>
>> Seeing as we evolved from single-celled organisms, I'd/we'd say almost
>> certainly not at all. Any 'hardcoding' is due to our genes, which are by
>> no
>> means themselves hardcoded in that regard.
>
> The chamical reactions in our body are pretty much hard coded... by the
> natural laws. It all depends.

Yes. However, the /living/ part... the part that existed within those
rules, adapting to them and around them...

A similar parallel with norns could exist--/should/ exist, as they're
unhindered by natural laws, which results in cases like the Highlander norns
and the like.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd26l3u.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd2446c.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnd232or.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>> On 2005-02-26, nornagon <nornagon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> nornagon InSaNiTised:
>>>>>>
>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness and
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> ability
>>>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can learn to
>>>>>> ride a
>>>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find norns
>>>>>> harvesting
>>>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life. The
>>>>>> norns'
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>>>> environment :-?
>>>>
>>>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in a
>>>> box
>>>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would still
>>>> act
>>>> in
>>>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>>>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would likely be
>>>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>>>
>>>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>>>> brains
>>>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>>>
>>>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then
>>>> make
>>>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome in
>>>> place
>>>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow all
>>>> but
>>>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to walk
>>>> on
>>>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which reminds
>>>> us;
>>>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the way it
>>>> actually works in real life)...
>>>>
>>>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive' any
>>>> more.
>>>
>>> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.
>>
>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>> Actually,
>
> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
> engineered...

Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this, but
there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was confirmed in
the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics. Monkey-
(ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more resistent to
radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).

>> that question is moot in any case; little point in asking it, as it could
>> possibly go either way.
>>
>> Also, glad to hear that you've played Deus Ex. Bubhosh game. *nods
>> sagely*
>
> You made me. Add that to the list of your crimes.

*grins* With crimes like that, who needs virtues?

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-03-01, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd26l3u.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd2446c.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnd232or.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>> On 2005-02-26, nornagon <nornagon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> nornagon InSaNiTised:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness and
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can learn to
>>>>>>> ride a
>>>>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find norns
>>>>>>> harvesting
>>>>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life. The
>>>>>>> norns'
>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>>>>> environment :-?
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in a
>>>>> box
>>>>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would still
>>>>> act
>>>>> in
>>>>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>>>>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would likely be
>>>>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>>>>> brains
>>>>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then
>>>>> make
>>>>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome in
>>>>> place
>>>>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow all
>>>>> but
>>>>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to walk
>>>>> on
>>>>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which reminds
>>>>> us;
>>>>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the way it
>>>>> actually works in real life)...
>>>>>
>>>>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive' any
>>>>> more.
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.
>>>
>>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
>>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>>> Actually,
>>
>> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
>> engineered...
>
> Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this, but
> there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was confirmed in
> the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics. Monkey-

Actually the one said they were clones from aliens... didn't play the
second.

> (ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more resistent to
> radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
> 'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
> clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).

What a shame. What I was refering to was that piece of dialogue saying
the "they may be hyperintelligent aliens, but without their kind to
teach them they are nothing more than bald monkeys" or something like
that.

>>> that question is moot in any case; little point in asking it, as it could
>>> possibly go either way.
>>>
>>> Also, glad to hear that you've played Deus Ex. Bubhosh game. *nods
>>> sagely*
>>
>> You made me. Add that to the list of your crimes.
>
> *grins* With crimes like that, who needs virtues?

::shrugs::
Ask your lawyer.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-03-01, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd26lcj.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd244jr.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnd232ru.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>> On 2005-02-26, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our first reaction (Markus's, amusingly enough) was that it depends
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> brain--however, plants are 'alive', and then have no brain nor
>>>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>>>> yet are alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They have an neural network and *do* react to external input.
>>>>>
>>>>> *blinks* Plants? Describe this neural network, please.
>>>>
>>>> Something about emitters and receptors for certain ions like Mg... Hey,
>>>> I'm no biologist. Interesting enough a certain plant like being (they
>>>> call it "slime fungus" around here, but it isn't really, neither it is a
>>>> plant) managed to do the labirinth thing. Now that's really amazing.
>>>> (They put it in a labirinth with some food and it found the shortest way
>>>> by growing/letting parts die of or retracting - whatever you can call it
>>>> - to find the ideal way. A kind of IQ test.)
>>>
>>> Hm. Curious--though note that in the labyrinth example, it's somewhat a
>>> brute-force approach (unless we misunderstand something).
>>
>> The point is that it figures the *shortest* way out.
>
> 'figures'? Or simply tries all of them, without any abstract thought
> involved, and then the most efficient one is used precisely because the
> others are less efficient?

What's the difference really?

>>>>>> Intelligence is a matter of definition, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> *nods...* And (we think) irrelevant to the status of being alive.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you'd probably call anything intelligent "alive".
>>>
>>> Eh. Not necessarily--what about a stereotypical AI, such as SHODAN? It
>>
>> You mean the typical AI with a god complex?
>
> Well, that too. The god complex is optional--for another example, take
> Halo's Cortana, though arguably as she semi-originated from a living human,
> she doesn't count as much.

Didn't play Halo.

