Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02384
To: Wilf.Rigter@powertech.bc.ca
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 04:30:15 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Beam genome
In a message dated 4/15/99 11:02:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Wilf.Rigter@Powertech.bc.ca writes:
> Hello Jim,
>
> I like your suggestion for documenting the Beam genome. A slightly more
> modest intermediate objective would be a Beam "genealogy", a formal
> documentation of the body of work contributed by all those who have
advanced
> the state of the art of BEAM (c) and BEAM (like) ideas/devices/systems as
it
> relates to this group.
Thanks Wilf. I do believe it has merit. After reading your following
comments, I believe it even more.
> At first glance writing a Beam genealogy could be quite problematic,
> defining which came first, who invented it, what it was derived from. It
> would require a consensus of the historical time line (or time tree)
showing
> the creators, genotype, phenotype and evolutionary links of all BEAM
devices
> from pre-Beam to the present.
Yes, very difficult. And not to mention laden with anti personnel mines. Is
that irony or what?
> But consider how Beamers and Beam technology would benefit from such a
> document.
Exactly, and that's the real reason for doing it. Get it straight, write it
down, and let everyone interested benefit from the history and how they can
add to it.
> New Beam genes (ideas) are expressed and propagated into designs where they
> can be tested for their survival fitness at a the rate which depends on the
> distribution of information. Currently, Beam designs/ideas are described on
> websites, here on the list or by publication of papers, articles and
> reports. This is the present reproductive mechanism whereby Beam genes are
> combined ( better than sex you say?),
Hmmm...Wellll...? I would repeat what the old guy says is the only thing
better than his car in Christine, but I can't go there here :). Yes, the
testing is lacking. I would even go so far as to say some of the critters out
there are barely functioning as compared to others, but I couldn't tell you
which one or why. They are never tested or compared other than a stretch of
time in a park. But, even then there are only winners and losers but no real
scientific comparison. I would suggest a competition of common brains built
on common bodies with the option to alter each in only one significant way.
That is, a better leg arrangement, or better pulse sequence, or better solar
cell arrangement, but not an entirely different bot that would completely
skew any comparison. Small steps, improved quantitatively every year at an
annual event. Perhaps this could be done with the addition of said event at
the already established meets, and the results and corresponding design
improvements could be archived on one of the larger web sites. Ian, Chiu,
Zoz, Dave perhaps. I'm convinced that if this happened, within a few years we
could hold the competition outdoors in real world chaotic environments. It
would be a method to achieving that living machine.
> Beam cells/organisms build, tested,
> and become a lesser or greater part of the BEAM genome (and Beam myth /
> history). The rate of evolution of Beam genes depend also the structural
> frame work or back bone of the genome. By facilitating genetic exchange and
> providing a template for growth of Beam cells/organisms, the Beam genome
> will reach a critical mass and we may anticipate a chain reaction of Beam
> mutations many of which are simple derivatives but some of which will be
> sufficiently unique developments or important improvements to the state of
> the Beam art/tech to become dominant genes frequently expressed in new Beam
> cells and organisms.
Yes, that follows.
> This is how it may happen. Someone (not me) will just start this Beam
genome
> project and write a hyper text environment with a summary of the history
of
> Beam "as we know it". There would be a lot of discussion (gnashing of
> teeth) while filling in the details of Beam history and a consensus
document
> will emerge laying the frame work for the present and future development of
> the Beam genome . Once beyond the historical phase, the Beam genome
> becomes a living, growing, evolving "public domain" document to which new
> ideas/systems/designs are added including the details (credits) of their
> origins.
I like that. A new documented source of information. Not a tutorial, but a
system by which bots are objectively compared. Then, after you bone up a
little, you go to the tutorials from there. It would also propagate a more
open tech approach, something BEAM is good at anyway. Tilden mentioned
something like this when writing something in an e-mail about the Z-bridge. I
can't remember what he called it. I would assume what he refereed to was a
documentation of circuits. I think the documentation of the body/brain
relationship is vital to the growth of the BEAM community. Perhaps that's
what Principa Robotica will be about. I still don't think it will mention or
document the grass roots freeforming explosion of bots that exist now,
however. BEAM excels at getting more and more people interested in what was
usually the domain of serious researchers. It draws bright children into a
difficult field and gives them tools to succeed The trick is going to be
allowing the successes of others to become a part of BEAM as a whole.
