Spring RTS Engine

Why write that much argh? It just puts my off reading, when simple points would convey the same information, especially within off topic discussion. :/

Panda wrote:I can't think of any way they would survive in the wild

It's ok, wilderness has been almost completly wiped from earth.

zwzsg wrote:

Panda wrote:I can't think of any way they would survive in the wild

It's ok, wilderness has been almost completely wiped from earth.

TheyÔÇÖd probably just end up being used as pets if they were ever sold like other tamed lab animals in the past.

Argh wrote:Iit's just very complex multi-input quantum mechanical machinery.

I find it fascinating that one day we'll probably have quantum processors doing more or less the same thing, and that probably soon afterwards we'll be able to do to-design organisms, so much less crude than the gene-insertion stuff that we're doing today, because we'll have computational environments that can more accurately model reality's fuzzy complexity and we'll be able to build machines that can output both the correct genes and the starting sequences needed to start the cascade.

I don't think that it works that much like machinery, but that an analogy often used in order to break down DNA's processes into more understandable steps. For example, many traits, such as blood type are influenced by multiple alleles (forms of a single gene). These multiple forms of a gene can cause effects such as being able to mask the expression of a gene. In the example of blood types, having an A or B allele will mask the expression of an O blood type and these blood types are not considered to be dominant or recessive traits. Then there are things like mutations, recombination, and the fact that when clones of animals were made in the past, these clones were weak, became sick more easily than the other animals, and aged more quickly.

DNA does not seem to function as though it has a straight cascade effect at all. How might quantum processors be able to make something that functions more like ribbons of double-helix stair cases with charms on them that send out messengers to other places on the ribbons and other locations as to how the organism functions and how to reshape the staircase? It's cool how the RNA messengers recognize where they're supposed to go.

Panda wrote:

zwzsg wrote:

Panda wrote:I can't think of any way they would survive in the wild

It's ok, wilderness has been almost completely wiped from earth.

TheyÔÇÖd probably just end up being used as pets if they were ever sold like other tamed lab animals in the past.

Argh wrote:Iit's just very complex multi-input quantum mechanical machinery.

I find it fascinating that one day we'll probably have quantum processors doing more or less the same thing, and that probably soon afterwards we'll be able to do to-design organisms, so much less crude than the gene-insertion stuff that we're doing today, because we'll have computational environments that can more accurately model reality's fuzzy complexity and we'll be able to build machines that can output both the correct genes and the starting sequences needed to start the cascade.

I don't think that it works that much like machinery, but that an analogy often used in order to break down DNA's processes into more understandable steps. For example, many traits, such as blood type are influenced by multiple alleles (forms of a single gene). These multiple forms of a gene can cause effects such as being able to mask the expression of a gene. In the example of blood types, having an A or B allele will mask the expression of an O blood type and these blood types are not considered to be dominant or recessive traits. Then there are things like mutations, recombination, and the fact that when clones of animals were made in the past, these clones were weak, became sick more easily than the other animals, and aged more quickly.

DNA does not seem to function as though it has a straight cascade effect at all. How might quantum processors be able to make something that functions more like ribbons of double-helix stair cases with charms on them that send out messengers to other places on the ribbons and other locations as to how the organism functions and how to reshape the staircase? It's cool how the RNA messengers recognize where they're supposed to go.

We might not get there that simply, but with enough computer power, you can start pretty simple organism simulations (i won┬┤t ruin my reputation by naming a wrong one...) that would be chemically and physically as close as possible to reality. You can understand development of something that complex much easier once you watch it step by step becoming what it is. A beginning programmers first day might not be filled with any understanding if you sit him in front of the Linux Source, but if you let him write "Hello World!" witch is the first bacteria of Software, and add something every day...

What i always wondered is... what if there are dices in the genes? If there are built in Random Number Generator for some things? Not just Variables, that are influenced by the lives of our ancestors, but really just a TACA-Fairy dancing over some deactivated sugar, going for radical change?

Well, I was mainly speculating a bit. I certainly don't know where all of this is going, I just think it's an interesting subject

My feeling is that when we have quantum computing devices that we can run in parallel with one another in very large arrays, we'll be able to see the cause-and-effect more effectively.

