Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Techmology and Scientism => Topic started by: Kai on February 12, 2012, 12:26:16 AM

Title: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Kai on February 12, 2012, 12:26:16 AM
Seriously (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/02/06/146462524/robots-encountering-socks).

It may seem like videos of robots folding laundry, and an all terrain robot "mule", but the movements and the corrections the robots make, and how they were trained to do these things makes their movements almost biological. Especially when the robot mule stumbles. It just about freaked me out how much that looks like a cow stumbling and attempting to get up.

QuoteTechnology Review magazine says "Abbeel taught one robot how to fold laundry by giving it some general rules about how fabric behaves, and then showed it around 100 images of clothing so it could analyze how that particular clothing was likely to move as it was handled." No live human instruction. Just pictures.

In this towel-folding video, you can almost feel the robot studying the cloth, trying to figure out which two points are farthest apart and therefore the best places to grasp and fold. It's spooky.

Spooky is right. My whole response during the video was laughter and "Oh my god..."
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Triple Zero on February 12, 2012, 10:38:30 AM
Going to watch this later (must leave in 20 mins), sounds very interesting.

I suppose you've never seen the (rather old, early 90s i think) evolutionary simulations of block creatures being selected in their capability of moving about in 3D simulated physics environment? I'll look up some videos of those when I get back.

It's different of course, because it's all virtual, not actual robots. The point was, they encoded the shape (block sizes, what connects to what) and the way they moved (forces applied to the joints, but I'm not exactly sure), generated a buttload of random "creatures" and selected them for how far they moved, then applied mutation and maybe crossover and the whole genetic algorithm shebang.

The end result was pretty amazing. Depending on the type of physical environment you had them evolve in, they evolved several kinds of locomotion that were extremely like kinds you also find in real life animals in those environments. With normal gravity, friction and a floor beneath them, there were creatures that evolved crawling, caterpillar-like movement, snake-like movement and some sort of hopping movement I'm not really quite sure what that was. But if you'd turn up the viscosity of the "air" in this world, remove the floor, you'd get swimming creatures! They evolved fin-like peddles, the same snake now slithered through the water, a sort of swimming-arms motion I think I've seen in some water bugs, another was more like a tadpole and there was one which evolved something that really looked like a propellor (which you don't really see in nature, afaik, but apparently that's a mechanical limitation which was penalized properly in the simulation).

I saw this when I was very young and together with Thomas Ray's Tierra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tierra_(computer_simulation)) ALife simulation, it has probably been the two most influential things on the subject of Computational Science.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Kai on February 12, 2012, 01:35:40 PM
About the mechanical limitations of propellers and wheels:

Though there are some organisms that spin themselves through liquid, and some animals that roll up in an elipse or ball to wheel across the landscape, there are no organisms that posess a propeller or wheel. And the reasons for that are pretty clear. Both propellers and wheels require a part that can freely spin on an axel, that is completely decoupled from the main body. This may be possible in a colonial organism, where the parts are made up of individual organisms which are semi-independent, but it could not happen in a single organism. It would be like having a hand that was detached from and yet still controlled and fed by the body. Even if the mechanism that rotated the wheel was enclosed in a cellular structure, theres the matter of the seam and how it exposes parts to the environment. You would certainly not see this in a small terrestrial animal, because the water loss would be tremendous.

I mean, think of how we get rotating parts in machines. In an electric motor, it is almost always a coiling current around decoupled, freely moving magnets.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 12, 2012, 04:49:31 PM
I've been geeking out on robots and ai lately... not the technical aspects, just looking at how advanced they've gotten in just the last couple of years, and suddenly seeing how all of these weird technologies that at first seemed inexplicable all come together in a fairly alarming way when you put them in a robot. When they start really combining these... ai, computer learning, mechanical speech, and agility... in one robot, it is going to be one scary-ass motherfucker.

Yesterday I was at my friend's house watching robot videos, and his five-year-old daughter SCREAMED and ran out of the room and hid in her bed crying and saying "I don't like robots!"

