I can't believe you guys are running those. I hope at least you have everything backed up. I mean, even if they don't kill your whole HD, they might just casually overwrite a few files or something...

BUt, if you want to continue to be reckless:

You guys are only modifying the data section. You can't touch the code. When it changed the path, it was changing something in the data section. If you want to do really kewl and stupid (as in dangerous) stuff, look up the header of PE executables, and set the flag to make the code section writeable. That way you really change what the program is doing. Whenever you got pointer errors (access violations), it was probably because the code was trying to write to it's own code section and couldn't. You might have wanted to code these in ASM also, much less bloat.

Or wait, you were changing the file on disk, not in memeory, weren't you? Ok, disregard all that

For level: I say machine opcodes. Shared memory is likely a bad idea, though, if you want multi-tasking. Have the stack be as large as you feel is necessary. Registers? Depends on what you need. You're going to need things like an IP, an accumulator and data register, etc.

As I recall correctly, stacks are low level, not high level. Built directly into the processor. Anywho, I feel that all of us should make our own VM Why do I feel this? Because it's good practice, I mean, who doesn't want to make their own VM It helps you to understand how computers work, which is a requirement when you get into deep engine design. So yea, we'll all make our own VM, find out which one is best, and if we can't decide which is best, we'll squeeze 'em together into a mega VM

Here's my idea for a processor design:
*7 32-bit registers: A, B, C, D, E, F, G
*2 32-bit memory pointers: H, I
*8000 bytes of stack

Why so many registers? When I did my first custom VM(processor emulator) I did that whole Xh, Xl, thing, which basically gives you extra registers without the CPU having to store more registers....well that idea blows, this is a VM and the number of registers doesn't matter in a VM, so I went all out and put 7 32-bit registers >8)

Why so much stack? cause...I like stack.

Operations include: MOV, ADD, SUB, MUL, DIV, AND, OR(EOR), XOR, BSL(<<), BSR(>>), LJP(local jump), GJP(global jump), INC, DEC, MMV(Memory Move), IF operations, PUSH, POP, INT

I think that's it.... The whole local/global jump idea is this: local jump will jump in reference to the program's memory, global jump will jump in reference to the WHOLE memory. Now, I haven't given direct support for function calls, because I believe I shouldn't, I'll give support for it in the Assembler which will convert it to the pure machine version(PUSH registers, LJP), this'll give progranisms more control...although maybe I don't want them to have that much controll...hmm...maybe I'll give support for it...ya. The VM will be multitasking, no access violations to allow for hacking. I think that's about it, so far I've written up the MOV portion of the OPCode document, I'm dumb!, all those registers take a long time write(81 different combinations, excluding a constant...which would make it 90).

Still, the point stands, the feature is built into the processor, your program doesn't have to handle pushing, poping, and keeping an ESP pointer.

But yea, I thought it was in the CPU...guess it wouldn't make too much sense in the CPU....anywho, thanks for pointing that out.

Obviously you could find processors with built-in stack(like 256 bytes), in simple electronic devices. But not in PC.

Besides, what the heck is the point of having the stack in the processor? Just write a class that encapsulates the stack, or just use the STL class, and BINGO! Stacks Made Easy...

BTW... PLEASE Someone tell me where a tutorial on designing VMs is located.

EDIT
--------------
William Hmm... That is what I thought.

Personally, I was thinking about customizing the VM commands so they are designed around the our "evolution" concept. True, it would be quite high level, but that isn't an issue.

I just need to figure out how to implement logic of some form.

True, but with todays processors, stacks in the processor or stacks in the CPU don't make a lot of difference. I mean, the TI89 has a processor stack, but that only helps to a certain extent.

And the difference between processor and CPU is?
AFAIK it the same thing. Or is there something i don't know about?

yea, I figured that out...re-organized my logic and junk.

Umm, CPU is a dangerous word. Originally I think it meant processor(Centeral Processing Unit), but now adays it can also be used to describe the computer as a whole...anywho, I was just using it as a synonym for processor.

That's probably cause of the Mac and how some of their comps are just a monitor with a computer crammed into the base of the monitor...anywho, I'm on OPCode 01BC after documenting MOV, ADD, SUB, MUL, DIV, AND, and EOR...my hand hurts.

Johan,

I actually saw someone who made a program that simulated evolution and breeding for beetles shapes over 15 years ago on the spectrum. Pretty impressive for the time.

I disagree. I know we don't have the knowledge to create a real AI, but there is also so much we don't know about this whole idea. We don't even fully understand how our brains work.
I believe mankind will create a real AI in the future.
And i don't think that there will be any problems with robots walking around and killing all of us.
If we can make a machine to think, we can also force it to test its actions to some rules. Like the robot laws by Asimov. Or some better ones if needed.

Acording to my crazy logical theories:

There are currently two levels of learning known. The first is what I call brute force learning. This is what the Progranisms mimic. They try random approaches to "life" finding the best ones. This is just like when you hack a password "brute force" you try EVERY combination until one works. Now, this is not what you would call intelegent, but it is learning.

The second level is what we call intelegence. This is where, instead of randomly trying things, the entity trying to learn with use past experiences to influcence the "randomness". It is still random in a sense, but it reorginizes what random ideas it picks first.

I'm not sure whether the second level is possible or not in machines, since machines, like was basically said, are static, they follow only instructions, the instructions may change, but they are still restricted.

There is a way to find out if it is possible though, and I think it is through the first level. Maybe the Progranisms can evolve to the second level? I'm not sure. I have way too many theological questions that need answers before I can decide if this is truely possible. It seems logical, I mean we are all made of the first level of learning anyway(cells), so it would make sense that it would be possible, but we are still limited in knowledge, we don't know all that goes into "life" and thinking...so...whatever.

Let's leave it at that, PLEASE, cause this is a flame war waiting to go off, so let's be civil, please.

Oh, and Johan, your idea is known as Genetic Algorithims I think...not sure, but I think.

BTW, [url http://alifegames.sourceforge.net/] Check that out! Cool stuff, genetic algorithims. The first game kinda blows, cause it is poorly designed you can't turn(eeeee), but it's a nice idea.