Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #05150
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 19:52:31 -0400
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: What does purposeful mean, anyway?
JVernonM@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
We got here from the definition of what is a robot.
Robots are automatic devices that perform tasks that would otherwise be
done by other means.
If you used to have to be home at the right time, and manully point your dish to
catch a sattelite broadcast, and now you can program a device to do all of this
automatically, without supervision, then its a robot according to the literal
definition.
> 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.
Jim, have you read Braitenberg yet?
> 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.
Nope, other than as a learning exercise.
but if that very same wild bug carried any form of payload, a telemetry
transmitter, whatever, then it has a million possible uses depending on the
payload.
Even a application like a solar powed, automatic nightlight brings a new dimention
of utility to a BEAM design, and transforms it into something more.
> 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
Well said.
A self powered, roaming thing that ~does~ something other than just exist,
something that
ties it into your household, is much more rewarding than a simple photovore that
tries only
to look out for itself. By having a 'useful' payload, a BEAM design becomes not
only a true
robot, but also an active part of the household.
NowI have a good reason to care for it, because it does something for me too. It
enters a symbiotic relationship for better survivability. Hardly wild though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home