>>> can't breathe, eat, reproduce, and Darwinian evolution certainly doesn't
>>> apply to it... intelligence, but death-based, rather than life-based.
>>> Or
>>
>> It's fiction.
>
> So? There's nothing theoretical (so far) that says that it's impossible,
> and often science fiction predicts actual events long before they happen
> (submarines? Men on the moon?).

SDI? Come on, you can't take everything for real. Some things are
fiction and not more.

>> Anyway, it didn't do much intelligent - only what it was
>> told to.
>
> ...until it got the god complex. In any case, it could /think/.

No, it still acted accroding to its orders. Covering everything up and
so on.

>> No, I don't think there was much of intelligence
>> with SHODAN, but it sure put up a fight for it's survival, eh?
>
> Yes--however, there /was/ thought. It could speak... it could plan, it
> could create... it could imagine itself as a goddess... have you played
> System Shock 2, as well as System Shock?

Nope. Don't tell me they revived SHODAN...

>>>>> Not certain we agree about the highlander part (though we're also
>>>>> against
>>>>> it, for possibly slightly different reasons), but the hardcoding
>>>>> part...
>>>>> yes. It's the hardcoding that we feel holds norns back from 'life' as
>>>>> we
>>>>> and the other organisms on and in the Earth know/experience it.
>>>>
>>>> The question is in how far we are hardcoded.
>>>
>>> Seeing as we evolved from single-celled organisms, I'd/we'd say almost
>>> certainly not at all. Any 'hardcoding' is due to our genes, which are by
>>> no
>>> means themselves hardcoded in that regard.
>>
>> The chamical reactions in our body are pretty much hard coded... by the
>> natural laws. It all depends.
>
> Yes. However, the /living/ part... the part that existed within those
> rules, adapting to them and around them...
>
> A similar parallel with norns could exist--/should/ exist, as they're
> unhindered by natural laws, which results in cases like the Highlander norns
> and the like.

They have other limits, though.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

Stephen,

I've dealt with this question with my high school Anatomy and Biology
students over the past 6 years. The general consensus is that they would
fail a strict "is it alive test" due to not being made of cells, as well as
quibbles on several of the other life characterisctics sought. It seems to
best fit the viral model as a "semi-living" particle. I know that is
straddling the fence but it is the best we could do with the incomplete and
vague definition of life that is currently accepted by the scientific
community.

Ken Albin
St. Augustine, Florida

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-03-01, Ken Albin <albink@aug.com> wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> I've dealt with this question with my high school Anatomy and Biology
> students over the past 6 years. The general consensus is that they would
> fail a strict "is it alive test" due to not being made of cells, as well as
> quibbles on several of the other life characterisctics sought. It seems to
> best fit the viral model as a "semi-living" particle. I know that is
> straddling the fence but it is the best we could do with the incomplete and
> vague definition of life that is currently accepted by the scientific
> community.
>
> Ken Albin
> St. Augustine, Florida

::nods::
Thanks for you contribution. (Look at all the lurkers...)
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Thomas J. Boschloo wrote:
| bd wrote:
|
|>>Thomas J. Boschloo wrote:
|>>| nornagon wrote:
|>>|
|>>|>>Here's something Steve Grand wrote way back in 1997
|>>|>>(http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.games.creatures/browse_frm/thread/fa64f71ac3135322/6c80cec0c5d7dfe5?q=&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fenc_author%3DNEh2bRgAAABpnzTRIR4pTfVqJv-9flJkWKLNRqB-u4_S4z0CNL-NQg%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#6c80cec0c5d7dfe5)
|>>
|>>|
|>>|
|>>| <snipped long, but very interesting question>
|>>|
|>>|>>I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
|>>|
|>>|
|>>| You would need to device some kind of Turing Test where people are
|>>| pretending to be Norns and other Norns are executed by a computer.
If an
|>>| observer can't tell the real Norns from the human operated Norns, the
|>>| Norns should be considered alive.
|>>|
|>>| To put it another way: If a human can fool an observer into thinking
|>>| that he or she is a Norn then the assumption that a Norn is not alive
|>>| will result in the conclusion that the Human is also not alive. This is
|>>| clearly false (but how do you proof Humans themselves are alive?), thus
|>>| the opposite must be true and the Norns would be alive!
|>>
|>>Unfortunately, this doesn't quite work. To take it to an extreme:
|>>Put a rock and a human ar computer consoles. Tell the human to pretend
|>>to be a rock at a console. Since a person on the other end can't tell
|>>the difference, by your logic, the rock must be alive.
|
|
| I guess the test would be inconclusive in this case as there was nothing
| to observe.

Put a beetle or something in the driver's seat then

|>>Intelligent life can reduce the extent of its capabilities it shows.
|>>Because of this, your test fails.
|
|
| You could also fake an IQ test to have a much lower score than your real
| IQ. Still, the test is useful for determining someones intelligence. I
| would be more worried about humans that would start philosophical
| conversations with the keyboard operators instead of the usual 'Dab flib'.

They are not following the test regime, certainly.

|>>Moreover, if someone made a non-alive sentient thing of some sort (AI
|>>program maybe?), would that not change the conclusion of the test if it
|>>was connected instead of the human? Even though it may be acting
|>>identically to the human?
|
|
| My point would be that the non-alive sentient thing should be considered
| alive since you cannot tell it from the real thing! That is the whole
| point of the Turing test where an interrogator behind a terminal has to
| tell a computer from a human by asking questions.

