John, and others... Open, indeed! Thanks for your concise statement of the problem.
My deep suspicion is that the robots are smoke and mirrors. That if one needs spatial arrangements to make the model go ... as we began to suspect that spatial arrangements might enhance our "MOTH" model of social evolution ... than one need only write that into the net logo model. That NOTHING is gained by building the robot except robot building experience and .... crucially ... public relations appeal. The robots, of course, are "just" models, too. They are models with more "surplus meaning" than their net-logo equivalents: i.e., with the robots, there is a much greater chance that one has unconsciously built in stuff that affects the outcome but really is not very interesting. The reason that I raise all of this is that it seems to relate to the little dust-up that we had vis-a-vis epstein a few months back. What are models for? What does "verisimilitude" do for a model? Do we put skirts, trousers, and hats on our turtles or is it better not to? And WHEN is a robot something more than a turtle with trousers. I assume that people on this list have firm opinions on this subject. Best, Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: John Kennison <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; The FridayMorning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Date: 5/31/2009 8:42:27 AM > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Robots forming human-like societies - electronicevolution? // Current > > > > Nick, > > It seems to me that a negotiating model assumes that the robots have an agreed upon method of communication, which includes transmitting of offers. Also, it is assumed that we have a model of each robot's position, which might be simplified to something like 'the robot moves to the place where another robot suggested there was food'. As I read this article, the robots have lights and light-sensors, an ability to physically move and to switch lights off and on, and a program which determines how it does these things. So methods of communication must evolve and decisions such as 'move to where another robot indicated food' must be expressed as specific physical motions. > > Two questions arise: Does the resulting evolution of the physical robots reflect anything that would be suggested by examining models of negotiating strategies. The answer seems to be yes, very much so. The other question is whether all of the behavior exhibited by robots is predictable by such models. Or is it the case that the physical set up has possibilities that we would almost certainly overlook no matter how we tried to define some negotiating entities. This still seems to be open. > > ---John > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 2:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [FRIAM] Robots forming human-like societies - electronic evolution? // Current > > Dear All, > > I guess my naive question here is, Were the robots, as such, necessary. Is there anything you can do with robots that you can't do with netlogo .... well, except have the scratch your back, or something. Anything of THEORETICAL significance? > > http://current.com/items/90119924_robots-forming-human-like-societies-electr onic-evolution.htm > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
