Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02450
To: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 22:11:56 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Structured approach / genome, was: Clarification
Steven Bolt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Dave Hrynkiw wrote:
>
> [ structured approach ]
>
> > Personally, all I see that is lacking for the BEAM community is a
> > clearly defined BEAM nomenclature/legend (or symbology) that Mark
> > currently uses to illustrate mechanical & electronic linkages. I
> > know Richard Weait has already posted it on here ages ago, but I
> > imagine it could use further clarification.
>
> While that would be nice, it also tends to make BEAM more heavily
> depend on Mark's library of circuits and mechanical concepts. I'm
> strongly in favour of the "no programmable devices" rule for the
> mailing list and the accent on solar power in general.
This is odd.
First we see a problem in becomming too dependant on Mark's liberary
of concepts, but then endorse a "rule" against technology originally
shunned by the 'big god'?
BEAM itself does not limit itself to solar power, why should the list?
Is there any valid reason why this list could not coexist with a common
development platform for small (even solar powered) robots using the
minimalist
approach this is common to BEAM philosophy?
Is BEAM really becomming this much of a clique?
> They are
> required to maintain focus. But putting all weight on Nervous Nets,
> Bicores and so on has imho the same disadvantage as the recently
> proposed structure of standard brains and body parts. What you get is
> a structure without purpose, which will be perceived as a hollow
> facade.
Can you justifiy this opinion? Is there some reason that being able to
exchange and test sets of behaviors on a common chassis, or being able
to compare different mechanical innovations objectivly must yeid
structure
without purpose?
This sounds like pure hype to me.
What some claim we have now is a hollow facade of unverifed and suspect
claims
about BEAM technology. All thats being proposed and discussed here is a
way
to accelerate small robot development and a mechanisim to directly test
the
results.
Now we are talking about rules against CPUs? What the heck is this?
> Imho BEAM is most in need of some clear yard sticks.
Cracked across its knuckels for breaking the rules?
Its exactly this yardstick that is behind the common platform concept!!!
> The standard solaroller contest obviously served to improve the
> solaroller species, to the point where Andrew Miller had to run to
> catch his final designs. It seems to me that a richer set of standard
> tasks and arenas is likely to result in a greater variety of more
> interesting BEAM species. Why bother defining anything else?
Like rules?
> In these arena's, excluding programmables would be considered weak,
> and I don't think it's necessary. The arena should merely restrict the
> size of the `bots and provide them with an environment where cheap and
> simple sensors are sufficient.
Ahh, I was under the impression that Steven thought that sensors were a
major
area needed innovation? Please forgive my saying so, but this sounds
like doublespeak.
I think that pure BEAM fans can only gain from seeing the results of
such
a common platform approach, and working to implement the more
interesting
behavior sets in hardwired controllers. I would have thought that the
cross
pollenization would benifit both design philosophies.
So a yardstick is being proposed along with an alternative way of
evolving small
robot designs.
This 'new way' would indeed use programmable devices, a common
development platform
and arena competitions as core elements. This new way is not exactly
BEAM, but
its not incompatible with BEAM as I see it.
This 'new way' gives us the yardstick Steven speaks of, but lets not
fall into
the trap of banning CPU's. This is an unjustifiable bias that ignores
many years
of engineering wisdom. It needlessly limits the rate of evolution, and
raises
the cost per behavior developed without any clear benifit what so ever.
Is there any valid reason why this new way cannot coexist with the BEAM
approach here on this list?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home