Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02467
To: Richard Piotter richfile@rconnect.com
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 14:46:22 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Structured approach / genome, was: Clarification
Richard Piotter wrote:
>
> > > Now we are talking about rules against CPUs? What the heck is this?
> >
> > Quoting the words of the list owner (mailed to you when you joined):
> >
> > 3.If someone e-mail a non-related topic, please move
> > the discussion off-line.
> > Reason: There are a ton of places to talk about CPU
> > based machine s, R/C machines and CPU based robots.
> > But this is the only BEAM discussion
> > list, of which I am aware.
> >
> > How you want to interpret that is up to you.
>
> Ah, but did you read NUMBER 2!!!!
>
> 2.Try to keep on the Topic of BEAM robotics.
> It is a really wide topic. It includes, but is not limited
> to,
> BEAM Solar Engines - one 'neuron'
> Nervous Networks - microcore, bicore, etc.
> NOTE: ---> CPU Interfaces to Nervous Networks <---
> Robotics Event announcements
>
> RIGHT THERE, in the list guidlines, CPUs interfaced to Nervous networks
> DOES fall under the BEAM list guidelines, If you disagree, you're wrong.
> READ the ENTIRE BEAM list guidelines. CPU only bots may be shunned, but
> I think that there is one point we are missing: If someone Emulates a
> Nervous network, I think we deserve to hear it, and know how well (or
> not) it runs. I count that as the ultimate interfacing of a CPU and a
> nrrvous network. There you do have your right to an opinion, but I think
> it'd be suplimental to BEAM to try emulating Nv nets and compare them to
> real ones. That's just my own personal opinion. You have the right to
> your own there, but DON'T say ANY CPU has no place on the list, cause
> according to rule 2, that's simply not true.
Excellent point Rich!
Also Tilden's patent (clearly on topic) makes claims that cover a pure
CPU based implementation of what the 'pure BEAM' design does!
This is doublespeak. BEAM is full of this.
We hear that BEAM is a philosophy, but then we hear that some forms of
technology are out of bounds, even though they are specifically
mentioned
in the patents!
But if I apply banned technology while keeping to the philosophy, it
does
not belong on this list? Thats a hell of a philosophy we have here.
It reminds me of a cult, and I'm not trying to bait any flames here,
honestly.
Lets put the emotional hype aside and focus on the science first, then
we
can all go back to having fun while making progress in the field of
robot evolution.
Who maintains the list rules? When was the last time they were updated?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home