Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02839
To: rdraycott@CPL.co.uk
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:55:41 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: common body
rdraycott@CPL.co.uk wrote:
>
> someone wrote
> > The common body eliminates a lot of variables while permiting a
> >direct evaluation of different sets of behaviors. This would
> >greatly accelerate behavioral development and robot evolution.
>
> This is fundamentally flawed, enviromental requirements are supposed to
> define the evolutionary development of a creature/BOT
> with this suggestion you could be potentialy restricting the evolution of
> BEAM tec down a dead end since as in life the configuration of the body
> structure can prove to be a descisive evolutionary development (eg the Bat
> compared to say a shrew)
No, not at all.
First, the discussion above is not talking about BEAM tech at all.
Secondly the environmental requirments for the robots being compared are
exactly the same, its a trial of different behavior sets being tested in
a known environment.
> yes it will speed up behavioral development BUT at the expense ot the
> architectual and constructional evolution.
Thats where the second set of trials enters the picture. Once you have
a standard way to testing behavior sets, its a simple matter to test a
modified or new body against the 'standard' design.
> As yhe text said the merit In a common body approach is in terms of
> judging comparitivly the actions of one against the other.
> I get the impresion that while such an aproach is a worthy reasearch issue
> it certainly cuts down the fun of the design and construction.
Why?
You can still innovate new designs, but now you have a way to directly
test
to see how much improvement (if any) your modifications made?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.eGroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home