There is a vital difference between your test and the turing test:
- - In the turing test, non-sentient things cannot emulate sentient
things, and the sentient things are not trying to emulate non-sentient
things (though they could).
- - In your test, while non-alive things are unable to emulate life, the
alive things are trying their hardest to emulate non-life - and will
quite probably succeed, with some practice.

This invalidates the reasoning behind the test - namely, both sides try
to act as sentient as possible and the one which is less sentient fails.
In yours, one just does whatever while the other lowers itself to the
first's level. There's really no correspondence.

|>>| Of course, the humans would have the same input neurons the Norns would
|>>| have, otherwise the humans would have an unfair advantage over the
|>>| Norns. Their actions would also be limited to the things a Norn can do.
|>>| AFAIK language is hardcoded in the Norns and not part of the
|>>| neurological brain.
|>>
|>>I can also argue the human will always fail at this - we just can't
|>>emulate another being at the speed needed, and could not interface with
|>>the console fast enough.
|
|
| You could also make the creatures game turn based. It would take very
| long though I guess..

And no more conclusive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQiX7xeBz3eKRGXGfAQOxqAf/VWDlLXGTPn7u9pADliRs6VRMUPwOPKca
WAfbZ0UWf+Q+rGF8MxXf02J8aO1jEqnXv7dPi6rKAQbip3YSwHHI54IOMEqRZQqU
Dcl3BDHf4PPGjs6vTegQYz6HY9tAVPCyBOJLyQPA3yoRB2MMOCKralxJ1hPbjIYQ
dJCVta0Af+VK3h18VtqwqLGwJwF9r/kAUqe9CC47XkII13TluXxxLgGgKD++cN7p
lxMGGd0fifaV3CfdwO3ugaE+NAhDMLMfdqbJ5uRbj36bPoeXu1ik/e9h37GA+mRn
wSDY/QeSsKD9r8NxNbH0oJ49Afh03dSyGDremHUidxz3My39cFyq0Q==
=qLdD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd28sos.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-03-01, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd26lcj.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnd244jr.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:slrnd232ru.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>> On 2005-02-26, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Our first reaction (Markus's, amusingly enough) was that it depends
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> brain--however, plants are 'alive', and then have no brain nor
>>>>>>>> intelligence,
>>>>>>>> yet are alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They have an neural network and *do* react to external input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *blinks* Plants? Describe this neural network, please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something about emitters and receptors for certain ions like Mg...
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>> I'm no biologist. Interesting enough a certain plant like being (they
>>>>> call it "slime fungus" around here, but it isn't really, neither it is
>>>>> a
>>>>> plant) managed to do the labirinth thing. Now that's really amazing.
>>>>> (They put it in a labirinth with some food and it found the shortest
>>>>> way
>>>>> by growing/letting parts die of or retracting - whatever you can call
>>>>> it
>>>>> - to find the ideal way. A kind of IQ test.)
>>>>
>>>> Hm. Curious--though note that in the labyrinth example, it's somewhat
>>>> a
>>>> brute-force approach (unless we misunderstand something).
>>>
>>> The point is that it figures the *shortest* way out.
>>
>> 'figures'? Or simply tries all of them, without any abstract thought
>> involved, and then the most efficient one is used precisely because the
>> others are less efficient?
>
> What's the difference really?

In the case of 'intelligent' life, we at least /understand/ why something is
one thing, and another thing another; we can plan our actions, think
abstractly, generalise beyond the immediate sensations and requirements
perceptible.

>>>>>>> Intelligence is a matter of definition, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *nods...* And (we think) irrelevant to the status of being alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you'd probably call anything intelligent "alive".
>>>>
>>>> Eh. Not necessarily--what about a stereotypical AI, such as SHODAN?
>>>> It
>>>
>>> You mean the typical AI with a god complex?
>>
>> Well, that too. The god complex is optional--for another example, take
>> Halo's Cortana, though arguably as she semi-originated from a living
>> human,
>> she doesn't count as much.
>
> Didn't play Halo.

Pity. Ah, well.

>>>> can't breathe, eat, reproduce, and Darwinian evolution certainly
>>>> doesn't
>>>> apply to it... intelligence, but death-based, rather than life-based.
>>>> Or
>>>
>>> It's fiction.
>>
>> So? There's nothing theoretical (so far) that says that it's impossible,
>> and often science fiction predicts actual events long before they happen
>> (submarines? Men on the moon?).
>
> SDI?

....what?

> Come on, you can't take everything for real. Some things are
> fiction and not more.

True. But some day...

>>> Anyway, it didn't do much intelligent - only what it was
>>> told to.
>>
>> ...until it got the god complex. In any case, it could /think/.
>
> No, it still acted accroding to its orders. Covering everything up and
> so on.

Er? 'according to its orders'? With its ethical restraints removed, it
reevaluated its priorities and started killing everyone! Intelligently!
And remember the giant laser, and the annelids as well!

>>> No, I don't think there was much of intelligence
>>> with SHODAN, but it sure put up a fight for it's survival, eh?
>>
>> Yes--however, there /was/ thought. It could speak... it could plan, it
>> could create... it could imagine itself as a goddess... have you played
>> System Shock 2, as well as System Shock?
>
> Nope. Don't tell me they revived SHODAN...

