Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02415
To: beam@corp.sgi.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:07:15 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] Clarification
Hello all,
This is an open letter to the powers that be.
I wanted to explain my perspective on this whole genome thing. I'm not saying
anything new here. I'm not even using my own terms. The terms genome, living
machines, robo-genetic stock, evolution, wild robot, are all Tilden's words.
I simply thought a more structured approach to documenting those terms would
give them more merit. And perhaps an easier path to achieving them. Perhaps
I'm wrong. Usually when you ask a researcher to produce the documentation
behind his terms he wips them out. He can't wait to. He is required to. I
thought it would give them more credibility as terms. Without the ordered
explanations you just have cool sounding article copy. Something akin to
sci-fi. How do you prove your claims? How do you test and repeat? Are the
terms really relevant? If these questions are to hard, or to inconvenient,
then the terms are meaningless hype. I think the terms could be bolstered by
a more methodological approach. That's all. It's not radical thinking. It's
not stealing your spotlight. It's the accepted methods of researchers
everywhere. Are you saying that there can be no serious application of these
methods on the advanced side of BEAM tech? That there is no serious side to
BEAM outside of Mr. Tilden's research. If he can be serious, can't a few
others. Chiu mentions "moving beyond BEAM toys and into serious robotics" in
his 5 motor walker pages. So, obviously some of us believe serious work can
be done here by someone other than Tilden. Is it because I'm a "newbie" and
haven't really advanced to those walkers yet? When I, or others, get to that
walker will we achieve the right to throw off the mark of the newbie and
claim serious tendencies? The idea has merit guys. It makes sense from every
scientific methodology that I know. A few people working at the other end of
the BEAM experience scale would greatly advance the field. It would also give
those newbies a goal to aspire to by spurring interest. It would also help to
expand the ranks as cooler and cooler bots are developed and tested simply by
drawing more people into the tech. Just as Tilden's bots did in the
beginning. I'm not talking about cutting your pie guys, just making it much
larger in scope and reach. If you can't see the inherent logic of this then I
can't see the validity of Mr. Tilden's writings on the subject. Why is it
this all sounds so different when I read what you guys have been quoted in
all those articles? It all sounds so uplifting and progressive in those
articles. Was that crap and this present attitude is the reality? Or was
there some truth to what you're saying to all those reporters? Will the real
BEAM please stand up? I don't mention this idea to further my own ego, on the
contrary, I would love to be able to access such a data base. And guys I know
for a fact, so would many many others.
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home