Alt-BEAM Archive

Message #05114



To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 11:39:58 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Someting funny with the subject line? was Something funny


In a message dated 7/8/99 11:23:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dlarson@citilink.com writes:

> *IMHO*, my definition of a robot is a device that functions
> autonomously without *human* control. Coffee makers and
> satellite dishes are merely *extensions* of the human. They
> are all controlled by us and react in response to a chain
> of events initiated by our thoughts. The thought filters
> through our biological bodies, through mechanical and
> electronic systems, and finally becomes reality when
> the coffee drips into the pot (for some into the throat ).
Agreed.
> For me a true robot would initiate actions based on the
> thoughts of its *own* mind. If you want to consider
> a microcore a very small "mind" go right ahead. After all,
> we are involved in a philosophical discussion here.
Ok, for now.
> IMHO, we don't have any *true* robots yet. For now I'll
> leave the job of creating robots to humans. But from the
> point that they are turned on, they ought to be totally
> autonomous. Requiring power from humans make them no less
> autonomous than buying food from farmers makes humans less
> autonomous. The main problem I see is that we have come
> no where near any sort of cognitive abilities in our
> "robot" as of yet, with a few rare exceptions.
Again, agreed. One exception being Mr. Brooks work with COG. Which is why I
took so much offense to what Mr. Tilden said about that research.
> To tell you the truth, I don't know if I even *want* to see
> robots thinking independently and acting out their own
> thoughts.
Oh, yeah, let 'em rip baby!

> Perhaps you might consider factory robots to be "salves"
> of a sort.....
Yes, again, agreed. But, only in the broadest sense.

> Personally, I have not built a BEAM bot yet. I probably will not either.
> I hang out here because of the very different problem solving approaches
> used by BEAM. Its has been very beneficial for me to look at my CPU
> robot behaviors and functions from a different perspective.
And, rightly so.
> I think that with the eventual shrinkage of Nv and Nu circuits allowing
> thousands or even millions of them to be arranged in complex networks
> has a lot of potential. But for now, a combination of CPU and BEAM
> seems like a good thing.
Yep, I'm still with ya.
> I've been thinking of making chains of
> microcontrollers instead of chains of Nvs. A small microcontroller
> can be use to make more complex neurons. This is not so impractical
> as it may sounds. There are microcontrollers with 25+ bytes of ram
> and 512+ words of program + A/D converter that fit into a single
> 8-pin DIP! They can run on an internal RC oscillator so 6 I/O
> pins are available.
Sounds intriguing. Post your results when you get there.
> IMVHO, BEAM should be limited to just relaxation oscillators.
Could be that it can't go further. We'll have to wait and see.
Jim

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications



Home