Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SeattleRobotics] FWIW - subsume subsumed subsumption

Expand Messages
  • dlc
    After wading through the intentionally obfuscated jargonology of the supercilious self-sanctified arcana of academia, I find that the paper does resemble
    Message 1 of 32 , Dec 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      After wading through the intentionally obfuscated jargonology of the
      supercilious self-sanctified arcana of academia, I find that the paper
      does resemble Brooks' papers on subsumption architectures. Its our luck
      that Brooks actually wrote so that the rest of us could actually READ
      his papers. McCulloch works with the concept of the neuron it appears,
      but it clearly looks like Brooks' ideas, but not done with FSM's (on the
      surface) rather some kind of abstract look at some kind of model. Did
      McCulloch ever build a robot to demonstrate his observations, or was
      this strictly an exercise on paper?

      DLC

      John Palmisano wrote:
      > nm I found the article here:
      > http://www.vordenker.de/ggphilosophy/mcculloch_heterarchy.pdf
      >
      >
      > 2007/12/2, John Palmisano <palmisano@...>:
      >
      >>Interesting.
      >>
      >>Can you show us this article?
      >>
      >>It just sounds too much of a coincidence for it to be an accident . . .
      >>This claim should be proven/disproven before it becomes a harmful rumor . .
      >>.
      >>
      >>John
      >>www.societyofrobots.com
      >>
      >>
      >>2007/12/2, Randy M. Dumse <rmd@...>:
      >>
      >>> dan michaels revealed: Sunday, December 02, 2007 10:47 AM
      >>>
      >>>>Lo and behold, not only does Warren use the words "subsume"
      >>>>and "subsumption", in a slightly different context, but
      >>>>figure 3 of the paper is exactly [topologically] the same
      >>>>subsumption architecture later described by Brooks in his
      >>>>1985 and 1989 papers. Interestingly, in none of Brooks' early
      >>>>papers, nor Jones' books, nor Arkin's book, is any credit
      >>>>given to W.McC that I can see.
      >>>
      >>>Wow.
      >>>
      >>>That is an incredible find.
      >>>
      >>>So what is your thinking? Did Brooks revive a latent suggestion
      >>>he'd read or heard elsewhere? And fail to credit earlier work?
      >>>Is this innocent, or done with fore knowledge? Or neglected
      >>>after the fact?
      >>>
      >>>In lots of academic circles, even accidental plagerism could be
      >>>a career buster.
      >>>
      >>>Randy
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>--
      >>John Palmisano
      >>
      >>Robotics Specialist
      >>Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
      >>B.S. Mech. Eng., Robotics, Carnegie Mellon University
      >>www.societyofrobots.com
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      --
      -------------------------------------------------
      Dennis Clark TTT Enterprises
      www.techtoystoday.com
      -------------------------------------------------
    • Atul Sowani
      This could be of some interest: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-robots/?S_TACT=105AGX54&S_CMP=A1207&ca=dnw-847 Best regards, Atul. --
      Message 32 of 32 , Dec 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.