itay390

indeed.. yes we can't do as much "floating operations" that a computer can do. the faster (normal) people can do it in a minute (to me it takes a few). people like autistic savants can do it in less than a second. in our brain when we do this kind of action its very high thought process, it probably involves much circuitry in the brain, instead of doing it very primitively like a computer does. this is because we don't have a dedicated circuitry for this type of operation, evolution never needed us to have such a skill. instead it developed dedicated circuitry for logic/reason, eye movements, coordination, face recognition, social intelligence - yes we have that information from birth, and other things.. i wonder if it will ever be possible to program the neurons to have a predetermined circuit. it will then probably be possible to store any kind of normal computer program in a circuit of neurons. that would probably be very very akward because of how neural network works. as far as i know neurons are pretty accurate. almost like a clockwork, they can generate a pattern of repeating currents for hours without one shift from it. maybe if you take all the neurons in the brain and divide them into groups where you could construct from each group a floating number calculator, then you will be able to compare to a calculator (except that a computer is much more than a calculator)

The only restraint we have is computing power. its just a bad fact , that in order to evolve something you have to evaulate every individual/code/behaviour in the population to know how good/bad it is. this means , for an example, simulating the whole world for every individual (on in other way : simulating a world with the number of animals so that there will be at least 1 animal for every different behaviour) and after that, you will have to simulate the world for quite some time in order to see how the creatures act and what animal is better than the other, and get a result for every animal (fitness/ how good/bad the animal is) for the next generation. another burden is the simulation overhead. you see, when you are executing a behaviour that was randomly produced, the more easy thing would be to interpret the basic behaviour commands in a "while" loop (or recursion loop, if wer'e talking trees here). but that's gonna cost you a lot, because if you make genetic algorithm that runs on machine code, you won't have that overhead , and in result, your code can run at least 20 times faster than interpretation. programming in machine code is a hard thing. unless your'e some crazy guy from the "demoscene", which knows to hack you a 3D presentation in one hour, who knows only assembly. the human mind, yes - the simple daily human mind you and I carry inside our head each day, is more powerful in the processing power (calculations per second), than the best super computer we have today. at least 10 times more powerful than the supercomputer.

Yes, i made http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTfSlg7SRKk Evolute was a personal, and a college project of mine, i don't believe it yet reached it's maximum potential i believe what i made can be at least 10x better. the thing i made is general, not restricted into animal simulation. but an artificial world with animals was one of the demonstrations i coded. other "demonstrations" i coded were guessing a function of the shape that the user draw on the screen, and picture compression (to a function). i think genetic algorithms can be promising, but at the same time they require enourmous computing resources. i don't know really what the maximum potential of my library (Evolute) , so i can't tell you exactly what to expect. but don't expect for something too complex to evolve. because that's what i expected , and i was disappointed.. but maybe future devlopment will suprise me. well .. i can discuss that subject for hours. i don't know what else you want to know.