Subject:
|
RE: The Human Brain
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:20:19 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Marco C. <[marco@soporcel.]NoMoreSpam[pt]>
|
Viewed:
|
1256 times
|
| |
|
|
I know that I shouldn't post a simple "I agree!" but... well :> I will post
it anyway ;) (ok, I'll try to add something "new" to it)
At 11:06 04-08-2000 -0400, Thomas @ DIG wrote:
> Well actually no, but we're not talking about the legos part, we're talking
> about the software development reaources available. Compared to some of the
> very limited processing capabilities others have used (take a look at some
> of Rodney Brook's simpler projects at MIT) the Mindstorm computers are quite
> capable. And once we start building subsumption architecture or distributed
> processing architecture robots with multiple RCX's on one robot, things
> should get very interesting.
>
> I can see where some might think this thread to be outside the Lego-Robotics
> subject area; but I would disagree. The reason I am so interested in this
> mail list, and in Mindstorms in general is the accesibility of the hardware
> technology, and the simplicity of the several software options. The software
> (as in almost all digital/electronic hardware/software research areas) is
> progressing more slowly than the hardware, but with NQC and some of the
> other tools; along with the inexpensive hardware, and the componentization
> of relatively complex hardware requirements (sensors, etc.) anyone with a
> real interest, and a modicum of knowledge and ability can get into real
> robotics issues through mindstorms.
>
> The mindstorm's ability to quickly prototype control and decision ideas in
> both hardware and software simultaneously makes it the most promising area I
> have seen for experimenting with "mechanical intelligence".
>
> I don't think it is so far afield, and I think it will actually expand the
> number of people that would be interested in helping the continuing
> improvement of mindstorm development.
>
> I hope the group agrees with me that supporting a sub-thread in building
> more intelligence into the software, will simply make the lego-robotics
> possibilities more fun.
I must say that I share the views expressed here by Thomas.
I also share the views of Laurentino Martins, presented in a couple of
other posts.
One thing that's easy to implement is the need for "food" = need to
recharge batteries. The RCX knows when it should recharge, so this could be
one of it's basic instinct: To not "die" by starvation.
So, from this instinct derives one kind of WILL: I want to stay alive as
long as I can.
If LEGO released an easy hardware design implementation of a recharge
docking station, the RCX would be much easier to deal with this kind of
needs. It would be a common rotine, to see a RCX in it's docking station
("home"), recharging ("eating") and waiting ("sleeping") while no external
needs ("commands/objectives") were provoqued.
Since there's no LEGO RCX rechargable-kit add-on, there's always the usual
DoItYourself-custom-solution :) like the one Mauro's trying to devise.
Anyway, that was about [WILL], now about [EMOTION].
Here's an interesting post by David Leeper:
At 03:50 31-01-2000 GMT, you wrote:
> Hi All,
> I've just put up a new web site. It's about a new type of mathematics I
> invented about a decade ago. It's called Love, and works well at
> mathematically representing emotion. What does this have to do with robots?
> Well, I AM building an android.
> Here's the URL:
> http://alive0.tripod.com/Love.htm
> David Leeper (wouldn't deprive Adam of a heart)
I think new list members should do a lot more searching of past threads in
http://www.lugnet.com/robotics/
I find myself reading/discussing about things already discussed. It's not a
bad thing to re-visit and improve upon past threads, but... it's a waste of
resources to keep on going around in circles, not in upward spirals.
____________________
Marco C. aka McViper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
