Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #10794
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: "Thomas Pilgaard" ascii@hum.auc.dk
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:39:51 +0100
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: BEAM: Tendency toward miniaturization
(Note : I've been forced away from the list due to overnights visit from my
girlfriends family. Sorry for the slow reply). Regarding getting off topic
this will probably be a good time to leave the topic for my own sake. Unless
the topic carries on this will be my final posting on this matter.
[Snip]
My inquiries does not concern whether or not robots are to replace us or
exceed us. My intentions are merely to dare ask question about what we do. I
may be 'oxymoron' as Richard mentioned in another thread (I may even be just
a moron for that matter ;). Neither am I trying to paint a dooms-day image
of BEAM robotics (which is particular hard looking at my half-done ant and
my photopopper) or technology in general.
Thus I am not saying that robots are not to replicate themselves, replacing
us etc. After all, that is what nanotech scientists are aiming for. But
there's a !long! way from a nanomachine to the capabilities of a human being
(not implying that nanotech would be the one tech. to potentially replace
us). Thus I am neither saying that technology is sure to replace us.
But I think you are overlooking the difficult parts of what you are
suggesting. We haven't yet made robots that holistically excede human
capabilities. True, we've made bots that far excede our capabilities, but in
the narrovest of contexts. What we are forgetting - if you've read Winograd
and Flores' "Understanding computers and cognition" is that we are not
reducable to parts that form a whole, which makes the notion of the "sum of
our parts" a rationalistic misconception. Our brain is not detachable - it
does not function on its own. Neither does our legs, liver, heart or any
other organ for that matter. As human beings we function as a whole and in
creating antropomorphic machines in the lines of artificial intelligence,
robots (Cog for instance) we have to acknowledge this. Furthermore, we
cannot detach ourselves from reality. The notion of the internal mind in
opposition to an external "reality" belongs to a rationalistic, modern line
of thinking. The reality in which we are situated is always already
"ready-to-hand" (not to turn this into a Heidegger-gravy). We cannot escape
reality which also is important to remember in creating robots (bio- and
antropomorphic). The processes that seem quite logical in performance by
robots, are a complex tradition of engineering that has taken a long time -
both in view of our evolution as well as actual time to think it out - to
get to. Thus there's a much higher level of complexity involved in getting
what seems simple and logic to actually work.
I feel that it is my obligation to point out that my line of thinking is
influenced by a humanistic tradition of human-computer interaction. I am
aware that this is merely a premise - a way to look upon the world - which
may be agreed to or not. My line of thinking concerns technologys role in
society much like Jim's (another thread): in a sence we already !are! homo
superior. Hammers, cars, artificial limbs, hearing aids etc. etc. are all
extensions of our capabilities. This is my standpoint on technologys role in
society: technological progress is supposed to solve problems, perform tasks
and augment the premises of our existance. IMHO robotics has nothing to do
with natural selection.
Thankyou for a much inspiring debate.
Cheers,
Thomas
>
> Upon looking at these statements back to back to do
> realize something? What if we make robots that "excede
> human capabilities of adaption to circumstances",
> would you then doubt robots outlast us? Who is to say
> that robots will never be able to replicate
> themselves. Production of parts is already done by
> mechanical arms and machines with a minimum of human
> intervention in most cases, and electronics (esp.
> digital) is a quite logical process, which one day
> could be 'thought out' by robotic minds. This would
> not require any miricale of true-life as some of our
> more dreamy list posters have predicted for robotics,
> but circuitry that has a bit of logic that is combined
> with the manufacturing plants already in use. Robotic
> minds recreating robotic minds, all the time improving
> and adapting. I can see this happening. Robots made to
> take over the entire process of making our robotic
> 'pets', then programmed to analize the circuitry to
> find any flaws and fix them. Over time, the circuitry
> would get quite complex. A massive disease comes
> along, or any other great tragedy that robots would be
> able to outlive and humans wouldn't, and viola, a
> non-magical way that robots could become the dominant
> 'life' on Earth.
>
> ~Daniel
>
> =====
> ICQ # 39402143
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com
>
Home