A General Architecture for Robotics Systems

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)]

I am pleased to announce that after three years of hubble and

bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over and my paper is
published, in the Artificial Life journal. Commence the fireworks!
(As long as there is not just indifference).

If anyone would like a not-to-be-distributed pdf copy send me a

private email and I’ll oblige.

pr-logo8.png

···

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229


Regards,
Rupert

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter LinkedIn
YouTube

+44 7795 480387

I love the abstract, and would very much like to have the PDF, please!

pr-logo8.png

···

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)]


Regards,
Rupert

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter LinkedIn
YouTube

+44 7795 480387

I am pleased to announce that after three years of hubble and

bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over and my paper is
published, in the Artificial Life journal. Commence the fireworks!
(As long as there is not just indifference).

[http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mitpressjournals.org_doi_pdf_10.1162_ARTL-5Fa-5F00229&d=DwMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=kQ7Axk3by-EsiNDG4Fb3laxabd_rIw0sl_4L2JDbXsU&s=mR8swZHLhrl5XAywVhhLkO5nE2hbV1hTXPXb3oVvP3c&e=)



If anyone would like a not-to-be-distributed pdf copy send me a

private email and I’ll oblige.

Me, too!

Kent

pr-logo8.png

···

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Rupert Young
rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)]


Regards,
Rupert

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter

LinkedIn

YouTube

+44 7795 480387

I am pleased to announce that after three years of hubble and bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over and my paper is published, in the Artificial Life journal. Commence the fireworks! (As long as there is not just indifference).

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229

If anyone would like a not-to-be-distributed pdf copy send me a private email and I’ll oblige.

[Marti Taylor 2017.05.24.17.16]

Me too.

Martin

pr-logo8.png

···

On 2017/05/24 4:51 PM, Bruce Nevin
wrote:

    I love the abstract, and would very much like to

have the PDF, please!

/Bruce

      On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM,

Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com
wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)]


Regards,
Rupert

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter LinkedIn YouTube

                    +44 7795

480387

          I am pleased to announce that after three years of hubble

and bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over and my
paper is published, in the Artificial Life journal.
Commence the fireworks! (As long as there is not just
indifference).

          [http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mitpressjournals.org_doi_pdf_10.1162_ARTL-5Fa-5F00229&d=DwMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=kQ7Axk3by-EsiNDG4Fb3laxabd_rIw0sl_4L2JDbXsU&s=mR8swZHLhrl5XAywVhhLkO5nE2hbV1hTXPXb3oVvP3c&e=)



          If anyone would like a not-to-be-distributed pdf copy send

me a private email and I’ll oblige.

This is a Magnus Opus - superb work Rupert!

···

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229


Regards,
Rupert

<pr-logo.png>

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter LinkedIn
YouTube

+44 7795 480387

[From Fred Nickols (2017.05.25.1427 ET)]

I just finished reading your paper, Rupert. It is remarkably clear, compelling, persuasive and, most important, interest arousing. You are to be commended and congratulated. I hope it receives the fame and attention it deserves. I’ll wager that Bill and Mary are both resting a little easier now, perhaps with a smile on their faces.

Regards,

Fred Nickols

pr-logo8.png

···

From: Rupert Young [mailto:rupert@perceptualrobots.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 11:44 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: A General Architecture for Robotics Systems

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)]

I am pleased to announce that after three years of hubble and bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over and my paper is published, in the Artificial Life journal. Commence the fireworks! (As long as there is not just indifference).

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229

If anyone would like a not-to-be-distributed pdf copy send me a private email and I’ll oblige.

Regards,
Rupert

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter LinkedIn YouTube

+44 7795 480387

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.26.0945)]

···

Fred Nickols (2017.05.25.1427 ET)

Â

FN: I just finished reading your paper, Rupert. It is remarkably clear, compelling, persuasive and, most important, interest arousing. You are to be commended and congratulated. I hope it receives the fame and attention it deserves. I’ll wager that Bill and Mary are both resting a little easier now, perhaps with a smile on their faces.

