Alt-BEAM Archive

Message #11425



To: beam@sgiblab.sgi.com
From: Senior kyled@cruzers.com
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 21:04:59 -0700
Subject: [alt-beam] Re:


Well, you can't use the pager motors because they don'y have a gearhead
and aren't strong enough for a walker without being geared down. So
you'll have to use the servo motors (The big black box ones) from
solarbotics, which aren't actually too big, and have gears inside them
so they have plenty of power to move your walker.

If you're having a hard time understand this whole thing about gears,
here's an example:
If you put your car in fifth gear (The motor is basically directly
conected to the wheels), you'd have a hell of a time getting the car
going! This is like using pager motors on a walker. If you shift to
first gear, however, the motor is geared down and you can get the car
going just fine. This is like using a servo, which has gears inside of
it attached to the motor.

Hope it helps,
Kyle

Allan Graves wrote:
>
> I'm looking at building a walker, a 3 motor, using the schematic found on
> http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/6897/walk3.html
> (Chiu's site).
> I've been trying to find info regarding the best motors to use, and when I
> looked at solarbotics page, they had more than a few makes. I've looked
> in the faq, and really don't know: Which motors should I use for
> this? The pager motors look too small, and the others look too
> big. Help? Thanx.
>
> --
> Allan Graves
> "Remember, only trained ants with backpacks, gravity, and E-fields can
> make a charge move..."
> Bob Davis



11426 Mon, 06 Mar 2000 23:54:34 -0600 [alt-beam] Re: Self-Awareness/Conciousness beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Richard Piotter He wasn't talking about awareness in that sense. He was stating how
Different layers are isolated from certain things. The body interfaces
with the environment, and the brain and or neck interface witht he body.
The brain never "sees" the environment. It forms it's simplistic little
patters based on what the body percieves, and not the raw data out of
the environment. The brain can do diferent things that influence the
body, and the environment can influence the body and the body can
influence the brain, but the brain and environment never "connect" The
body/neck mediates between two sets of states, both different, but also
both dependent on what the other does.

This is what they meant in the article. The Brain's data is not raw data
from the environment. It's it's own ultra simplistic electrical
"perception" of the world, and not the actual world itself, as raw data
would create. I highly doubt there being perception as we understand it,
but the data represents completely different things in each layer, yet
all work together to build up the total world representation.

It's hard to explain. Imagine a robot being you walking around, and
every step you take, you feel where that leg is and place it where it
best fits. You are only the body, imagine this with your eyes closed and
no hands outstreched. Now imagine you carrying somone on your shoulders.
They have sensors (they can see and reach out, while your arms are
occupied, so you have no sensors but your feet), but they don't touch
the ground. You can walk around and bump into things, and maybe back up
and turn based on your very limited stimuli, but with every step, you do
get a perception on what your environment is like. Is it and inclune, a
drop, soft or solid, rough, or smooth. Now imagine that person on your
shoulders seeing and having tactile sensory input (arms) guides you.
They never touch the ground, but feel through your body if you are
falling or turning. they can lean and make you do different things,
essentialy guiding you. They navigate the body through an environment
without ever coming in direct contact. They only feel it through the
"body" and never come in direct contact. It's fully percieved off the
body, not the real world. Just think of it as a fancy way to call it a
horse and rider circuit, with multiple BEAM circuits doing the work, all
at different levels of conenctivity to the world below.



Bob Shannon wrote:
>
> Mike Kulesza wrote:
>
> > You know i read in that Smithsonian Article about BEAM something just blew
> > my mind off. Brossl Hasslacher (Tilden's collegue in BEAM) proposed the idea
> > that you can take nervous nets to a new level. In theory, by implementing a
> > nervous net WITHIN another nervous net, you actually have a robot that is
> > aware of its own existance. See, the outer net is directly interacting with
> > the physical world, while the one within is only in contact with the outer.
> > This means that the inner net is AWARE of the outer one, which is in turn in
> > the PHYSICAL world. Thus the robot is AWARE OF ITS PHYSICAL EXISTANCE!!
> >
> > Kind of sends shivers down my spine.....
>
> Uhhh, I have bots like this, and they are not aware of anything.
>
> What twisted definition of 'aware' is Hasslacher using here?
>
> Self awareness in the animal realm has some very simple and basic tests
> that such a BEAM system can never acheive.
>
> One of the most common is to place a small sticker or mark on the creature
> while its attention is diverted. Then the creature is shown its own image
> in a mirror. If it sees the sticker or mark, and removes it from its body, we
> can make a claim that this animal is self aware in much the same way we are.
>
> Quite a few aminals that are vastly more 'aware' than imbedded nv nets fail
> this sort of test (mice fail, cats pass, etc).

--


Richard Piotter The Richfiles Robotics & TI web page:
richfile@rconnect.com http://richfiles.calc.org

-- Make Money by Simply Surfing the Net or responding to E-Mail!!!
-- Click below!!!

http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=ATL147
http://www.spedia.net/cgi-bin/dir/tz.cgi?run=show_svc&fl=8&vid=329630



11427 Mon, 06 Mar 2000 22:07:22 PST [alt-beam] Re: MicroCore vs. BiCore beam@sgiblab.sgi.com "Timothy Flytch" >
>The feedback issue is a debateable one. There is some feedback for sure,
>but
>the nature of this feedback isn't agreed upon. dennison
>
Hold on a minuet... I know this is taken out of context... but... what kind
of debate??? what is the "argument" here???
No I don't want to argue just want to know what you mean... and what is the
sides of the argument???

I thought it was just coil reactence... or are you meaning on a different
level???

Confused???
Timothy...
______________________________________________________



11428 Mon, 06 Mar 2000 23:09:51 -0700 [alt-beam] Re: Self-Awareness/Conciousness beam@sgiblab.sgi.com Jean auBois Mike Kulesza writes:
>that Smithsonian Article about BEAM...

Which is not a critical piece of writing by any means (even though it is
kind of fun). Having received it today I find it sounding more like an
advertisement than anything else.

>something just blew my mind off. Brossl Hasslacher (Tilden's collegue in
>BEAM) proposed the idea that you can take nervous nets to a new level. In
>theory, by implementing a nervous net WITHIN another nervous net, you
>actually have a robot that is aware of its own existance.
>>...
>Kind of sends shivers down my spine.....

Brosl is a world-class physicist/non-linear dynamicist but I rather doubt
that makes him much of a behaviorist/psychologist/neurologist. Quoting Bob
Shannon:

>What twisted definition of 'aware' is Hasslacher using here?

I really think there is a problem with the distinction between "is affected
by" and "is consciously aware of". A few examples:

A patch of earth is affected by a rock that is sitting on top of it. I
doubt that it is consciously aware of it.
A lightbulb is affected by the switch that controls it. I doubt that it is
consciously aware of it.
A nervous net within another will be affected by it (and vice versa). I
greatly doubt that it is consciously aware of it even if the interaction is
particularly complex.

Brosl is overenthusiastic -- I've never heard him being anything less than
that about BEAM. In any case, I feel no shivers going down my spine


jab

Home