Kids, they know.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Triple Zero on February 12, 2012, 08:09:05 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on February 12, 2012, 01:35:40 PM
About the mechanical limitations of propellers and wheels:

Though there are some organisms that spin themselves through liquid, and some animals that roll up in an elipse or ball to wheel across the landscape, there are no organisms that posess a propeller or wheel. And the reasons for that are pretty clear. Both propellers and wheels require a part that can freely spin on an axel, that is completely decoupled from the main body. This may be possible in a colonial organism, where the parts are made up of individual organisms which are semi-independent, but it could not happen in a single organism. It would be like having a hand that was detached from and yet still controlled and fed by the body. Even if the mechanism that rotated the wheel was enclosed in a cellular structure, theres the matter of the seam and how it exposes parts to the environment. You would certainly not see this in a small terrestrial animal, because the water loss would be tremendous.

I mean, think of how we get rotating parts in machines. In an electric motor, it is almost always a coiling current around decoupled, freely moving magnets.

Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear, I wanted to write "a mechanical limitation which was penalized improperly in the simulation" :) Meaning that the simulation should have penalized joints that turn too far.

The only way a wheel or rotating part is beneficial is if you can keep it going, re-using the angular momentum.

For instance, I was just thinking that technically, a tadpole-like creature could rotate the last bit of its tail or something and it'd be kind of like a propeller. But then, if it can do that, it might as well move the whole tail in some slithering corkscrew like movement, because that's more efficient. And we do see the latter type of locomotion in worms and eel-like creatures.

The videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0OHycypSG8 (very bad sound quality, unfortunately)
hm I'm not sure if there's more of this particular experiment actually. I should *really* look up the paper that probably goes with it, though.

There's some more examples (of more recent simulations) in the related videos. "Evolved Virtual Creature" seems like a good search term for these.

There's also some software available, apparently: http://www.stellaralchemy.com/lee/virtual_creatures.php which I will check out later.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on February 12, 2012, 08:14:47 PM
The first video of the robot flipping the sock totally looks like something from Wallace and Grommit.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Kai on February 12, 2012, 10:39:16 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 12, 2012, 08:09:05 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on February 12, 2012, 01:35:40 PM
About the mechanical limitations of propellers and wheels:

Though there are some organisms that spin themselves through liquid, and some animals that roll up in an elipse or ball to wheel across the landscape, there are no organisms that posess a propeller or wheel. And the reasons for that are pretty clear. Both propellers and wheels require a part that can freely spin on an axel, that is completely decoupled from the main body. This may be possible in a colonial organism, where the parts are made up of individual organisms which are semi-independent, but it could not happen in a single organism. It would be like having a hand that was detached from and yet still controlled and fed by the body. Even if the mechanism that rotated the wheel was enclosed in a cellular structure, theres the matter of the seam and how it exposes parts to the environment. You would certainly not see this in a small terrestrial animal, because the water loss would be tremendous.

I mean, think of how we get rotating parts in machines. In an electric motor, it is almost always a coiling current around decoupled, freely moving magnets.

Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear, I wanted to write "a mechanical limitation which was penalized improperly in the simulation" :) Meaning that the simulation should have penalized joints that turn too far.

The only way a wheel or rotating part is beneficial is if you can keep it going, re-using the angular momentum.

For instance, I was just thinking that technically, a tadpole-like creature could rotate the last bit of its tail or something and it'd be kind of like a propeller. But then, if it can do that, it might as well move the whole tail in some slithering corkscrew like movement, because that's more efficient. And we do see the latter type of locomotion in worms and eel-like creatures.

The videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0OHycypSG8 (very bad sound quality, unfortunately)
hm I'm not sure if there's more of this particular experiment actually. I should *really* look up the paper that probably goes with it, though.

There's some more examples (of more recent simulations) in the related videos. "Evolved Virtual Creature" seems like a good search term for these.

There's also some software available, apparently: http://www.stellaralchemy.com/lee/virtual_creatures.php which I will check out later.

And to add to your links. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEQsx4xLqKM Wheeling tiger beetle larvae. I saw the author of this work give a talk on it about a year ago. Fascinating biomechanical stuff. Not only do they leap up and curl round to roll, but their hairy legs are used as sails to catch the wind on the beaches and continue rolling much further. Flat, unmarred beaches are absolutely essential for this species' habitat.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Elder Iptuous on February 12, 2012, 10:51:55 PM
Ahh, bigdog!  i've been enjoying the evolution of this robot since i saw it over a decade ago.
Boston Dynamics serves up some pretty hot snot!

Let's add the Boston Dynamics PETMan to the collection as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mclbVTIYG8E

don't recall whether this one was posted at some point here, but it's pretty impressive humanoid movement.
it is currently purposed as a test fixture for protective clothing to make sure it can withstand realistic rigors of human wear, but it's certainly a general advancement in humanoid robotics.

Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2012, 06:32:01 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 12, 2012, 10:51:55 PM
Ahh, bigdog!  i've been enjoying the evolution of this robot since i saw it over a decade ago.
Boston Dynamics serves up some pretty hot snot!

Let's add the Boston Dynamics PETMan to the collection as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mclbVTIYG8E

don't recall whether this one was posted at some point here, but it's pretty impressive humanoid movement.
it is currently purposed as a test fixture for protective clothing to make sure it can withstand realistic rigors of human wear, but it's certainly a general advancement in humanoid robotics.

Yep, that was totally creepy as fuck.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Elder Iptuous on February 13, 2012, 03:56:24 PM
*schsk* As we begin our descent, if the passengers on the left side will look out their windows at the valley floor below, they will notice that their minds have just been rent by that which should not be. ..*schsk*

http://youtu.be/RbgzqFtcALA
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on February 13, 2012, 04:00:48 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 13, 2012, 03:56:24 PM
*schsk* As we begin our descent, if the passengers on the left side will look out their windows at the valley floor below, they will notice that their minds have just been rent by that which should not be. ..*schsk*

http://youtu.be/RbgzqFtcALA

Kinda like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_wF5SGFFMQ&feature=related

There's a toddler one that's really damn creepy, too.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Elder Iptuous on April 02, 2012, 04:02:05 PM
Not human mimicry, but uncanny valley territory none the less...
link (http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-software/robobonobo-giving-apes-control-of-their-own-robot)
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/robobonobo2-1333005901770.jpg)
QuoteThis is RoboBonobo. It's a robotic ape. It's got a water cannon on it, and it'll eventually be able to chase you around under the direct control of real bonobos wielding wireless keyboards and iPads. In other words, no human is safe. Anywhere. Ever.

i don't believe the ape head on it is even animatronic, but it's still uncanny given the knowledge that it is an actual ape behind the wheel...
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 02, 2012, 04:45:01 PM
SCIENCE!  :lulz:
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on April 02, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
As hilariously creepy as that is, it's not uncanny valley stuff. More like MAD SCIENTIST stuff.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Elder Iptuous on April 02, 2012, 05:00:40 PM
yeah.  is true.  i wanted to show though, and...
the valley is reserved mostly for human mimicry, but ive seen examples of non human stuff as being in there.
this doesn't really fit the bill specifically, as there is simply a lifelike dummy ape head on a clearly machine box, but it seemed to me that, the knowledge that there really is and ape at the controls makes it seem a little creepy in an uncanny valley way somehow...
so i stuck it in here.
feel free to have split to a more applicable thread.

the realtime communication aspect is pretty slick though, as these bonobos know ~400 lexigrams, and a tablet app to communicate with people using them. (i'm guessing since they're bonobos, about 1/3 of them are variations on the concept of clitoris)
and then they spray you with the water cannon.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on April 06, 2012, 11:02:27 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on February 12, 2012, 01:35:40 PM
About the mechanical limitations of propellers and wheels:

Though there are some organisms that spin themselves through liquid, and some animals that roll up in an elipse or ball to wheel across the landscape, there are no organisms that posess a propeller or wheel. And the reasons for that are pretty clear. Both propellers and wheels require a part that can freely spin on an axel, that is completely decoupled from the main body. This may be possible in a colonial organism, where the parts are made up of individual organisms which are semi-independent, but it could not happen in a single organism. It would be like having a hand that was detached from and yet still controlled and fed by the body. Even if the mechanism that rotated the wheel was enclosed in a cellular structure, theres the matter of the seam and how it exposes parts to the environment. You would certainly not see this in a small terrestrial animal, because the water loss would be tremendous.

I mean, think of how we get rotating parts in machines. In an electric motor, it is almost always a coiling current around decoupled, freely moving magnets.

There is something very interesting about this thought and how it applies to the way in which we conceive space.  I just tried articulating the intuition several times and failed...

What I'm thinking about is translating the intuitions regarding hypothetical 2d "persons" into the problem of conceiving a "decoupled" 3d organism that can drive rotation of it's parts.  I particular, to start, I thought about how a 2-d "entity" is even more fucked when it comes to being shafted:  the 2d entity can afford some perforation, however, a digestive tract from end to end would essentially "decouple" the figure - cutting it in half.

