Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00114
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Justin jaf60@student.canterbury.ac.nz
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 02:46:43 +1300
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM classification
> What is the classification of a BEAM robot?
I would suggest the philosophy behind the robot, rather than the robot
itself,
would be the most defining feature.
Classifing a robot by what it is (or contains, or makes use of, etc) or
by what it isn't (or doesn't contain, etc) would be a mistake, and
inherently limits what BEAM can be or achieve.
And of course, we don't live in a black in white world, so there will be
bots that involve BEAM, but not exclusively (eg, assuming my
philosophy-up approach, other philosophies might have been used in
addition to BEAM philosophies), so there are no easy answers, I'd
definitely shy away from classifying based on the features of the robot.
That sort of classification system, when used in biology (before
evolutionary classification) was quite problematic and only able to work
because there was this enormous (unknown) evolutionary process linking
the related critters.
You might consider classifying something as "BEAM" to be more like
classifying something as "art", than classifying something as "insect".
No classification of art that is based on the properties of the artwork
has ever been even remotely sucessful. Some classifications that seek
other ways to classify art have been more successful, but the art world
is a bit like software security - if you come up with a definition, it's
just going to inspire artists to find some way to break the
definition... :-)
Seeya
Justin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home