|
[DPRG] Re: Allen Robots (Will's emotions)
Subject: [DPRG] Re: Allen Robots (Will's emotions)
From: Randy M. Dumse
rmd at newmicros.com
Date: Mon Mar 12 17:52:29 CDT 2007
> I'm sorry. Rather than "modelled well", I should have said
> "usefully modelled". I imagine that if I actually said what
> I had meant to say, you would have responded differently.
Yes, perhaps.
> Yes, I agree that, for this reason, FSMs can model production
> machine behavior.
Good.
> I'm assuming that BBR = "Behavior-Based Robotics".
Yes.
> I am neither convinced nor unconvinced that BBR can properly
> model animal behavior; I just haven't collected the evidence.
> I will concede, however, that a FSM can properly model a BBR
> system,
Well said.
> as long as it doesn't include an infinite stack or
> queue. For these, you need at leasst a push-down automaton
> (PDA). Last time we discussed this, you asked for a problem
> that can be solved with a PDA but not with a FSM. The
> classic example is a palindrome detector. If you can make a
> finite state machine that can detect palindromes of arbitrary
> length, you will not only convince me, but also disprove at
> least one well-accepted theorem in automata theory.
Ah, but I've had a stroke since then. Or was it after. Yes, I
vaguely recall.
Actually, I don't quibble over issues of finite vs. non-finite
state machines. I think of state machines, but say finite state
machines to be understood. I have sort of a Moore's law view of
state machines. If you run into a problem, wait a bit, and we'll
have a bigger state machine.
> > If not, do you know of anything that can for certain model
animal
> > behavior?
>
> No, I don't, other than animals themselves.
Yes, exactly. So we do the best we can. We try to understand
behaviors and come up with models that seem most fitting for the
tools we have at hand.
I have studied BBR and concluded, it was an interesting model.
It had some advantages, it had some results. It has some flaws.
But I don't think it models well. Dpa can challenge me what
can't you do? It's a good challenge. I notice BBR has poorly
defined state information, and an unclear release from higher
machines to lower machines, where the upper release might
re-enable a lower machine no longer in a position to operate.
Are those criticism enough for dpa? I'm guessing not. They are
enough for me. So I look for something more respective of state
information.
> Ah. There's the catch. You're not talking about quantum
> physics; you're talking about relativity. No one has been
> able to unify the two fields with a single theory yet (as far
> as I know, but there so many people working on it, I may have
> missed the announcement).
First, I'm talking about deep physics. In deep physics there are
both quantum issues and relativistic issues. Just because there
isn't one complete theory, doesn't mean the issues are not still
issues. So, I don't think there is a catch there. But I don't
suppose further divining this point, really bears much on our
discussion of robotics.
My point in delving into deep physics was to try to show the
connection between periods of stability, vs. periods of change,
and to me these are state changes, and very fundamental. Beyond
that, I guess we do not need to go.
> The Church-Turing thesis appears to be correct, but, as the
> article you have indicated says, is unprovable.
Yes, so we see it the same.
> I have no reason to believe that the huge mess
> of simultaneous differential equations going on inside our
> (or an animals') brains is computable, and thus subject to
> the Church-Turing thesis.
I have no reason to believe there are diff eq. Going on inside
our heads at all. I figure it is something more like states and
transitions. But that's where we started again, isn't it.
I just want to say, if the thing is computable, something like
FSM can compute it. But that supposes what goes on in our heads
is computable in tht sense. Seems like we are not at logger
heads on this point, and closer to in agreement than not.
> It uses both a finite state machine
> and an infinite tape to do things that neither alone could do
> themselves.
Okay fair. As I've tried to convey above, the finite vs.
infinite discussion is not of much interest to me. Everything is
eventually limited by the "gunk you have at hand" unless you're
talking about the whole universe. (Give three examples.)
> Why, then, does nobody use it?
Because it is not efficient, as measured by standards of anyone
wishing to build or use one.
It was a first example thought of, and not an ideal or optimized
example at all. Slow comes to mind as a first prejudice. While
given infinite time it could give the same answer down not imply
with my short human life I am satisfied to wait. Besides, I
don't know where to get an infinite tape, do you?
Randy
More information about the DPRG mailing list
|