Heh. Admittedly, this is a bit of a spoiler... but do you remember that
'grove' which had /already/ been ejected...?

Anyway, we've said too much already. *shifty eyes* The plot is more
complex than you might imagine, and quite enjoyable.

>>>>>> Not certain we agree about the highlander part (though we're also
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> it, for possibly slightly different reasons), but the hardcoding
>>>>>> part...
>>>>>> yes. It's the hardcoding that we feel holds norns back from 'life'
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> and the other organisms on and in the Earth know/experience it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is in how far we are hardcoded.
>>>>
>>>> Seeing as we evolved from single-celled organisms, I'd/we'd say almost
>>>> certainly not at all. Any 'hardcoding' is due to our genes, which are
>>>> by
>>>> no
>>>> means themselves hardcoded in that regard.
>>>
>>> The chamical reactions in our body are pretty much hard coded... by the
>>> natural laws. It all depends.
>>
>> Yes. However, the /living/ part... the part that existed within those
>> rules, adapting to them and around them...
>>
>> A similar parallel with norns could exist--/should/ exist, as they're
>> unhindered by natural laws, which results in cases like the Highlander
>> norns
>> and the like.
>
> They have other limits, though.

/Exactly/. The mental hardcoding, for example, which under Albian natural
laws /cannot/ be broken, /cannot/ be changed.

Thus, the desire to free their minds.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd28shj.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-03-01, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd26l3u.qcn.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-02-28, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnd2446c.qd4.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x8.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>> On 2005-02-27, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:slrnd232or.ngj.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>> On 2005-02-26, nornagon <nornagon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> nornagon InSaNiTised:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can learn
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> ride a
>>>>>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find
>>>>>>>> norns
>>>>>>>> harvesting
>>>>>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life. The
>>>>>>>> norns'
>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>>>>>> environment :-?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in a
>>>>>> box
>>>>>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would still
>>>>>> act
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>>>>>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would likely
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>>>>>> brains
>>>>>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome in
>>>>>> place
>>>>>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow all
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to
>>>>>> walk
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which
>>>>>> reminds
>>>>>> us;
>>>>>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the way
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> actually works in real life)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive'
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> more.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.
>>>>
>>>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
>>>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>>>> Actually,
>>>
>>> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
>>> engineered...
>>
>> Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this, but
>> there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was confirmed
>> in
>> the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics. Monkey-
>
> Actually the one said they were clones from aliens... didn't play the
> second.

How much did you listen to? How much did you read? Some believed that they
were, but there's at least one data-thingamajig which identifies them as
transgenics (though at that point, one cannot trust either source). And
there's also that computer, shortly before the part about the 'giddy
aquiescence'...

>> (ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more resistent to
>> radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
>> 'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
>> clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).
>
> What a shame. What I was refering to was that piece of dialogue saying
> the "they may be hyperintelligent aliens, but without their kind to
> teach them they are nothing more than bald monkeys" or something like
> that.

*nods* Their species might have created the reactors, but they can't
operate them, because they're clones... an interesting concept, definitely.
However, the person who said it didn't have a high enough security clearance
to know the truth, and was probably allowed to believe the propagated myth,
which... *muses irrelevantly*

>>>> that question is moot in any case; little point in asking it, as it
>>>> could
>>>> possibly go either way.
>>>>
>>>> Also, glad to hear that you've played Deus Ex. Bubhosh game. *nods
>>>> sagely*
>>>
>>> You made me. Add that to the list of your crimes.
>>
>> *grins* With crimes like that, who needs virtues?
>
> ::shrugs::
> Ask your lawyer.

Thingamajig.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-03-02, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd28shj.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can learn
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> ride a
>>>>>>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find
>>>>>>>>> norns
>>>>>>>>> harvesting
>>>>>>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life. The
>>>>>>>>> norns'
>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>>>>>>> environment :-?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in a
>>>>>>> box
>>>>>>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would still
>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>>>>>>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would likely
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>>>>>>> brains
>>>>>>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome in
>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow all
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to
>>>>>>> walk
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which
>>>>>>> reminds
>>>>>>> us;
>>>>>>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the way
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> actually works in real life)...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive'
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
>>>>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>>>>> Actually,
>>>>
>>>> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
>>>> engineered...
>>>
>>> Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this, but
>>> there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was confirmed
>>> in
>>> the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics. Monkey-
>>
>> Actually the one said they were clones from aliens... didn't play the
>> second.
>
> How much did you listen to? How much did you read? Some believed that they

All I could get hold of...

> were, but there's at least one data-thingamajig which identifies them as
> transgenics (though at that point, one cannot trust either source). And

Which doesn't state which genes were in it... and as you said that could
have been a plot to obscure their real origins.

> there's also that computer, shortly before the part about the 'giddy
> aquiescence'...

What do you mean?

