Algodoo

Interesting idea!

I have a couple of suggestions:
1. Disable the Algodoo clouds. They are a distraction in this type of scene.
2. When not pressing A or D, the bopper comes to rest on the emotional circle. It would be better to have the bopper return to a center (neutral) position when not being activated. Also, the S key doesn't seem to have any effect.

1. Of course.
2. The bopper was rushed, the original idea was a bunch of falling circles, maybe the big ones would be anticipated and feared, but I couldn't be bothered to embellish the code with more than two modulated emotions, or even act on those.
I'm updating the scene right now with this.

that relly cool

Yea, better now.

One more thing I noticed, and this is just a question. After bopping the circle a few times it turns red (angry) as expected, but then it stays angry forever. In real life, we get angry about something but over time we get over it and cease being angry. Shouldn't your emotional circle behave the same way?

It should, Xray. I could implement that right now, the only reason I didn't at first was that it was a rushed proof of concept.

Understand.
By the way, it's really a great concept, and could eventually become some sort of A.I. if you wanted to take it a step further.

Off-the-wall comment: The A.I. could become so sophisticated that it becomes conscious. Wouldn't that be a kick?

Yes, and then it will hack our computer and take over the world if you bop ot too much

Well, scisim, if i somehow created an artificial intelligence in a program as limited as algodoo, the best it could do is crash my computer. because of how there is no direct connection from a running algodoo scene and the internet, it couldn't have any real-world impact outside of my desk. and also, in my experience with AI, it will only try to reach the goal you give it, and it will almost always do it in the laziest way possible. for example, if you give an ai a bunch of limbs and joints and tell it to move to the right, it will probably find it easier to make a giant pole-like creature that just falls to the side, than to create a walking creature. one thing you learn in playing with AI is that it's very passive-aggressive, lazy, and follows the goal to the T, including any loopholes it can find to make its job easier.

Xray - that would be pretty cool to have a conscious AI contained in Algodoo. I have an interesting theory though, that consciousness may not actually be real, at least not the idea of consciousness most people think of. the technical definition of being conscious is to be aware of and respond to surroundings, and if that's all consciousness is, then a lot of creations in the Algobox are conscious. However, if we're talking about conscious and intelligent, I think only a few scenes can pass as narrowly intelligent, like Killinich's neural network creatures, as well as one of mine.

I recall reading a strange article in a magazine that I subscribed to when I was in high school. The author suggested that ALL complex mechanisms are conscious to some degree, and the more complex it is, the more conscious it would be. Of course we have no methods or equipment needed for testing and measuring said consciousness, but it was an intriguing thought to me at the time. Later in life I had a job with a company that makes packaging machines. Some of the more complex machines seemed almost "alive" to me because they did things that made them look like they were alive. Who are we to say that anything, even an Algodoo scene for example, is NOT conscious?

I guess it could find a way to crash your computer by doing some kind of lag problem

That's what i was getting at, scisim, that the only physical effect a scene can have is to slow down or crash my computer. I made a self-replicating circle that starts reproducing faster and faster because of its design, and if even one of its offspring escaped the chamber that kept their numbers limited, my computer would crash in under a minute.
Xray - i was going somewhere with what i said but i guess i never got there. consciousness, in the sense of being aware and responding to the environment and the self, definitely exists. But the fuzzy concept that appears when you ask if my red is the same as your red (that is, that when you and i see the color red, we have the same internal experience) or if you try to describe colors to a blind person, that's what i meant to get at. my argument is that that internal experience simply does not exist, as much as it feels like it to me and as much as you may say it feels like it to you. all that exists is the computation and convolution, separate from any free will or experience, like how a simple one-directional neural network looks. it's only computation, and the thing isn't really "alive".
I don't know if any of this made sense, but my point is that even the most intelligent brain is nothing more than a tangled mess of neurons that follow simple rules that produce ordered thought, and that there is no soul or will to it, it just does what it was built to do, to learn and change and produce copies of itself through use of the body it sits inside, but it can choose not to do that too.

You said: "... but it can choose not to do that too." Well, the problem with that is the idea that we do not have free-will. Some physicists and mathematicians are certain that there is no free-will at all in the Universe because we are simply a product of the Big Bang, and everything we think and everything we do is simply the result of the past. I believe that's called "determinism". If someone says, "Well, I choose to kill my dog today. Therefore, I have free will." But if that someone either decides to kill his dog, or not to kill his dog is not his free will, but the inevitable result of the past Big Bang when space and time began. Interesting stuff to ponder!

Search YT for "do we have free will" and you will see 4 or 5 videos that discuss "determinism". I think you will find it quite interesting!

of course, by saying choose, i didn't mean that it arbitrarily and spontaneously makes a decision, i really meant choose in the same way the YouTube algorithm chooses what to recommend you. it is a decision that is made purely as a result of computation, and would not happen a different way with the same input.

Exactly! You and I agree on many things.

i felt like i have watched someone explained the fnaf lore

juniortoz, welcome to two people talking about a common passion