Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02308
To: beam beam@corp.sgi.com
From: Richard Piotter richfile@rconnect.com
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:35:22 -0500
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: CPU again? (was Beam genome)
Oh, my gosh! Someone has the same thoughts as I do!!! Wow!!!
Terry Newton wrote:
>
> At 09:48 PM 4/13/99 +0200, Steven Bolt wrote:
> >On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Terry Newton wrote:
> >
> >---8<---
> >> Actually computers are too sequential and deterministic to achieve
> >> the necessary decoupling from reality to become "alive" in any normal
> >> sense of the word.
> >---8<---
> >
> >*De*coupling from reality? It's coupling you want. The difference
> >between life and machine is the level, the bandwith, the tightness
> >of the link between anything alive and its world. A living entity
> >smells, breathes, tastes, eats and shits its environment, feels it
> >with its entire body. Compare that to the pitiful tactile switches,
> >photodiodes or even videocamera's of our robots. Their brains'
> >determinism isn't in the way. Most `lower' life forms are pretty
> >deterministic, adapting only or mostly when the genetic algorithm
> >steps in from one generation to the next. What machines need to
> >reach alivehood is being *much* tighter coupled with reality...
>
> Everything you say is true, we do need *much* better sense of and
> influence over the environment. I might have mis-spoke when I said
> "alive", I was thinking "conscious life". Many seemingly deterministic
> things are considered alive but are not conscious. Also, you can have
> tight sensor coupling to the robot and still decouple the thought
> process so that it isn't so deterministic. Sorry, I probably got
> carried away, I'll try to explain further...
>
> In order to be conscious, something must be able to "think" and
> be able to "decide" on its own, not as a result of networks code
> or anything so closely coupled to reality that no other option
> is possible. That's what I mean by "de-coupling". A body of thought
> independent of the electronics that surround it. A speculation that
> isn't forced by some counter or something. In other words, it's
> got to have soul to think, and I'm afraid that won't happen using
> existing sequential computers. Best one can do is simulate it well
> enough to fake it. But it isn't *really* thinking. Chaotic networks
> of analog neurons influencing each other probably has more potential
> to become "conscious" than cold rigid code. Although I'm working
> on a solution that will result in more potential for code life...
> the idea of unknown value registers. Don't look at them directly
> or all the magic goes away. Still looking for a good low power
> noise source, I'll never get there trying to use a counter for
> "random" numbers, no matter how much shifting I do there is
> still only one possible answer at any given moment.
>
> It's something besides whether it's cpu or analog that will determine
> if something electronic is "alive" (there's that word again!), who's
> to say our little four neuron walkers are not alive? Can we tell?
> Would we recognise that kind of life? I'm working on something I
> can't even verify. I can only go by intuition which says chaos needs
> to be involved if true multiple-choice responses are to be achieved.
> A phase space where many things can happen, so sometimes they do.
> With a cpu, generally it works as well as programmed, current
> programming methods prevent just anything from happening for
> with any set of inputs and starting conditions only one thing
> can happen. Unless I find that noise source... really it comes
> down to what is used for the random number generator. Is it really?
>
> A cpu is still just a part with advantages and drawbacks.
> One can explore deep intellectual challenges like thought with
> analog or cpu with a roughly equal chance of success - true
> because there is no definition of what thought even is. Whatever
> level it has, if it supports the robot, then it is a success.
> A cpu-controlled robot would probably have more recognisable
> thoughts, certainly capable of more advanced processing, and
> a network-based solution might have a more advanced thought
> process but it occurs in a world we do not easily perceive
> or understand. The "Living Machines" paper helps. De-coupling
> can be seen here... even though the environment is coupled
> to the neurons they do not force them. Rather it is a rhythmic
> heartbeat that mostly determines behavior, the sensors only
> influence it. The environment needs to be tightly coupled to the
> robot, it is the thought process that should be one step removed
> to open up the possibility of conscious decision. Maybe?
>
> Terry Newton
>
--
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