Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #05121
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: JVernonM@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:28:01 EDT
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: What does purposeful mean, anyway?
In a message dated 7/8/99 1:46:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zozzles@lanl.gov
writes:
> As soon as you talk about "owning" a purpose, you -have- to allow for the
> concept of "not owning" or even "actively avoiding" a purpose. None of the
> robots described in this list have any CHOICES along those lines. The
> choice of purpose (whether survival or anything else) is entirely up to the
> builder.
Agreed. Purpose does imply more than is presently there. The purpose of most
definitions of automatons is to please, serve, or simply function as the
builder intends. Now, that doesn't preclude the possibility that artificial
intelligence won't someday achieve a level of sentience that would allow for
defining it's own purpose. That's still the stuff of science fiction I know,
but it is the preverbal carrot. Man strives to create in his own image,
whether it's a HAL 9000 or Robby the Robot. I have wondered what we really
need with "wild" robots. What is the reason or goal of such an effort? Surely
to please our own egos, so we're back to square one. Truth is, we should
probably concentrate on tasks and goals and build accordingly. Creating a
wild bug to roam around in the woods is a cool idea, but I see no real
purpose for it. Furthermore, it wastes a lot of energy making something with
no practical use. This, I think, is a major flaw in Tilden's philosophy. In
my opinion, he has the cart before the horse. Practical robotics will lead to
living machines, not the other way around.
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home