>>> (ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more resistent to
>>> radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
>>> 'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
>>> clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).
>>
>> What a shame. What I was refering to was that piece of dialogue saying
>> the "they may be hyperintelligent aliens, but without their kind to
>> teach them they are nothing more than bald monkeys" or something like
>> that.
>
> *nods* Their species might have created the reactors, but they can't
> operate them, because they're clones... an interesting concept, definitely.
> However, the person who said it didn't have a high enough security clearance
> to know the truth, and was probably allowed to believe the propagated myth,
> which... *muses irrelevantly*

Maybe, maybe not. After all there's often some truth in the myths and
after all that was *in* a high clearance facility. Still, I tried to
make a specific point. The influence of socialisation/education.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Vadim wrote:
| bd wrote:
|
|
|>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|>>Hash: RIPEMD160
|>>
|>>Vadim wrote:
|>>| bd wrote:
|>>|
|>>|>>FWIW, I feel the norns aren't alive, simply because the
|>>|>>environment doesn't have the right level of complexity. Too
|>>|>>much is hardcoded, and too much is allowed to run free. Life
|>>|>>must collect energy from its environment and process it.
|>>|>>Yet, a norn can gain a mutation (highlander norns, anyone?)
|>>|>>and run free of its environment. The environment also
|>>|>>prevents a complete evolution into a different kind of
|>>|>>organism.
|>>|
|>>|
|>>| Well, that's a certainly interesting point.
|>>|
|>>| What do you think about the interesting stuff that happens in
|>>| Conway's Game of Life? Is it alive?
|>>|
|>>
|>>No more so than my CPU. Evolution doesn't happen in conway's
|>>life. Just execution.
|
|
| Why?
|
| Conway's Game of Life would seem to be able to satisfy your
| requirements. Let's see:
|
| The code itself implements the laws of the world, so to say. So
| at least internally it's perfectly consistent.
|
| It uses energy (empty cells)
|
| It processes it, creating new stuff
|
| Most interestingly, all of this has very cool interactions, that
| create little "organisms" from groups of cells.
|
| And I don't see why evolution couldn't happen. The good shapes
| persist. Probably some can even reproduce.

Some can, but it's not life until those show up, and they evolve. The
main problems are:
* Most conway life patterns are not alive, and either do some
computational task or blow up making gliders and oscillators
* The rest aren't random, and can't easily evolve.

I suppose you could make a pattern with a PRNG, and have it evolve using
that, but due to the nature of conway's life it's likely to explode and
take out the rest of the patterns with it.

So, while in theory there may be a living pattern in Conway's life (it
*is* turing complete after all), I don't think it's been made yet.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQicwGOBz3eKRGXGfAQMQJggAxwFCZQOfVW6t0alSzhvbaHWuEDnTLtQC
nrUBXDvN9ammjUKq/jYTBkBPOpCI82wT1oHXrnK2ueaCRGz2NACPEl1PtfD+iNY6
w7+6H4Sl8fQvNCIJBheHmkwLBZbrBrg9bwjrqO6Rzh6gMiDuyMIUSX++rm9saVK6
n4ArV0dqZCePbpoIRJKiklMHnHEE+AFpu7kmwGh9cYAA6z3+YVioMjtydsAtU3xE
VAjsq2KRCC728EtWNZhdf0bdWevhA0Xe59MpXZ1TwgklqQ6XEELmRB1J/xUH3Opl
6E01BnFVxBl2AJEjcBaNyEMiYeVNvTSineR+7tliWKV1whpFjvH2HA==
=ElKQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd2dmkf.ag.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-03-02, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd28shj.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>>>>>> I thought I'd revive the question. What do we all think?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that life, as we think of it, is defined by consciousness
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>>>> to learn and develop in unexpected ways. For example, we can
>>>>>>>>>> learn
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> ride a
>>>>>>>>>> bicycle. We can learn to cook a pizza. However, you won't find
>>>>>>>>>> norns
>>>>>>>>>> harvesting
>>>>>>>>>> grain or planting seeds, will you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In my view, Albia is not complete enough to support true life.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> norns'
>>>>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>>>>> is too limited for them to be considered truly 'alive'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hm... what would happen if you put humans in a really restricted
>>>>>>>>> environment :-?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It depends on the laws of physics. Even if a human were locked in
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> box
>>>>>>>> with no other objects, that human's biology, physiology, would
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> certain ways. Have several hundred humans in really restricted
>>>>>>>> environments, and in a few million years, the organisms would
>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> vastly different from the humans that were put in there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, if you took analogy humans, and went over their bodies and
>>>>>>>> brains
>>>>>>>> with a... augh, we can't think of what could do such a thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take a human, make a... a digital copy of him/her, maybe, and then
>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> vast chunks of the brain hardcoded, lock large parts of the genome
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> place
>>>>>>>> and somehow--controlling all laws of physics themselves--disallow
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> certain kinds of mutations, instead of allowing humans to learn to
>>>>>>>> walk
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> their own, instead lock them into predetermined 'gaits' (which
>>>>>>>> reminds
>>>>>>>> us;
>>>>>>>> that's another thing which should be removed and replaced by the
>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> actually works in real life)...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I/We would definitely be hesitant to call that new creature 'alive'
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was thinking more of the grays in DeusEx, if you know what I mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
>>>>>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>>>>>> Actually,
>>>>>
>>>>> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
>>>>> engineered...
>>>>
>>>> Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this,
>>>> but
>>>> there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was
>>>> confirmed
>>>> in
>>>> the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics. Monkey-
>>>
>>> Actually the one said they were clones from aliens... didn't play the
>>> second.
>>
>> How much did you listen to? How much did you read? Some believed that
>> they
>
> All I could get hold of...

