Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02252
To: beam beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Richard Piotter richfile@rconnect.com
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:04:20 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Beam genome
I think it'd work better with just the standard sub system names. A 2
motor, 4 Nv Microcore, Z-Bridge walker, or a Suneater 3/4 based Turbot
are more explanitive than the names of the creators. I can't even recal
who made what off the top of my head most of the time anyway! What we
have now seems to be working well. I liked the idea of adding the link
to the FAQ to the signature file so much that I did it! Every time I
send a mail to the list, there is a link to the BEAM TEK page! Great way
for beginners to find the link without having to ask. I think several
others have done this too. I havn't heard many newbie questions lately
(or maybe I'm ignoring them! Hehe! :)
JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I guess the BEAM genome idea wasn't very popular. I got 5 responses from the
> list. One completely negative, two "interesting", and two corrections on the
> Z-bridge credit. So, out of 400 or so people I got two "kinda interestings".
> If this were one of Ian's polls, I'd say it went over like a lead balloon. I
> guess the idea occurred to me because the terms, genome, robo-genetic stock,
> and genetic algorithms are tossed around in Tilden's papers and this forum
> quite often. But, as far as my humble researching has discovered, there is no
> underlying structure to support those claims. I mean it's one thing to say
> you are expanding the evolutionary adaptation of the automaton, but without
> specific examples of how those changes are occurring and what characteristics
> are being used to promote and document that change, then you can't really
> speak in those terms. For instance, you can't point to a particular breed of
> dog and declare it a new more advanced breed without any means of comparison
> or agreed upon guidelines to support your claim of a new more advanced breed.
> You are required to follow guidelines that prove the blood line of that breed
> and how contributors have changed it into a better beast. I guess my point
> was, that if you have no official terms for comparison, and you don't
> incorporate a system by which you can show the evolutionary line that is
> leading you to that living machine, then the terms are meaningless. They
> simply are fluff added to more fluff to make what your doing sound cool
> without any real documented approaches as are used to describe all other
> genetic trees. Without those procedures you're just saying the words. (Don't
> get me started on what robot parks have to do with the Jurassic period of
> prehistory, except for a cool blockbuster movie tie in.) I think that's the
> kernel at the heart of my musings. Tilden has presented his approaches as
> being high science, and a practical method for evolving autonomous living
> machines. But, there is no documented, scientific guidelines to promote and
> compare the evolutionary history of said machines. It also completely ignores
> those who have made some of those advances. I know I'll get flamed to death
> over this. That's what happens when you look God in the eye. I also realize
> that at this point our critters are usually elaborate toys, but I think many
> of us consider the possibility that the techniques may one day lead to very
> advanced living machines. If you believe that, I would think a more
> scientific approach would be the logical way to document that hypothesis.
> One more gripe here. I was leafing through the BEAM booklet the other day
> (yeah, I kept it even though it is a waste of money) and on page 49 there is
> a description of VBUG 1.5 WALKMAN next to a terrible Xerox looking photo of
> same. The description is as follows: "Single battery 0.7Kg. metal/plastic
> construction. Unibody frame. 5 tactile, 2 visual sensors. Control Core: 8
> transistor Nv. 4 tran. Nu, 22tran. motor. Total: 32 transistors." It says
> "motor" not 4 motors. I know the bot pictured has at least 4 motors. Is it
> any wonder Guinness got it wrong? I guess you could call it a typo, but I
> don't think so. And if it was why wasn't it corrected in subsequent
> publications (mine is the 4th issue)? Particularly when being documented by
> Guinness. You see, this kind of thing constantly crops up the more you look
> and it's very disheartening. It also delegitimizes Tilden and BEAM tech in
> the eyes of the robotic research community. I'm not a scientist or a
> roboticist, but I know a scam when I see one. By the way, when you do flame
> me and if you're a teenager, please be tactful. I'm a little weary of being
> scolded by 15 year olds. I have children older than that and I would dress
> them down severely for treating adults in that way. And I bet so would your
> parents.
> But fear not, God is still there, just don't look behind the curtain.
> Jim
--
Richard Piotter
richfile@rconnect.com
The Richfiles Robotics & TI web page:
http://richfiles.calc.org
For the BEAM Robotics list:
BEAM Robotics Tek FAQ
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bushbo/beam/FAQ.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home