> For example an article is written for a "single stepping" solar walker
> design capable of operating in very low light with a circuit combining
> elements from Tilden's MicroCore and Bolt's SunEater. The Beam
> builders/testers register their interest and/or support (gene
amplification)
> by building "single steppers" or by adapting or mutating the design ie
> "double stepper" which of course would be more efficient, twice as fast or
> easier to build etc. attracting more builders. Each builder will add their
> report or comments to the "single stepper" gene automatically recorded by
> the Beam gene counters with the statistics linked to the genome
index/search
> engine.
Man, that sounds complex. You sure you don't want to do this Wilf?
> Now it would be interesting to see how this BEAM evolutionary tree would
fit
> into a history of all other robotics development. It would probably appear
> now as a branch of homeostatic machines or a footnote in neural networks,
> still significant since so far BEAM is the "work" of a just a few minor
> gods. It is possible that Mr. T has made much progress and that major BEAM
> developments are imminent but so far the work seems to be progressing by
> small chapters in the hidden Book of Beam.
Yes, that's kinda where I found my thoughts as well. If so much is going on
out here and it's undocumented, then that's really a waste of valuable
information.
> On the other hand most of the participants in this group are a pretty
active
> bunch theoretical and/or experimental amateur BEAM scientists. Perhaps
with
> a cooperative effort by so many bright lights, it may be possible to make
> Beam take that quantum leap to the next level.
Yes! Exactly! I am pleased to see that some others involved in this tech
believe it has opportunity to become what we all dream about. I believe the
true automaton is possible now. I believe BEAM is a method (if structured
better) to help realize that dream. Tilden often speaks to the same dream.
The dream of the living wild machine. Now if we can come to a more uniform
consensus and documentation system as how to approach that dream
collectively, then we may slowly pull it off.
> Still interested in doing this Jim?
I don't know that I would be your man on this one Wilf. You seem to have a
better grasp on methodology than I. I would suggest someone involved in the
same sort of documenting process as is found in the animal kingdom. Besides,
I'm still a greenhorn here. What about all those that have been involved in
BEAM for years out there? I know you guys are reading these comments. I can
almost hear you sigh every time that darn patent discussion comes up, again.
Come on, what do you guys think? Do you think a more formal documentation of
how BEAM beasties evolve and adapt is warranted or are we all just blowing
smoke over here. I don't mean a paper, or a book, just a source to document
the flow of BEAM robotic evolution. This, as the project itself, should be a
collective effort.
> Reflection of a Beam moment:
>
> The BEAM pond is not very deep by some measures and bottomless by others
but
> is teeming with strange and wonderful creatures. If you enjoy discovering
or
> rediscovering technical, biological and other intellectual insights into
> life, the universe, and everything, take a deep breath, hold your nose,
dive
> in and see what strange things lurk below the surface. And you better learn
> how to swim cause as long as you stay at the shallow end ....
Exactly! Perfect!
> Reflections of a Beam nightmare
>
> An official Beam genome archive maintained/protected by them! (shudder)
> Anyone caught looking behind the curtains of the Only True Beam genome will
> be cast from the pond, branded, excommunicated, their genes renamed, cut
off
> from all further reproductive interaction and generally set adrift without
> food for thought to rot in some obscure backwater of the technological
> universe.
Jeez, now you sound like me. I thought I was the only one getting those
vibes. But then, I'm naturally interpersonally paranoid anyways. Maybe
someone should present the idea to Tilden, or one of the lesser deities. You
sure can't get 'em to jump in on an e-mail string. O, to suffer the stench of
the great unwashed.
> So let that be a warning Zardoz!
That's just to good!
> enjoy
I am!
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home