|
|
Post by early0000 on Apr 4, 2016 6:52:07 GMT
Aquos is right, so I've moved this post - S.I've been looking around the thrive wiki seen here: thrivegame.wikidot.com/gdd-microbe:appendices#toc4 And I found out how each of the organs will likely be implemented for multicellular/ aware stages. One organ that wasn't mentioned was the brain. Sure you could just add one universal part serving as a brain, but not all brains work the same. Let's take a Tyrannosaur for example: The part of the brain responsible for processing smell is much larger in a Tyrannosaur than it is in a human; however, humans are better at processing logic and scenarios. I guess my questions are how will a brain be implemented? Will it be divided into individual parts? Will there be something along the lines of a tech tree for brain functions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aquos on Apr 4, 2016 7:57:28 GMT
good point but doesn't this belong in ideas ?
|
|
The_Wayward_Admiral
Spacefaring
The_Real_Slim_Shady
Atrox drew this awesome image of the Keldori!
Posts: 1,011 
|
Post by The_Wayward_Admiral on Apr 4, 2016 14:19:37 GMT
I'm really glad you asked and had that idea. This is one of my favorite unresolved topics. A long time ago (October of 2015, I believe), the devs discussed brain size. After a few days of creeping on the dev forum to watch the conversation, it seemed to arrive at a few intersting outcomes. The first is that pure brain size doesn't really determine creature intelligence (we weren't on the top 10 list). The second is that a ratio of brain size to organism body size is more accurate but, still lacking. But now that you've made your point about different brain segments, I think it's an absolutely brilliant one  The brain could be set as differnt organs, one for each sense, one to control motion, one for social interaction, and one for advanced processing. The brain's overall size and the ratio of the organs relative to each other could determine intelligence and sensory sensitivity. |
|
|
|
Post by early0000 on Apr 4, 2016 16:35:57 GMT
good point but doesn't this belong in ideas ? You should say Touché instead of good point (I'm a fencer) |
|
|
|
Post by Atrox on Apr 4, 2016 16:40:40 GMT
good point but doesn't this belong in ideas ? You should say Touché instead of good point (I'm a fencer) Touche doesn't fit in this context does it? |
|
|
|
Post by early0000 on Apr 4, 2016 16:42:59 GMT
You should say Touché instead of good point (I'm a fencer) Touche doesn't fit in this context does it? Touché means "good point" or "good Touche" as in a fencing point |
|
|
|
Post by tjwhale on Apr 4, 2016 16:43:11 GMT
This thread is about this question, it deviates to talking about colours after a while. I think the modular brain idea is a really nice one. Edit: I see this thread might be deviating to talking about fencing. If that's the case then I have no riposte.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atrox on Apr 4, 2016 16:43:34 GMT
Well okay
|
|
|
|
Post by early0000 on Apr 4, 2016 16:50:40 GMT
Anyways it is good to note the relationship between creature size and brain size. A sauropod has a brain about the size of a human brain, but with all the muscles and individual functions it makes it hard to think. In fact sauropods are among the dumbest animals of all time. The only way they survived was via instinct. Instincts are a great way to allow a very large animal to have a small brain.
A tech tree is necessary because brain complexity differs over time. Early (get it my name is early) brain weren't as efficient for their size as they are now.
Edit: Also tjwhale that is officially the dumbest joke of all time
Edit 2: I am 99% sure there is a type of scale to indicate intelligence level for all creatures; I will let you know once I find it.
Edit 3: it exists and it is called "encephalization level"
|
|
The_Wayward_Admiral
Spacefaring
The_Real_Slim_Shady
Atrox drew this awesome image of the Keldori!
Posts: 1,011
|
Post by The_Wayward_Admiral on Apr 5, 2016 14:04:14 GMT
The Expensive Tissue hypothesis would probably have to be brought to bear, in an effort to prevent people from advancing too fast.