Adding a dimension, I can safely conceive of a 3d object accommodating a negative 3d volume throughout, without it falling apart.  In order for this to obtain, the negative volume can span from end to end along only one axis.  Another way to think about this is how you need a long sword to cut someone in half with one stroke.

The hypothetical upshot would be conceiving how a 3d organism could accommodate a decoupled motor by modeling the same organism in 4d instead...  The last intuition involves mechanisms converting rotational/translational and continuous/intermittent motion...

  Eh...  Is it worth sharing these par-baked Thoughts?
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Triple Zero on April 07, 2012, 12:14:55 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on April 06, 2012, 11:02:27 PM
What I'm thinking about is translating the intuitions regarding hypothetical 2d "persons" into the problem of conceiving a "decoupled" 3d organism that can drive rotation of it's parts.  I particular, to start, I thought about how a 2-d "entity" is even more fucked when it comes to being shafted:  the 2d entity can afford some perforation, however, a digestive tract from end to end would essentially "decouple" the figure - cutting it in half.

I book I read once called "The Fourth Dimension" used some stories set in Flatland as examples.

The solution posed for this was to have the digestive tract shaped like the cut between two puzzle pieces, so it would still "hang" together.

Of course this is analogous to an axle doesn't fall out of a car because it's stuck through a hole.

So this flatland creature might be mechanically plausible, but not biologically.

QuoteAdding a dimension, I can safely conceive of a 3d object accommodating a negative 3d volume throughout, without it falling apart.  In order for this to obtain, the negative volume can span from end to end along only one axis.  Another way to think about this is how you need a long sword to cut someone in half with one stroke.

The hypothetical upshot would be conceiving how a 3d organism could accommodate a decoupled motor by modeling the same organism in 4d instead...  The last intuition involves mechanisms converting rotational/translational and continuous/intermittent motion...

  Eh...  Is it worth sharing these par-baked Thoughts?

Well personally I don't know much about it, but a friend of mine did a research topic on Knot Theory, from the field of Topology. A knot in this case is a circular piece of rope, and being in the field of topology means that you can deform and stretch as much as you like but you cannot cut or glue parts of it together.

The trivial knot is a circle, also called a "link".

The simplest "real" knot is called the trefoil knot. You can probably imagine what it looks like, otherwise do an image search.

Now one of the weird things he explained me is that you obviously cannot deform a trefoil into a link without cutting and gluing it. However, if you consider the negative space of a trefoil knot (so this would be a big block of putty with a trefoil shaped tunnel in the middle of it) and deform that you can deform it back into a link (or any other 3D knot).

At least, I think it was like that. I could remember it wrong, but there was something you could do in the negative space that you normally couldn't.

Also if you can deform the (positive) knot in four dimensions you can also untie it.

And then there was something where you could associate knots with polynomials and use that to figure out whether two knots are in fact the same knot (homologous, homomorphic, homo-something-or-other).

Except that even in that representation it was still a hard problem. Maybe even NP-hard, but again I'm not sure.

If you're interested in that sort of thing, I bet Wikipedia and Mathworld have loads on it.

Or maybe just start here: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/junkyard/knot.html (the geometry junkyard is a great place to spend some time in! it's quite old so some of the links may be dead, but usually Archive.org's Wayback Machine has them still).
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Elder Iptuous on June 12, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
interesting read.
The fellow who first came up with the concept of the Uncanny Valley (back in 1970) recently had an interview with IEEE (http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/an-uncanny-mind-masahiro-mori-on-the-uncanny-valley) to get his perspective on the topic after all these years...
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 12, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on April 02, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
As hilariously creepy as that is, it's not uncanny valley stuff. More like MAD SCIENTIST stuff.

The ape head might be fake, but it looks dead.

It reminds me of those Russian dog experiments. NOT googling for a link, but you know the ones. Some of that stuff was supposed to be fake but not all of it. There's a drawing (luckily just a drawing) of this absurd huge robot with a collie head on it.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Kai on June 13, 2012, 04:01:35 AM
I've been thinking more about the biological wheel problem, and I think I've discovered a solution. In a single organism, it wouldn't work, but in a colonial organism it could. The biological "axel" could spin within a fluid filled invagination, perhaps by cillia, or some sort of skeletal gear tooth mechanism. The issue then becomes, how does the axel and wheels part communicate with the chassis part, when to stop and go, or forward and reverse?
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on June 13, 2012, 08:55:54 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on April 02, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
As hilariously creepy as that is, it's not uncanny valley stuff. More like MAD SCIENTIST stuff.