Right now, we're still mainly observing one cause, which is a very large, complex molecule usually, and the effect, which is a pattern of changes in the final genes that are expressed, and the resulting changes in the organism. But the stuff I've read (again, just layman stuff, I don't pretend to understand the science) seems to indicate that a huge amount of that between is still very mysterious, since it's very hard to observe the processes at work.

Because these things are, in the end, quantum mechanical processes, it's hard to understand or model them in a linear fashion, because they're really very parallel and probably have inputs and outputs that are sometimes indeterminate during that step (the famous "maybe" state of quantum mechanical computing). Hence the interest I took in the recent articles about "junk" DNA turning out to be not junk at all- they're just processing steps that aren't resulting in outputs, or maybe they're the equivalent of a header.

We might get to the point where we can do "designer organisms" earlier, through just having large enough databases of causes and effects to create effective predictive models (which is largely what people are doing now for gene-mod crops, etc.), but I suspect we'll need to be able to model the "between" before we'll be able to do anything Nature isn't already doing.

Right now, we're just tweaking a few genes here and there- it's like adding a few lines of code to a large program. We're happy when this doesn't cause the program to crash, and happier still when it improves the resulting organism.

To write new ones, we need the right computing resources to effectively decompile the programs in their entirety. I suspect that quantum computers are probably the right tool for that job, but it may just be a matter of having enough data.

I doubt it, though. Gene interactions are far more complex than solving for mate in chess, and the resulting storage problems would be terrific.

As for the random-number idea... I suspect you're right, Picasso. Nature may allow for some small amount of this- natural selection may favor small amounts of noise that produces a more robust system in the end. Not much, though, as otherwise you just end up with a non-functional program.

i wonder if genetic engineering can be used to create some kind of manbearpig.

I want to be a Blade Runner hunting down the failed experiments and wondering in my spare time, why i glow in the dark like the brainless sex toy i bought the other day.. Oh brand new world..


Nanowars the winner gets a diamond (completely worthless, but good building material)
http://www.kongregate.com/games/badben/nano-war

PicassoCT wrote:We might not get there that simply, but with enough computer power, you can start pretty simple organism simulations (i won┬┤t ruin my reputation by naming a wrong one...) that would be chemically and physically as close as possible to reality.

I've heard that we've made amino acids in the lab before, but that's not a living organism.

PicassoCT wrote:You can understand development of something that complex much easier once you watch it step by step becoming what it is. A beginning programmers first day might not be filled with any understanding if you sit him in front of the Linux Source, but if you let him write "Hello World!" witch is the first bacteria of Software, and add something every day...

I think it's a good idea to have a really detailed plan if something like that were to be attempted, especially, if you want to avoid creating something like cancer, but I'm not really for that kind of thing.

PicassoCT wrote:What i always wondered is... what if there are dices in the genes? If there are built in Random Number Generator for some things? Not just Variables, that are influenced by the lives of our ancestors, but really just a TACA-Fairy dancing over some deactivated sugar, going for radical change?

You should probably ask someone who has devoted their lives to learning about stuff like past lives in order to form your own thoughts or beliefs about that. Their are nuns (just saw them on campus yesterday) and people of several different schools of thought at my university who would be happy to chat with you about that. Surely there are a few people where you come from who you can talk to. They might also say something along the lines of do you believe in yourself and do you want to do the right things too as opposed to concentrating on whether or not genes operate like dice. The media also loves to debate (and these debates often look ridiculous) about that topic, so there are many different points of view out there. One would think that it's best to keep an open mind.

Panda wrote: You should probably ask someone who has devoted their lives to learning about stuff like past lives in order to form your own thoughts or beliefs about that.

I found out that talking to people did contributed very little to shape my thoughts and beliefs (I don┬┤t have any-anymore-anyway). Books however did contribute, i read dozens of them, and some artikles also contributed. So the Media is not that bad at all.

Personal Conversation is flawed with emotions, impressions, time pressure and loads of other missleading information, my ideal of communication is still to be found in letter writing (yes, with ink) it is work, that makes you think over each sentence, act carefully, keeps away foul moods, it┬┤s way more efficient for scientific purposes than personal discussions.

insertin a gene to a embryo is pretty expsensive

cant wait for retrovirus vectors to install genes after birth/growth

the whole trouble is that nature took along time to create complex systems where all stuff are connected in certains ways we not understand to the fully.

And also your parents tell you alot about who you are. Some where we have reference to our ancestors maybe more than we like to admit. This is valuable.