This is closely related to your point about sauropods, but in humans it goes thusly: muscle tissues (particularly the insanely large arm muscles, pectorals, and jaw muscles apes are known for) are very calorically expensive. Brain tissue is even more so. Because of the brain's energy demands (as much as 20% of our daily energy intake), sacrifices of other tissues have to be made so that the creature doesn't starve. Small armed, big brained hominids found energy more easily and lost it less rapidly. In the game it would be neat to let players make an organism with whatever traits they can assemble, and let energy demands kill the organism if it was planned with too many bells and whistles (unlike Spore's cloying "complexity guage"). That should prevent players from fast tracking a huge social and reasoning cortex before it would be beneficial and improve realism.
|
|
|
|
Post by early0000 on Apr 5, 2016 18:33:35 GMT
The Expensive Tissue hypothesis would probably have to be brought to bear, in an effort to prevent people from advancing too fast. This is closely related to your point about sauropods, but in humans it goes thusly: muscle tissues (particularly the insanely large arm muscles, pectorals, and jaw muscles apes are known for) are very calorically expensive. Brain tissue is even more so. Because of the brain's energy demands (as much as 20% of our daily energy intake), sacrifices of other tissues have to be made so that the creature doesn't starve. Small armed, big brained hominids found energy more easily and lost it less rapidly. In the game it would be neat to let players make an organism with whatever traits they can assemble, and let energy demands kill the organism if it was planned with too many bells and whistles (unlike Spore's cloying "complexity guage"). That should prevent players from fast tracking a huge social and reasoning cortex before it would be beneficial and improve realism. It would be interesting to see what would happen if a supply of energy was much larger than what it was when humans evolved. Let's say your organism was at the top of the food chain before it became extremely intelligent. The design for the organism is highly efficient. You could create a sort of super-brain capable of not only social and logical interactions, but mathematical expressions. Once it reaches the industrial stage it becomes the perfect engineer. All designs would be of maximum efficiency. At that point the only issue becomes can your computer keep up with your organism. |
|
The_Wayward_Admiral
Spacefaring
The_Real_Slim_Shady
Atrox drew this awesome image of the Keldori!
Posts: 1,011
|
Post by The_Wayward_Admiral on Apr 5, 2016 19:05:06 GMT
Indeed. The one major limitation on that sort of instinctual habit in humans was actually presented to me in a round about way during a conversation about graphics processors. Human brains are highly inter-threaded, and behave more like a graphics unit than a processor. Humans are outstanding at visual imaging and string processing, but if our brains were better at binary thought then maybe we could be born with basic arithmetic down pat. That being said, the advantage of mathematics in the wild is questionable (string parsing and visual imaging allowed for better cooperation and planning) and a binary mindset could produce issues in the imagination required for engineering, and in the communication that enables widespread cooperation.
|
|
|
|
Post by early0000 on Apr 5, 2016 19:32:17 GMT
Indeed. The one major limitation on that sort of instinctual habit in humans was actually presented to me in a round about way during a conversation about graphics processors. Human brains are highly inter-threaded, and behave more like a graphics unit than a processor. Humans are outstanding at visual imaging and string processing, but if our brains were better at binary thought then maybe we could be born with basic arithmetic down pat. That being said, the advantage of mathematics in the wild is questionable (string parsing and visual imaging allowed for better cooperation and planning) and a binary mindset could produce issues in the imagination required for engineering, and in the communication that enables widespread cooperation. The reason I believe mathematics imbedded into a brain would be beneficial sounds a bit impractical, but here me out. If your creature hunted via projectile, your organism may be able to graph the trajectory of the projectile. It may seem a bit far-fetched, but I can imagine there wouldn't be much of a fight once a well place rock ends upon the skull of any opponent. I don't have a degree in hardware engineering; however, one personal beliefs is that computers can already learn, we just have to provide the programming to do so. The reason we don't see semi-aware computers today is because the lack a sense of environment. If you have ever read Plato's Allegory of the Cave you will understand intelligence is limited to what information is given initially. The men in the cave don't accept reality because they can't see it. Providing "senses" via virtual life allows computers to have a better understanding of "reality." -note if you haven't read Plato's allegory it is very short and easily read in a few minutes. I highly recommend you do |
|
|
|
Post by StealthStyleL on Apr 5, 2016 20:24:00 GMT
