Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #11389
To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Jean auBois aubois@trail.com
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:33:29 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Forgive me for being such an arrogant fool, but...
Ugh and double ugh!
Look folks, we don't really have to argue about the definition of "emergent
behavior". The term has been pretty well defined by the a-life and
complexity theory people and, although the concept may be somewhat
difficult to grasp or believe, at least it has been described clearly.
For example, one short sentence gleaned from a REALLY great web page (Ariel
Dolan, http://aridolan.com/index.html)
gives a decent specification:
>The idea that complex systems, such as life, are actually the emergent
>behaviors of systems with many elements that operate according to simple,
>local rules (Artificial Life).
In other words, looking at systems from the bitty little pieces, from the
bottom up; seeing what happens when a bunch of stuff gets to interact -- do
patterns appear? More importantly (at least with regard to BEAM robotics)
is: do USEFUL patterns appear? Does it appear to be lifelike? For
example: there is nothing whatsoever in the construction of Mark's
"snakebot" that would suggest anything more that some tubes, motors and
electronics. However, the sensation when you hold it (powered up, of
course) is so lifelike that it is eery.
In any case, I strongly disagree with Bruce's definition.
chipuser's sound questions sounds a lot like Tilden's
>"In other words, robogenetics through robobiologics."
taken straight off of the LANL page (that is,
http://nis-www.lanl.gov/robot/).
Of course, on the same page Mark says
>"The problem is that such a concept requires self-reproducing robots which
>won't be possible to build (if at all) for years to come. A solution,
>however, is to view a human being as a robot's way of making another
>robot, to have an annual venue where experimenters can let their creations
>interact in real situations, and then watch as machine evolution occurs."
however, it isn't emergence that is occurring but evolution (or what most
people would call technological development).
jab
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
At 09:08 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Bruce wrote:
>chipuser wrote:
> >
> > Is it safe to say emergent behaviour = emergent understanding
> > on the builder's part or the learning of the builder instead
> > of the bot ?
>
>I wouldn't say they are synonymous, but they sure are closely linked.
>The behaviour is there, whether you recognise it or not. But it isn't
>much use if you don't recognise it. Recognising the emergent behaviour
>is definitely "learning of the builder".
>
>Emergent behaviour is not precisely robot learning. Connect some
>mechanical parts to an electronic circuit, and produce some repeatable,
>robust behaviours under a variety of conditions -- that's emergent
>behaviour (in my view -- subject to much debate, no doubt).
Home