Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #05227
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Bob Shannon bshannon@tiac.net
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:28:47 -0400
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Chaotic controllers (was Something funny with the 1382)
Steven Bolt wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Bob Shannon wrote:
>
> > > Not intended as a `cheap shot', but that does sound a bit
> > > Tildenesque. Nothing to do but wait for the details, and hope you
> > > are on to something.
> >
> > No need to wait, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the details now.
>
> Well, I'm sure that almost everyone on the list would like you to
> post them.
I'm on it, but while I'm getting the stuff together for the contest, feel
free to ask away.
> > > Coherency is not the only and perhaps not the most important
> > > problem of large Nv-like systems. Getting them to do something
> > > useful, which can't be done cheaper and simpler in another way,
> > > seems (to me) more difficult.
> >
> > Yes, I'm being told by a long-haired math expert that its not a
> > solvable problem. A chaotic system with feedback to its
> > environment forms an 'irreducable' system.
>
> The systems, in other words, become one. As happens in nature.
Yes, exactly so. This approach also gives the graceful degredation when
driven elements fail that BEAM tech makes such a point of.
>
> There is a strong and deterministic connection between the
> environment and behavior of animals and even humans. The usual
> example is the ant - a relatively simple piece of biological
> machinery, which follows something like a dozen fixed rules. Put it
> in a simple environment - like a Robot Jurassic Parc - and what it
> does looks no more intelligent, capable or complex than the
> behaviour of today's robots.
I disagree.
The obstacle aviodance of an ant are vastly bettern than any BEAM robot.
Its ability to handel terrain is also vastly better, as its control system
and
drive system are well matched in ability, this is not true for beam at all.
Your underestimating the ant here, bigtime. The ants sensors and
processing
power are far beyond any BEAM design.
After all, what do you think its doing with thousands of times more (real)
neurons
than any BEAM design will ever have?
> But look at what happens when you put
> that ant in the `real' world! All of a sudden its actions acquire
> purpose and meaning. Now where did that come from?
I disagree with this observation. The ants purpose and meaning do not come
from
its environment. Ants colonise forign environments after all, they adapt.
>
> It's not supplied by the ant's brain. Purpose and meaning happen
> because the ant and its environment evolved together, into a single
> complex entity, which doesn't work when you take it apart.
Clearly it is supplied by the ants brain! Thats why the brain evolved
Steven!
Your being fooled by looking at a single ant. The ant evolved as a colony
and
must be evaluated this same way.
> So if you our current robot technology to do something interesting,
> you will usually have to engineer the environment to match their
> limited and different sensors - like was done with the Egg Hunt
> Playground. Nothing to be ashamed of, though in future we'd like
> robots to deal with the real world. And still predictably do
> useful work.
>
> > We will not design, nor evolve higher leveled controllers this
> > way. Biological neurons get around this problem by having the
> > ability to change their dendritic connections dynamically,
> > something Nv's can never do.
>
> Emulated Nv's can do just that, if I understood Terry's postings
> correctly.
The parts of Terry's code that shuffle the interconnections is not part of
the Nv emulation (Bicore emulation technically) in any way. Its a totally
seperate
functional block that is quite alien to BEAM tech. Its a common enough
approach
in the CPU world of robotics however.
Lets keep this in its proper perspective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/alt-beam
http://www.egroups.com
- Simplifying group communications
Home