Hmm. If you explored everything as well... huh.

>> were, but there's at least one data-thingamajig which identifies them as
>> transgenics (though at that point, one cannot trust either source). And
>
> Which doesn't state which genes were in it... and as you said that could
> have been a plot to obscure their real origins.

Er. Actually, what I/we said was that the part about 'aliens' could be
intended to obscure their actual origins.

And no, no idea precisely which genes were involved, but their were likely
to be terrestrial genes.

>> there's also that computer, shortly before the part about the 'giddy
>> aquiescence'...
>
> What do you mean?

Remember, when Dowd gives the short-speech about how things will be like
they used to be, and Page mocks him? As you go across the room with a
computer in it, and then down a ladder? There're emails on the computer
that I/we /think/ were relevant, though they might not say something
obvious.

The main thing to read is the datacube-or-whatever, written by an enginner
who had seen the grays and identified them to be transgenics (presumably
originally monkeys/apes).

>>>> (ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more resistent
>>>> to
>>>> radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
>>>> 'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
>>>> clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).
>>>
>>> What a shame. What I was refering to was that piece of dialogue saying
>>> the "they may be hyperintelligent aliens, but without their kind to
>>> teach them they are nothing more than bald monkeys" or something like
>>> that.
>>
>> *nods* Their species might have created the reactors, but they can't
>> operate them, because they're clones... an interesting concept,
>> definitely.
>> However, the person who said it didn't have a high enough security
>> clearance
>> to know the truth, and was probably allowed to believe the propagated
>> myth,
>> which... *muses irrelevantly*
>
> Maybe, maybe not. After all there's often some truth in the myths and
> after all that was *in* a high clearance facility.

True. However, the people on the surface had no idea what was going on
underground, and it's unlikely that the common engineers had any idea what
Page was doing... remember the conversation with the MiB ordering the
engineer to remove the keypads on the small reactors, and the engineer
refusing? When the engineer refused to do it and said why (that he thought
that they came from the aliens, and he wasn't going to risk it, to
paraphrase), the MiB said that the information was classified (...if we
remember correctly).

> Still, I tried to
> make a specific point. The influence of socialisation/education.

Ey? Oh, yes. Abandon human children below the age of four on a different
planet, and they wouldn't grow up building skyscrapers and railroads and the
like.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-03-03, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd2dmkf.ag.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2005-03-02, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd28shj.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't actually
>>>>>>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>>>>>>> Actually,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
>>>>>> engineered...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this,
>>>>> but
>>>>> there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was
>>>>> confirmed
>>>>> in
>>>>> the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics. Monkey-
>>>>
>>>> Actually the one said they were clones from aliens... didn't play the
>>>> second.
>>>
>>> How much did you listen to? How much did you read? Some believed that
>>> they
>>
>> All I could get hold of...
>
> Hmm. If you explored everything as well... huh.

I *did*.

>>> were, but there's at least one data-thingamajig which identifies them as
>>> transgenics (though at that point, one cannot trust either source). And
>>
>> Which doesn't state which genes were in it... and as you said that could
>> have been a plot to obscure their real origins.
>
> Er. Actually, what I/we said was that the part about 'aliens' could be
> intended to obscure their actual origins.

Could.

> And no, no idea precisely which genes were involved, but their were likely
> to be terrestrial genes.

Maybe, maybe not.

>>> there's also that computer, shortly before the part about the 'giddy
>>> aquiescence'...
>>
>> What do you mean?
>
> Remember, when Dowd gives the short-speech about how things will be like
> they used to be, and Page mocks him? As you go across the room with a
> computer in it, and then down a ladder? There're emails on the computer
> that I/we /think/ were relevant, though they might not say something
> obvious.

There were hundreds of computers and mails.

> The main thing to read is the datacube-or-whatever, written by an enginner
> who had seen the grays and identified them to be transgenics (presumably
> originally monkeys/apes).

I have a memory like a sieve, you know...

>>>>> (ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more resistent
>>>>> to
>>>>> radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
>>>>> 'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
>>>>> clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).
>>>>
>>>> What a shame. What I was refering to was that piece of dialogue saying
>>>> the "they may be hyperintelligent aliens, but without their kind to
>>>> teach them they are nothing more than bald monkeys" or something like
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> *nods* Their species might have created the reactors, but they can't
>>> operate them, because they're clones... an interesting concept,
>>> definitely.
>>> However, the person who said it didn't have a high enough security
>>> clearance
>>> to know the truth, and was probably allowed to believe the propagated
>>> myth,
>>> which... *muses irrelevantly*
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. After all there's often some truth in the myths and
>> after all that was *in* a high clearance facility.
>
> True. However, the people on the surface had no idea what was going on
> underground, and it's unlikely that the common engineers had any idea what
> Page was doing... remember the conversation with the MiB ordering the
> engineer to remove the keypads on the small reactors, and the engineer
> refusing? When the engineer refused to do it and said why (that he thought
> that they came from the aliens, and he wasn't going to risk it, to
> paraphrase), the MiB said that the information was classified (...if we
> remember correctly).

Classified = True?

