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

61207Re: Tekno

Expand Messages
  • winglabs_inc
    Aug 29, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you for that, Wolfgang. I really don't know why, but BEAM just makes me more excited than traditional robotics. I think perhaps some of my ideas have been better than I've given myself credit for, as I have a tendency to move on to new ideas quickly.
      Indeed, Mark's bots far surpass today's BEAM standards. Perhaps the problem with BEAM is that it progresses in the opposite direction of mainstream tech, whether or not that was the original intent, this has come to be just as counter-intuitive as it sounds.
      And as a matter of fact, I do have a number of sketches stashed away in a drawer, many because they wouldn't have worked in reality. But many amongst those are finished designs that I simply haven't bread-boarded. Perhaps I should upload some of those to the group photos. I also have conceived many concepts that I found difficult to express in circuitry, and most of the unworkable designs I have are attempts at physically implementing these.
       Concepts like a version of Bruce's learning circuit that tunes itself according to a dynamically realized probability in order to process its responses under different biases according to different conditions. In theory it could be more applicable in some areas than a digital processor, and I even have a memristor-based non-volatile memory circuit that implements arithmetic coding to compress large amounts of data down to two values: the probability of a Boolean 1 being extracted, which also acts like a superposition in that it also represents every other possible sequence of digits that could be measured under that probability, and the measurement value, which interacts with the probability to determine and read a specific state. In principle it could be compared to a quantum machine. It would make learning very easy because the machine would simply have to alter the measurement value slightly, which would cause the machine to "guess" what it is supposed to do based on how similar the unknown situation is to the most comparable familiar situation. If it's wrong, then it alters the probability value slightly until it reaches a correct guess, while minimizing impact on established memories. All I would have to do would be to wire in a series of these in place of the "long-term memory neurons" in Bruce's learning circuit, and add some form of external situation analysis, likely Nu based, then hook it up to BEAM body w/nervous core, and out comes the single most sophisticated BEAM bot ever, and possibly the most cognitively capacitive machine built to date. I really should upload a schematic of that.


      --- In beam@yahoogroups.com, "David Buckley" wrote:
      >
      > Well I read them all.
      > Now I am sure a lot of us have mountains of such ideas stashed in boxes somewhere.
      > The reason they are stashed away is that they are history, they were dreams, they were not realisable, generally they relied upon some unavailable technology so not being funded by DARPA posed a problem.
      > I noticed in one of the posts (unless I am mistaken) the modern idiom of 'I have made' when really the phrase should have been 'I've noted down some rough ideas'. People do it all the time 'see what I have made' and it is a drawing in CAD which is obviously never going to work in the real world.
      > For Beam to survive it has to show it has something to offer. So far I have not seen any Beam critters perform better than those of MT let alone perform as well as processor based robots of today. Even a $30 or so servo based quadruped kit walks better than MT's Spyder and has a far richer behaviour.
      > So Wolfgang, you are right, building something is the crux of the matter.
      > David
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: J Wolfgang Goerlich
      > To: beam
      > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:11 PM
      > Subject: Re: [beam] Re: Tekno
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > "You know, I was kind of figuring that would have been met with a greater response. I must be alone on here again."
      >
      >
      > Build. Share. Repeat. I have seen, over the years, that process is the best way to engage (and awaken) the BEAM community.
      >
      >
      > I feel your excitement. I see your posts. You have some great ideas. Now it is time to go forth and build.
      >
      >
      > I look forward to seeing what you share.
      >
      >
      > Wolfgang
      >
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic