|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by RMDumse on September 29, 2006, 4:56 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Jones example on pg 49 of a "primative behavior" includes a trigger. He
says,
"Primitive behaviors, as we use the term in behavior-based robotics,
have two parts:
"1. A control component that transforms sensory information into
actuator commands.
"2. A trigger component that determines when it is appropriate for the
control component to act."
I don't think a behavior should have a trigger in it at all. I think a
behavior should be defined to be an output action, usually based on a
transform sensory information.
Thoughts?
Randy M. Dumse
www.newmicros.com
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
|
|
Posted by Gordon McComb on September 29, 2006, 6:51 pm
Please log in for more thread options
RMDumse wrote:
> I don't think a behavior should have a trigger in it at all. I think a
> behavior should be defined to be an output action, usually based on a
> transform sensory information.
Then it's not a behavior because even outside robotics, behaviors are
the REACTION to some stimulus.
To that end, there really is no such thing as ANY object in this
universe that merely acts -- has just an output. Everything has a cause
and effect. If you separate cause from effect then you have defined some
other system that should have its own term, but it's not behavior-based
robotics.
-- Gordon
|
|
Posted by RMDumse on September 29, 2006, 8:19 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Gordon McComb wrote:
> Then it's not a behavior because even outside robotics, behaviors are
> the REACTION to some stimulus.
I disagree, and offer this argument in rebutal.
On page 52 Jones lists "Cruise" as a primitive behavior. He readily
admits it has no trigger, or if it did, it would be constantly stuck
on. So I think he is self coontradictory saying all primitive behaviors
have triggers, then offering one without a trigger.
I did say I think a behavior should be defined to be an output action,
usually based on a transform sensory information.
The reason I said "usually" about being a transform of input stimuli,
the other thing Cruise doesn't have is anything to react to. It is
simply a constant applied to the outputs with no regard to any input.
It may terminate, but subsumptions terminates it, while Cruise itself
continues to suggest a constant output.
Behaviors can be reactions to stimuli. But that doesn't mean the
behavior IS the reaction to stimuli. For instance, if one stimuli can
evoke two behaviors under different times and circumstances, the
behavior has to be considered separate from the stimuli that caused it
to be invoked. Also if two stimuli can evoke a single behavior, then
the behavior must in some sense be independent of the trigger that
evoked it.
(If I stub my toe, or if I look at my property taxes I get angry. The
triggers are independent of the anger behavior, but the anger behavior
being hopping mad with release of adreniline, increased pulse,
reddening of the face, tightening of the lip, etc., is identical in
both cases.)
The trigger is not he behavior. & Not all behaviors have inputs signal
inputs.
--
Randy M. Dumse
www.newmicros.com
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
|
|
Posted by Gordon McComb on September 30, 2006, 4:25 pm
Please log in for more thread options My point is Randy you are taking an established field of endeavor, with
its own definitions, and trying to rewrite it. You're insisting a
"behavior" is something that can be quantified simply by mechanical
means (an input or output), rather than an observable whole event, as
was originally described by Brooks. I think you're missing something
very basic, and can only recommend a more thorough reading back to
Brooks. Brooks is pretty clear that a behavior must have an input. (Even
his "wander" behavior, which is undefined by its nature, is not
inputless.)
Your statement on inputs: "But that doesn't mean the behavior IS the
reaction to stimuli" is a non-sequitor. A behavior is a reaction. A
reaction is to some action -- if you don't like that definition, take it
up with Sir Isaac. Synonyms for action: stimumus, trigger, input. True
enough, some behaviors are caused by multiple stimulus, but that still
means an input is required.
I think it's okay to redefine an approach, but call your system
something else, rather than trying to turn around existing and accepted
methodology. The problem of people redefining the same terms to mean
different things is part of the reason AI keeps getting stuck. If people
can't agree on the terms, they certainly cannot agree on anything else.
So, might I suggest for input-less actions we start calling the system
Randysian. Anything but behavior-based.
As an aside, anger is not a behavior, it is an emotion. This is a common
mistake in Brooksian BBR. A behavior that reflects anger would be
smashing your fist on the table, or punching your CPA in the face and
telling him he's screwed up agrain. By itself, anger and other emotions
can have no observable output, and in Brooksian behavioralism, without
being able to observe it, there is no behavior. Only what we can OBSERVE
is relevent. Otherwise it gets into issues of sapience that hopelessly
complicates matters.
-- Gordon
RMDumse wrote:
>
> Gordon McComb wrote:
> > Then it's not a behavior because even outside robotics, behaviors are
> > the REACTION to some stimulus.
>
> I disagree, and offer this argument in rebutal.
>
> On page 52 Jones lists "Cruise" as a primitive behavior. He readily
> admits it has no trigger, or if it did, it would be constantly stuck
> on. So I think he is self coontradictory saying all primitive behaviors
> have triggers, then offering one without a trigger.
>
> I did say I think a behavior should be defined to be an output action,
> usually based on a transform sensory information.
>
> The reason I said "usually" about being a transform of input stimuli,
> the other thing Cruise doesn't have is anything to react to. It is
> simply a constant applied to the outputs with no regard to any input.
> It may terminate, but subsumptions terminates it, while Cruise itself
> continues to suggest a constant output.