The ape head might be fake, but it looks dead.

It reminds me of those Russian dog experiments. NOT googling for a link, but you know the ones. Some of that stuff was supposed to be fake but not all of it. There's a drawing (luckily just a drawing) of this absurd huge robot with a collie head on it.

Yeah that shit really. Just makes me want to end everything.  I don't mean ME, I mean EVERYTHING.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 02:18:37 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on April 02, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
As hilariously creepy as that is, it's not uncanny valley stuff. More like MAD SCIENTIST stuff.

The ape head might be fake, but it looks dead.

It reminds me of those Russian dog experiments. NOT googling for a link, but you know the ones. Some of that stuff was supposed to be fake but not all of it. There's a drawing (luckily just a drawing) of this absurd huge robot with a collie head on it.

I'd be okay with shit like cyborg dawgs.  I mean, cruel and all, but at least it's creepy & futuristic.

Here, we just injected Black people with syphilis and recorded the results as they died.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 13, 2012, 09:33:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 13, 2012, 02:18:37 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on April 02, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
As hilariously creepy as that is, it's not uncanny valley stuff. More like MAD SCIENTIST stuff.

The ape head might be fake, but it looks dead.

It reminds me of those Russian dog experiments. NOT googling for a link, but you know the ones. Some of that stuff was supposed to be fake but not all of it. There's a drawing (luckily just a drawing) of this absurd huge robot with a collie head on it.

I'd be okay with shit like cyborg dawgs.  I mean, cruel and all, but at least it's creepy & futuristic.

Here, we just injected Black people with syphilis and recorded the results as they died.

We don't do things like that anymore. We just conduct experimental drug trials on people who are desperate for things like cash or bunion surgery.  :x
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on June 14, 2012, 08:00:38 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on April 02, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
As hilariously creepy as that is, it's not uncanny valley stuff. More like MAD SCIENTIST stuff.

The ape head might be fake, but it looks dead.

It reminds me of those Russian dog experiments. NOT googling for a link, but you know the ones. Some of that stuff was supposed to be fake but not all of it. There's a drawing (luckily just a drawing) of this absurd huge robot with a collie head on it.

It saddens me to say I came across that on a drive the other day - how they validate the (re)existence of "life" is questionable ((autonomic response?) lemon juice?!?!?)...
:horrormirth:

Trip: I'm gonna read that again after sleep
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on June 22, 2012, 10:56:12 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 07, 2012, 12:14:55 AM

...book I read once called "The Fourth Dimension" used some stories set in Flatland as examples.

The solution posed for this was to have the digestive tract shaped like the cut between two puzzle pieces, so it would still "hang" together.

Of course this is analogous to an axle doesn't fall out of a car because it's stuck through a hole.

So this flatland creature might be mechanically plausible, but not biologically.
...

Well personally I don't know much about it, but a friend of mine did a research topic on Knot Theory, from the field of Topology. A knot in this case is a circular piece of rope, and being in the field of topology means that you can deform and stretch as much as you like but you cannot cut or glue parts of it together.

The trivial knot is a circle, also called a "link".

The simplest "real" knot is called the trefoil knot. You can probably imagine what it looks like, otherwise do an image search.

Now one of the weird things he explained me is that you obviously cannot deform a trefoil into a link without cutting and gluing it. However, if you consider the negative space of a trefoil knot (so this would be a big block of putty with a trefoil shaped tunnel in the middle of it) and deform that you can deform it back into a link (or any other 3D knot).

At least, I think it was like that. I could remember it wrong, but there was something you could do in the negative space that you normally couldn't.

Also if you can deform the (positive) knot in four dimensions you can also untie it.

And then there was something where you could associate knots with polynomials and use that to figure out whether two knots are in fact the same knot (homologous, homomorphic, homo-something-or-other).

Except that even in that representation it was still a hard problem. Maybe even NP-hard, but again I'm not sure.

If you're interested in that sort of thing, I bet Wikipedia and Mathworld have loads on it.

Or maybe just start here: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/junkyard/knot.html (the geometry junkyard is a great place to spend some time in! it's quite old so some of the links may be dead, but usually Archive.org's Wayback Machine has them still).

Love that junkyard, and all the topology stuff...  It's interesting how stellations, like negative space inversions (subtracting) and/or adding dimensions can solve problems like cutting knots, even though the process would seem to negate the "conditions" of topology.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 23, 2012, 06:43:19 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 14, 2012, 08:00:38 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on April 02, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
As hilariously creepy as that is, it's not uncanny valley stuff. More like MAD SCIENTIST stuff.

The ape head might be fake, but it looks dead.

It reminds me of those Russian dog experiments. NOT googling for a link, but you know the ones. Some of that stuff was supposed to be fake but not all of it. There's a drawing (luckily just a drawing) of this absurd huge robot with a collie head on it.

It saddens me to say I came across that on a drive the other day - how they validate the (re)existence of "life" is questionable ((autonomic response?) lemon juice?!?!?)...
:horrormirth:

Trip: I'm gonna read that again after sleep

I probably ought to sleep, but: WHAT?
Are you saying you were driving and you came across an animal head on a robot?  :eek:
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on June 23, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 23, 2012, 06:43:19 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 14, 2012, 08:00:38 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on April 02, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
As hilariously creepy as that is, it's not uncanny valley stuff. More like MAD SCIENTIST stuff.

The ape head might be fake, but it looks dead.

It reminds me of those Russian dog experiments. NOT googling for a link, but you know the ones. Some of that stuff was supposed to be fake but not all of it. There's a drawing (luckily just a drawing) of this absurd huge robot with a collie head on it.

It saddens me to say I came across that on a drive the other day - how they validate the (re)existence of "life" is questionable ((autonomic response?) lemon juice?!?!?)...
:horrormirth:

Trip: I'm gonna read that again after sleep

I probably ought to sleep, but: WHAT?
Are you saying you were driving and you came across an animal head on a robot?  :eek:
You really want me to link/upload it?
[ed:  the "drive" was a computer HDD that was also being revived] 18
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on June 23, 2012, 10:48:43 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 23, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 23, 2012, 06:43:19 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 14, 2012, 08:00:38 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on June 12, 2012, 10:45:51 PM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on April 02, 2012, 04:45:54 PM
As hilariously creepy as that is, it's not uncanny valley stuff. More like MAD SCIENTIST stuff.

The ape head might be fake, but it looks dead.

It reminds me of those Russian dog experiments. NOT googling for a link, but you know the ones. Some of that stuff was supposed to be fake but not all of it. There's a drawing (luckily just a drawing) of this absurd huge robot with a collie head on it.

It saddens me to say I came across that on a drive the other day - how they validate the (re)existence of "life" is questionable ((autonomic response?) lemon juice?!?!?)...
:horrormirth:

Trip: I'm gonna read that again after sleep

I probably ought to sleep, but: WHAT?
Are you saying you were driving and you came across an animal head on a robot?  :eek:
You really want me to link/upload it?
[ed:  the "drive" was a computer HDD that was also being revived] 18

Ah, that kind of drive. Now it makes sense.
But no thanks, don't want to see it.
That shit can fuck me up for days.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on June 23, 2012, 10:54:53 AM
I know, right?  At first the fascination cedes to some kind of rubbernecking, then it just turns plain wrong...  Sorry, just sympathizing here.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Triple Zero on June 27, 2012, 10:52:46 AM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 13, 2012, 04:01:35 AM
I've been thinking more about the biological wheel problem, and I think I've discovered a solution. In a single organism, it wouldn't work, but in a colonial organism it could. The biological "axel" could spin within a fluid filled invagination, perhaps by cillia, or some sort of skeletal gear tooth mechanism. The issue then becomes, how does the axel and wheels part communicate with the chassis part, when to stop and go, or forward and reverse?

Wow, that's a really interesting idea!!

Pheromones probably won't work fast enough? Or could they be made to?

Fortunately there's other "distance sensing" options, even for simple organisms.

Bees must recognize that dancing communication pretty fast, right? Do they use vision, or some other sense?

I can also imagine some kind of cross between an antenna and a neuron/nerve type of thing. It would slide against the outer rim, not unlike the pole mounted on bumper cars gets electricity from the ceiling. You could have a whole bunch of radial "spokes" like these.

... wait I just looked up what "cilia" are, you were probably thinking of roughly the same thing then?

Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Elder Iptuous on June 27, 2012, 02:43:07 PM
hm.
how about an animal that has mucous membrane on the end of short stumpy appendages which act as the axles.  the membrane secretes lubricating mucous that also dries forming a hard shell type wheel.  the appendage would act with short reciprocating motions in a ratcheting effect to turn the hard wheels.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on June 27, 2012, 04:43:21 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 27, 2012, 10:52:46 AM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on June 13, 2012, 04:01:35 AM
I've been thinking more about the biological wheel problem, and I think I've discovered a solution. In a single organism, it wouldn't work, but in a colonial organism it could. The biological "axel" could spin within a fluid filled invagination, perhaps by cillia, or some sort of skeletal gear tooth mechanism. The issue then becomes, how does the axel and wheels part communicate with the chassis part, when to stop and go, or forward and reverse?

Wow, that's a really interesting idea!!

Pheromones probably won't work fast enough? Or could they be made to?

Fortunately there's other "distance sensing" options, even for simple organisms.

Bees must recognize that dancing communication pretty fast, right? Do they use vision, or some other sense?

I can also imagine some kind of cross between an antenna and a neuron/nerve type of thing. It would slide against the outer rim, not unlike the pole mounted on bumper cars gets electricity from the ceiling. You could have a whole bunch of radial "spokes" like these.

... wait I just looked up what "cilia" are, you were probably thinking of roughly the same thing then?



If the chamber housing the "axel" was tightly sealed and filled to sufficient pressure, start/stop/direction signals could be transmitted via rhythmic "beating" from muscles in the chamber wall causing pressure waves detected by the axel.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on September 29, 2012, 05:01:37 AM
Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml)

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on September 29, 2012, 05:02:37 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on September 29, 2012, 05:01:37 AM
Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml)

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins

Hey Ferx, long time no see.


How've you been?
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on September 29, 2012, 08:04:47 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 29, 2012, 05:02:37 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on September 29, 2012, 05:01:37 AM
Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml)

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins


Hey Ferx, long time no see.


How've you been?

Well & looking forward (and now back for further absence :) you?

Re: article, just before where the picture was (supposed to be)
...
QuoteNow I must mention that there is one revealing exception to my premiss.  Some very small creatures have evolved the wheel in the fullest sense of the word.  One of the first locomotor devices ever evolved may have been the wheel, given that for most of its first two billion years, life consisted of nothing but bacteria (and, to this day, not only are most individual organisms bacteria, even in our own bodies bacterial cells greatly outnumber our 'own' cells).

Many bacteria swim using threadlike spiral propellors, each driven by its own continuously rotating propellor shaft.  It used to be thought that these 'flagella' were wagged like tails, the appearance of spiral rotation resulting from a wave of motion passing along the length of the flagellum, as in a wriggling snake.  The truth is much more remarkable.  The bacterial flagellum is attached to a shaft which, driven by a tiny molecular engine, rotates freely and indefinitely in a hole that runs through the cell wall.
...

Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Kai on October 02, 2012, 02:15:44 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on September 29, 2012, 08:04:47 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 29, 2012, 05:02:37 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on September 29, 2012, 05:01:37 AM
Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml)

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins


Hey Ferx, long time no see.


How've you been?

Well & looking forward (and now back for further absence :) you?

Re: article, just before where the picture was (supposed to be)
...
QuoteNow I must mention that there is one revealing exception to my premiss.  Some very small creatures have evolved the wheel in the fullest sense of the word.  One of the first locomotor devices ever evolved may have been the wheel, given that for most of its first two billion years, life consisted of nothing but bacteria (and, to this day, not only are most individual organisms bacteria, even in our own bodies bacterial cells greatly outnumber our 'own' cells).

Many bacteria swim using threadlike spiral propellors, each driven by its own continuously rotating propellor shaft.  It used to be thought that these 'flagella' were wagged like tails, the appearance of spiral rotation resulting from a wave of motion passing along the length of the flagellum, as in a wriggling snake.  The truth is much more remarkable.  The bacterial flagellum is attached to a shaft which, driven by a tiny molecular engine, rotates freely and indefinitely in a hole that runs through the cell wall.
...

I've been trying to figure out the biomechanics of how this would work on a larger scale. It doesn't seem possible in a terrestrial environment, there would be too much potential for fluid loss.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on October 04, 2012, 10:07:34 AM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on October 02, 2012, 02:15:44 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on September 29, 2012, 08:04:47 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 29, 2012, 05:02:37 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on September 29, 2012, 05:01:37 AM
Just about to read this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20070221073440/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml)

Why Don't Animals have Wheels
By Richard Dawkins


Hey Ferx, long time no see.