Indeed. The one major limitation on that sort of instinctual habit in humans was actually presented to me in a round about way during a conversation about graphics processors. Human brains are highly inter-threaded, and behave more like a graphics unit than a processor. Humans are outstanding at visual imaging and string processing, but if our brains were better at binary thought then maybe we could be born with basic arithmetic down pat. That being said, the advantage of mathematics in the wild is questionable (string parsing and visual imaging allowed for better cooperation and planning) and a binary mindset could produce issues in the imagination required for engineering, and in the communication that enables widespread cooperation. The reason I believe mathematics imbedded into a brain would be beneficial sounds a bit impractical, but here me out. If your creature hunted via projectile, your organism may be able to graph the trajectory of the projectile. It may seem a bit far-fetched, but I can imagine there wouldn't be much of a fight once a well place rock ends upon the skull of any opponent. I don't have a degree in hardware engineering; however, one personal beliefs is that computers can already learn, we just have to provide the programming to do so. The reason we don't see semi-aware computers today is because the lack a sense of environment. If you have ever read Plato's Allegory of the Cave you will understand intelligence is limited to what information is given initially. The men in the cave don't accept reality because they can't see it. Providing "senses" via virtual life allows computers to have a better understanding of "reality." -note if you haven't read Plato's allegory it is very short and easily read in a few minutes. I highly recommend you do So, in game I imagine it would give your species a greater chance of landing a hit if they have a brain more mathematically capable? Perhaps, for simplicities sake, once we place a brain, it grows automatically the larger a neural complex becomes or the more muscle we need to coordinate. It might become a little too detailed and specific if you're constantly having to tweak the brain. But maybe not. On a side note: I heard that someone programmed a computer to play Tetris (I think) until it won, even though Tetris is unwinnable. Eventually, the computer "realised" it could not win and paused the game, which wasn't in it's programming. It's kind of creepy if you ask me. I don't really like the idea of self-aware computers but it could lead to interesting gameplay. |
|
|
|
Post by Narotiza on Apr 5, 2016 21:27:20 GMT
I think I saw that video. The computer was completely unable to play Tetris, and it paused at the last second before the game over. I'll see if I can find it later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moopli on Apr 6, 2016 3:25:43 GMT
Indeed. The one major limitation on that sort of instinctual habit in humans was actually presented to me in a round about way during a conversation about graphics processors. Human brains are highly inter-threaded, and behave more like a graphics unit than a processor. Humans are outstanding at visual imaging and string processing, but if our brains were better at binary thought then maybe we could be born with basic arithmetic down pat. That being said, the advantage of mathematics in the wild is questionable (string parsing and visual imaging allowed for better cooperation and planning) and a binary mindset could produce issues in the imagination required for engineering, and in the communication that enables widespread cooperation. The reason I believe mathematics imbedded into a brain would be beneficial sounds a bit impractical, but here me out. If your creature hunted via projectile, your organism may be able to graph the trajectory of the projectile. It may seem a bit far-fetched, but I can imagine there wouldn't be much of a fight once a well place rock ends upon the skull of any opponent. I don't have a degree in hardware engineering; however, one personal beliefs is that computers can already learn, we just have to provide the programming to do so. The reason we don't see semi-aware computers today is because the lack a sense of environment. If you have ever read Plato's Allegory of the Cave you will understand intelligence is limited to what information is given initially. The men in the cave don't accept reality because they can't see it. Providing "senses" via virtual life allows computers to have a better understanding of "reality." -note if you haven't read Plato's allegory it is very short and easily read in a few minutes. I highly recommend you do Chinese Room: a dumb computer can seem smart if the 'sense of environment' you provide is itself intelligent and directly instructing the computer, but that doesn't itself make the computer intelligent. Humans are also already instinctively very good at computing projectile arcs -- that however doesn't easily translate into being able to do math. Computing things mathematically requires the ability to work abstractly with symbols and concepts, which is something altogether different from gauging how to throw a javelin so it hits a boar. Essentially, you have to be able to work from a level of abstraction, consciously picturing the problem, rather than unconsciously solving it because a part of your brain happens to be able to compute the result of the particular problem. |
|