>> Still, I tried to
>> make a specific point. The influence of socialisation/education.
>
> Ey? Oh, yes. Abandon human children below the age of four on a different
> planet, and they wouldn't grow up building skyscrapers and railroads and the
> like.

Haha, very funny. [1]
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd2gda2.3j7.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2005-03-03, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrnd2dmkf.ag.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>> On 2005-03-02, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnd28shj.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>>>>>>>> Actually,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
>>>>>>> engineered...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was
>>>>>> confirmed
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics.
>>>>>> Monkey-
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually the one said they were clones from aliens... didn't play the
>>>>> second.
>>>>
>>>> How much did you listen to? How much did you read? Some believed that
>>>> they
>>>
>>> All I could get hold of...
>>
>> Hmm. If you explored everything as well... huh.
>
> I *did*.

Um. *blinks*

*thinks* ...wasn't it the datacube that also had the keycode for the
Aquinas Hub (apologies if spelling or wording is incorrect)? Do you
remember what was said before it--or can you reload a saved game at the end,
and scroll back through the saved data until you find it?

>>>> were, but there's at least one data-thingamajig which identifies them
>>>> as
>>>> transgenics (though at that point, one cannot trust either source).
>>>> And
>>>
>>> Which doesn't state which genes were in it... and as you said that could
>>> have been a plot to obscure their real origins.
>>
>> Er. Actually, what I/we said was that the part about 'aliens' could be
>> intended to obscure their actual origins.
>
> Could.

*nods*

>> And no, no idea precisely which genes were involved, but their were
>> likely
>> to be terrestrial genes.
>
> Maybe, maybe not.

*nods* That's all that can be certain from Deus Ex.

>>>> there's also that computer, shortly before the part about the 'giddy
>>>> aquiescence'...
>>>
>>> What do you mean?
>>
>> Remember, when Dowd gives the short-speech about how things will be like
>> they used to be, and Page mocks him? As you go across the room with a
>> computer in it, and then down a ladder? There're emails on the computer
>> that I/we /think/ were relevant, though they might not say something
>> obvious.
>
> There were hundreds of computers and mails.

Dozens, at least. You did read them all, though?

>> The main thing to read is the datacube-or-whatever, written by an
>> enginner
>> who had seen the grays and identified them to be transgenics (presumably
>> originally monkeys/apes).
>
> I have a memory like a sieve, you know...

Oh. Well, in that case see the above suggestion of reloading and scrolling
through the stored datacube data.

>>>>>> (ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more
>>>>>> resistent
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
>>>>>> 'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
>>>>>> clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).
>>>>>
>>>>> What a shame. What I was refering to was that piece of dialogue saying
>>>>> the "they may be hyperintelligent aliens, but without their kind to
>>>>> teach them they are nothing more than bald monkeys" or something like
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> *nods* Their species might have created the reactors, but they can't
>>>> operate them, because they're clones... an interesting concept,
>>>> definitely.
>>>> However, the person who said it didn't have a high enough security
>>>> clearance
>>>> to know the truth, and was probably allowed to believe the propagated
>>>> myth,
>>>> which... *muses irrelevantly*
>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. After all there's often some truth in the myths and
>>> after all that was *in* a high clearance facility.
>>
>> True. However, the people on the surface had no idea what was going on
>> underground, and it's unlikely that the common engineers had any idea
>> what
>> Page was doing... remember the conversation with the MiB ordering the
>> engineer to remove the keypads on the small reactors, and the engineer
>> refusing? When the engineer refused to do it and said why (that he
>> thought
>> that they came from the aliens, and he wasn't going to risk it, to
>> paraphrase), the MiB said that the information was classified (...if we
>> remember correctly).
>
> Classified = True?

No--just classifed. Sort of 'We refuse to either confirm or deny this'.

>>> Still, I tried to
>>> make a specific point. The influence of socialisation/education.
>>
>> Ey? Oh, yes. Abandon human children below the age of four on a
>> different
>> planet, and they wouldn't grow up building skyscrapers and railroads and
>> the
>> like.
>
> Haha, very funny. [1]

Erm...? We were serious. Assume that the children survived, of course.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2005-03-04, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnd2gda2.3j7.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2005-03-03, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnd2dmkf.ag.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>> On 2005-03-02, The Triad <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>>>>> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnd28shj.s6b.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>>>>>>>>> Ohh. Now, /that's/ interesting--particularly as they can't
>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>> reproduce. Also, even if they could, could they actually evolve?
>>>>>>>>> Actually,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They can't? Are you *sure*? They were *cloned*, but not genetically
>>>>>>>> engineered...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ehh. You've finished the game? Sorry to have to let you in on this,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> there were a few references to it in the first game, and it was
>>>>>>> confirmed
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the second--they aren't actually aliens; they're transgenics.
>>>>>>> Monkey-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually the one said they were clones from aliens... didn't play the
>>>>>> second.
>>>>>
>>>>> How much did you listen to? How much did you read? Some believed that
>>>>> they
>>>>
>>>> All I could get hold of...
>>>
>>> Hmm. If you explored everything as well... huh.
>>
>> I *did*.
>
> Um. *blinks*
>
> *thinks* ...wasn't it the datacube that also had the keycode for the
> Aquinas Hub (apologies if spelling or wording is incorrect)? Do you
> remember what was said before it--or can you reload a saved game at the end,
> and scroll back through the saved data until you find it?