How've you been?

Well & looking forward (and now back for further absence :) you?

Re: article, just before where the picture was (supposed to be)
...
QuoteNow I must mention that there is one revealing exception to my premiss.  Some very small creatures have evolved the wheel in the fullest sense of the word.  One of the first locomotor devices ever evolved may have been the wheel, given that for most of its first two billion years, life consisted of nothing but bacteria (and, to this day, not only are most individual organisms bacteria, even in our own bodies bacterial cells greatly outnumber our 'own' cells).

Many bacteria swim using threadlike spiral propellors, each driven by its own continuously rotating propellor shaft.  It used to be thought that these 'flagella' were wagged like tails, the appearance of spiral rotation resulting from a wave of motion passing along the length of the flagellum, as in a wriggling snake.  The truth is much more remarkable.  The bacterial flagellum is attached to a shaft which, driven by a tiny molecular engine, rotates freely and indefinitely in a hole that runs through the cell wall.
...

I've been trying to figure out the biomechanics of how this would work on a larger scale. It doesn't seem possible in a terrestrial environment, there would be too much potential for fluid loss.

Just for the sake of conversation, I'd graft a gene to have the organism produce shellac to act as a barrier for fluid loss.  If the pH can be kept around 8, some kinds of shellac would not dissolve to allow permeability.  When access to water is granted, the pH could fall and allow for fluid exchange, osmosis etc.  If water is plentiful, the shell could be dissolved completely to allow for sexual reproduction, just for fun, not because the organism would be necessarily so complex. :lulz:
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on October 04, 2012, 03:36:24 PM
They should have a computer game that allows you to sequence a genome from scratch using real genetic code, and then model the resulting organism and let you put it in various environments to see what would happen. I'd pay like $20 for such a game. Surely this is possible?
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on October 05, 2012, 04:04:48 AM
I can't say I'm much of a gambler, however, I'd give it a whirl for a stake in patents obtained  :lol:
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Reginald Ret on December 27, 2012, 11:24:16 PM
Quote from: V3X on October 04, 2012, 03:36:24 PM
They should have a computer game that allows you to sequence a genome from scratch using real genetic code, and then model the resulting organism and let you put it in various environments to see what would happen. I'd pay like $20 for such a game. Surely this is possible?
Doubtful if it will be accurate.
Not enough is know yet.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: LMNO on December 28, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 28, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

And that's how we got Texas.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on December 28, 2012, 07:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 28, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

And that's how we got Texas.

I can vouch for that.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on December 28, 2012, 09:32:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 28, 2012, 03:24:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 28, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

And that's how we got Texas.

:lulz:
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Pergamos on December 29, 2012, 12:15:22 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 28, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

Could work if they give you a bunch of premade stuff, and let you tinker, mutate basically
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Reginald Ret on December 29, 2012, 11:13:45 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on December 29, 2012, 12:15:22 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 28, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

Could work if they give you a bunch of premade stuff, and let you tinker, mutate basically
Cool idea.
But sadly, there is more to genetics than genes. It is called epigenetics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics).
It would still make a cool game though, just not completely accurate. But, being a game, that doesn't really matter. Afterall, a game is merely another map. And maps and territories should never be indistinguishable.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: Sano on December 30, 2012, 01:07:10 AM
Quote from: :regret: on December 29, 2012, 11:13:45 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on December 29, 2012, 12:15:22 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 28, 2012, 01:10:47 PM
I'd posit that if you're making a genome from scratch, you're going to fail roughly a billion times.  Just like the universe did.

Could work if they give you a bunch of premade stuff, and let you tinker, mutate basically
Cool idea.
But sadly, there is more to genetics than genes. It is called epigenetics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics).
It would still make a cool game though, just not completely accurate. But, being a game, that doesn't really matter. Afterall, a game is merely another map. And maps and territories should never be indistinguishable.

There used to be a very simple game like that, but only with flowers. I spent almost a whole week on it.
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: minuspace on January 24, 2013, 12:17:28 PM
Have you ever made apple pie from scratch?:drama1: :
Title: Re: Uncanny valley turned up to eleven.
Post by: hirley0 on January 26, 2013, 05:03:32 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on January 24, 2013, 12:17:28 PM
Have you ever made a

sounds like
East Indian A's to me | UM ON iNTERNET eXPLORER | I no longer use