>
> Behaviors can be reactions to stimuli. But that doesn't mean the
> behavior IS the reaction to stimuli. For instance, if one stimuli can
> evoke two behaviors under different times and circumstances, the
> behavior has to be considered separate from the stimuli that caused it
> to be invoked. Also if two stimuli can evoke a single behavior, then
> the behavior must in some sense be independent of the trigger that
> evoked it.
>
> (If I stub my toe, or if I look at my property taxes I get angry. The
> triggers are independent of the anger behavior, but the anger behavior
> being hopping mad with release of adreniline, increased pulse,
> reddening of the face, tightening of the lip, etc., is identical in
> both cases.)
>
> The trigger is not he behavior. & Not all behaviors have inputs signal
> inputs.
|
|
Posted by RMDumse on September 30, 2006, 5:57 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Gordon McComb wrote:
> My point is Randy you are taking an established field of endeavor, with
> its own definitions, and trying to rewrite it. You're insisting a
> "behavior" is something that can be quantified simply by mechanical
> means (an input or output), rather than an observable whole event, as
> was originally described by Brooks.
But that is more or less the problem, where are those established
definitions?
Brooks describes "behaviors" as "task acomplishing" pg 4 Cambrain
Intelligence. Other than that, there is no solid definition. I've
quoted Jones definition in the opening post, and made comments about
how I think Jones then contradicts his own basic definition. Arkin uses
yet different definitions, mainly taken from biological inspirations
and aptly cautions it means different things in different fields. Robin
Bailey in "Introduction to AI Robotics" probably more explicitly evokes
the biological origins of behavior, errors on the side of calling the
meathod "reactivce", but really doesn't offer a clear definitions
either.
Point is, I'd love to kow the definition from the field of endeavor to
know whether I am re-inforcing the definitions, extending, or replacing
them. How?
Here is this word: Behavior. No one gives a consistent definition. We
might as well be talking about "thingamagiggies". No one knows what a
"thingamagiggies" is, but they are quite ready to speak up, and tell
you what you are doing isn't it that. Okay, their comments are one of
opinion, but where is the standard against which we can test the
opinion for clarity?
My whole point of starting this thread was to see if there was a solid
definition for behavior as applicable to robotics and AI. If there
isn't, how can it be that I'm taking something established and trying
to add my own definitions.
"The problem of people redefining the same terms to mean different
things is part of the reason AI keeps getting stuck. If people can't
agree on the terms, they certainly cannot agree on anything else." I
very much agree!
I am pointing at the interface between behavior and arbitration and
saying, Look Here! Here is one of those places where the terms are
really poorly defined. I think this is a very important reason AI is
stuck. AI lies in the decisions that activate behavior (behavior
meaning in this case primitive action behavior - because I have no
better single word definitions for this version of behavior). The
trigger being in the behavior part confuses use where we thing
behaviors are intelligent. They might not be. It's the triggers that
are doing the trick. Until we get our heads straightened out about
what's behavior and what's trigger, Behavior-Based AI will remain
stuck, because it isn't the behavior part that has the AI, it's a
misplaced subsumption part that contains the AI.
If I may take a departure, I am reminded of the story of M. Curie. She
was analyzing pitchblende and discovered beside the Uranium she was
familiar with, more radiation than she could account for. So she began
separating away various componds (pitchblende is a mixture of 30 some
elements). Over several years of unceasing labour the Curies refined
several tons of pitchblende. They progressively concentrated the
radioactive components. Eventually isolating the chloride salts. In the
final separation, the liquid was allowed to evaporate, and when it did,
she looked into the container, and saw nothing. It appeared the
radiation must have escaped, because there was nothing visible left,
and yet so powerful a source of radiation couldn't come from...
nothing. Where had it gone? When the lab was dark, it became clear
something was left. She had extracted radium and Polonium, both new
elements. There was so little of it, it was all but otherwise
undetectable, but it was so powerful, it lite the darkness.
So if you will forgive me characterizing my own intentions in this
thread, I am not trying to redefine Behavior Based Robotics, as you
suppose. If anything I am trying to separate the components into those
which have intelligence, and those which do not, because I think the
part that is intelligence, is exceedingly fragile and rare, and mere
traces of it have been found. Refinement is necessary to extract the
essense of the intelligence, and exceeding care is necessary to find it
among the grosser elements of the concoctions we now observe at large
with less focused scrutiny on what is active in the intelligence, and
what is not.
--
Randy M. Dumse
www.newmicros.com
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Where is behavior AI now? | August 25, 2006, 3:35 pm |
| question about DC motor behavior | June 28, 2006, 4:00 pm |
| Syntax and robot behavior | September 13, 2006, 6:09 pm |
| Syntax and robot behavior | September 13, 2006, 6:09 pm |
| Robopet behavior ideas | January 21, 2007, 1:22 am |
| Human Behavior Modeling with Ego-conception | May 4, 2006, 2:13 pm |
| new project of Behavior Simulation and Motives Modeling | March 13, 2006, 10:01 am |
| new project of Behavior Simulation and Motives Modeling | March 13, 2006, 3:14 pm |
| behavior-based programming examples in BASIC | February 21, 2007, 5:28 pm |
| the comparison between reactive agent vs. deliberate agent vs. behavior-based agent | June 7, 2007, 8:58 am |
|
|
|
XML site map
> behavior should be defined to be an output action, usually based on a
> transform sensory information.