Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02262
To: dennlill@buffnet.net
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:06:11 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Beam genome
In a message dated 4/12/99 8:09:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
dennlill@buffnet.net writes:
> Look at some papers, tildens and
> others, they don't describe things in terms of this 'genome' all the
> circuits we are using have been used before and already have names. For us
> to rename lots of things would seem redundant. They all already have names.
Well, yes he does. I actually think he is one of the only ones that used that
term in connection with robotics. Yes, the circuits are well documented. The
kits are named. But the bulk of the BEAM species, as far as sheer number,
have no documentation as to how they are built and perform as compared to
other BEAM critters. So, what do we use to gauge evolution? What makes one
design preferable over another? Have there been any evolutionary dead ends?
The dual engine photovore perhaps?
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home