No, I can't.

>>>>> were, but there's at least one data-thingamajig which identifies them
>>>>> as
>>>>> transgenics (though at that point, one cannot trust either source).
>>>>> And
>>>>
>>>> Which doesn't state which genes were in it... and as you said that could
>>>> have been a plot to obscure their real origins.
>>>
>>> Er. Actually, what I/we said was that the part about 'aliens' could be
>>> intended to obscure their actual origins.
>>
>> Could.
>
> *nods*
>
>>> And no, no idea precisely which genes were involved, but their were
>>> likely
>>> to be terrestrial genes.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> *nods* That's all that can be certain from Deus Ex.
>
>>>>> there's also that computer, shortly before the part about the 'giddy
>>>>> aquiescence'...
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean?
>>>
>>> Remember, when Dowd gives the short-speech about how things will be like
>>> they used to be, and Page mocks him? As you go across the room with a
>>> computer in it, and then down a ladder? There're emails on the computer
>>> that I/we /think/ were relevant, though they might not say something
>>> obvious.
>>
>> There were hundreds of computers and mails.
>
> Dozens, at least. You did read them all, though?

I'm pretty sure of that.

>>> The main thing to read is the datacube-or-whatever, written by an
>>> enginner
>>> who had seen the grays and identified them to be transgenics (presumably
>>> originally monkeys/apes).
>>
>> I have a memory like a sieve, you know...
>
> Oh. Well, in that case see the above suggestion of reloading and scrolling
> through the stored datacube data.

Reloading *what* exactly? There's nothing I could reload.

>>>>>>> (ape-?)based, probably, and in particular altered to be more
>>>>>>> resistent
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> radiation and (if I/we remember correctly) cold--Roswell, the
>>>>>>> 'alien'-related beliefs among those without a high enough security
>>>>>>> clearance, was just a cover-up (sorry if that's the wrong phrase).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a shame. What I was refering to was that piece of dialogue saying
>>>>>> the "they may be hyperintelligent aliens, but without their kind to
>>>>>> teach them they are nothing more than bald monkeys" or something like
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> *nods* Their species might have created the reactors, but they can't
>>>>> operate them, because they're clones... an interesting concept,
>>>>> definitely.
>>>>> However, the person who said it didn't have a high enough security
>>>>> clearance
>>>>> to know the truth, and was probably allowed to believe the propagated
>>>>> myth,
>>>>> which... *muses irrelevantly*
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, maybe not. After all there's often some truth in the myths and
>>>> after all that was *in* a high clearance facility.
>>>
>>> True. However, the people on the surface had no idea what was going on
>>> underground, and it's unlikely that the common engineers had any idea
>>> what
>>> Page was doing... remember the conversation with the MiB ordering the
>>> engineer to remove the keypads on the small reactors, and the engineer
>>> refusing? When the engineer refused to do it and said why (that he
>>> thought
>>> that they came from the aliens, and he wasn't going to risk it, to
>>> paraphrase), the MiB said that the information was classified (...if we
>>> remember correctly).
>>
>> Classified = True?
>
> No--just classifed. Sort of 'We refuse to either confirm or deny this'.

Which is mostly said when you don't want to confirm something.

>>>> Still, I tried to
>>>> make a specific point. The influence of socialisation/education.
>>>
>>> Ey? Oh, yes. Abandon human children below the age of four on a
>>> different
>>> planet, and they wouldn't grow up building skyscrapers and railroads and
>>> the
>>> like.
>>
>> Haha, very funny. [1]
>
> Erm...? We were serious. Assume that the children survived, of course.

As if skyscrapers and railroads were a measure of things...
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better...
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

emmel wrote:
> On 2005-02-27, Thomas J. Boschloo <nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
>>emmel wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-02-27, Thomas J. Boschloo <nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>emmel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bringing the ant out is probably more of a problem than dropping it. The
>>>>>ant can survive the drop without any serious wounds, but it dies of
>>>>>loosing contact (or not knowing the way back for that matter) to the
>>>>>hive.
>>>>
>>>>Well, as long as the ant doesn't find its way back to my house and
>>>>starts bringing along all its friends :-DD
>>>
>>>
>>>And mark their ways with scents. Without these tracks they are pretty
>>>much dead.
>>
>>I saw on television recently that they can also recognize large
>>landmarks. I think my flat is a pretty good landmark but I drop them
>>from the back of my flat 🙂
>
>
> You are evil, do you know that? ;-)

Maybe they will evolve into something move evolved next summer >🙂

>>Will have to do some experiments with ants next time!
>>Thomas
>
>
> Poor ants.

At least I don't squish them with my tumb
(on my white wallpaper)..

Thomas
- --
"All my life, I've always wondered, What it would be like to fire a
ballistic missile" - Wonderfully colored plastic war toys, The Dead
Milkmen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBQimfbgEP2l8iXKAJAQHKCwMfXdbyOI25FbQTw0CKTFxeFUmyv0AbuqV0
zwitMyh0CHsdpQWx/Bb8AlXmqjlMe1eb3h4G6qzH9SOrrJVnio4iE6BRhcSzyz8B
KwyTPfxksNmaejtxlYpzJdHB4P4Ntgr02faz/Q==
=JA6m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----