2008/8/8 Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'm starting to wonder, "is embodied experience *really* that > important?"
As a roboticist I can say that a physical body resembling that of a human isn't really all that important. You can build the most sophisticated humanoid possible, but the problems still boil down to how such a machine should be intelligently directed by its software. What embodiment does provide are *instruments of causation* and closed loop control. The muscles or actuators cause events to occur, and sensors then observe the results. Both actuation and sensing are subject to a good deal of uncertainty, so an embodied system needs to be able to cope with this adequately, at least maintaining some kind of homeostatic regime. Note that "actuator" and "sensor" could be broadly interpreted, and might not necessarily operate within a physical domain. The main problem with non-embodied systems from the past is that they tended to be open loop (non reflective) and often assumed crisp logic. Certainly from a marketing perspective - if you're trying to promote a particular line of research - humanoid-like embodiment certainly helps people to identify with what's going on. Also if you're trying to understand human cognition by attempting to reproduce results from developmental psychology a humanoid form may also be highly desirable. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
