So we're all basically agreeing on the same thing then? As he and I agreed with each other and what you just said seems to me to be consistent with what I said.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Stéphane Magnenat
<address@hidden> wrote:
On Sunday 25 January 2009 20:07:05 Federico P wrote:
> Uh!
> I'm sorry if i somehow irritated you with my opinion :(
No problem, I'm sorry if my answer felt irritated. It was not directed at you
in particuler: the field of emergence stuff is sometimes full of hype and empty
of sense, so I try to educate people and being cautious on their assumptions.
Even if emergenge is an interesting and widespread phenomenon in Nature, it is
far from obvious that it applies as is to engineering.
> I'm just trying to give a sense for the player which approach the game and
> can't find coerence for his role in the globulation scheme.
> We are talkin about a storyline, environment and graphic effects.
Sure, and this is important for the player indeed.
> If i get you right, you talking about usefullness of emergency to solve
> programming troubles (genetic algorithms, fuzzy logic or whatever) which
> for sure doesn't fit programming needs in globulation (or maybe yes in IA..
> whatever).
Not in particular. I was talking in general, for AI in games, robots, coffee
machines, whatever.
For glob2, I just wanted to stress that we can explain an organized, reasoning
hive mind (the player) even if there is no overmind building. It is
scientifically plausible to conceive such system :-)
Have a nice day,
Steph
--
http://stephane.magnenat.net