RM: I completely concur. It’s an excellent paper and it’s work  that is completely consistent with what I think is the right way to “promulgate” PCT: publish quality research on PCT in high impact, peer reviewed journals. I know it took a lot of effort on Rupert’s part to get this published in Artificial Life but he stuck with it and the result is a truly excellent, high quality, accurate research report on PCT. Bravo Rupert and I look forward to seeing more of these from you and others who are willing and able to do it.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Rick Marken (2017.05.26.1130)]

Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)

RY: I am pleased to announce that after three years of hubble and bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over and my paper is published, in the Artificial Life journal.Â

RM: By the way, Rupert, I love the bowie control demo (section 9 in your paper). Was the term "bowie" (defined as a "perceptual signal combining both sound and vision") your invention? I developed a little demo of a control system that controlled a combination of light and sound. I did it using an Arduino processor as the control system and some photo and audio sensors as the inputs and a sound generator and LEDs as disturbances. It was a little clunky but it worked. But your bowie demo has motivated my to create a javascript version. I think it would be a nice way to demonstrate the use of The Test to determine what perception was being controlled when the perception controlled is not one that can be experienced by the tested except with the use of a bowie sensor.Â
RM: On that note, I realized that a robot like the one you describe in your paper could be used to demonstrate the use of The Test to determine what perceptions the robot is controlling. Maybe this could be the basis of some joint research -- robotics combined with experimental psychology (done the PCT way).Â
BestÂ
Rick

···

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Rupert,

You must be immensely proud of this achievement, and justly so!

This has such great importance. An existence proof, demonstrating autonomous control within an environment with arrangements and changes in arrangement that are unpredictable by the robot. A demonstration that no other theory (do they merit that term?) can match.

The recovery from deadlock uses a very simple means that may be an alternative answer to our questions about what happens when an organism meets insurmountable conflict.

pr-logo8.png

···

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)]


Regards,
Rupert

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter LinkedIn
YouTube

+44 7795 480387

I am pleased to announce that after three years of hubble and

bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over and my paper is
published, in the Artificial Life journal. Commence the fireworks!
(As long as there is not just indifference).

[http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mitpressjournals.org_doi_pdf_10.1162_ARTL-5Fa-5F00229&d=DwMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=kQ7Axk3by-EsiNDG4Fb3laxabd_rIw0sl_4L2JDbXsU&s=mR8swZHLhrl5XAywVhhLkO5nE2hbV1hTXPXb3oVvP3c&e=)



If anyone would like a not-to-be-distributed pdf copy send me a

private email and I’ll oblige.

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.27 11.30)]

Thanks Bruce, and Fred and Rick, for your kind words.

  Yes, I am pleased that this has been published. Not just because

it is a major journal, but also that it is not just a brief report
of some results, but a substantial presentation of the theory.
When I first submitted it (a less substantial document) I was
buoyed that the first feedback I got, before reviews, from the
editor (philosopher Mark Bedau), was that it had “significant
merit”. So all credit to him for recognising there was value
there!

  I concur with others that it is important to publish in high

impact journals. I think there is a significant advantage of
robotics over other fields in that actual physical systems are
produced that everyone can see and touch; you don’t have wait to
replicate studies or experiments to actually see something.

  So, I would encourage all to get involved in PCT robotics. We

could do it reasonably simply with Lego robots implementing PC
systems I have already created. Over the next few months I hope to
have progress a PCT application and GUI, for the execution of PC
systems, on robots like the Lego system. And you won’t have to
write a line of code!

  When I left my day job three years ago to work on PCT full time I

had two goals in terms of promulgating PCT. One was to try and get
PCT robotics published in a major journal; I’ll mention the other
when I manage to achieve it (otherwise I’ll keep quiet). So, as it
is a substantial piece, in terms of the claims it makes with
respect to conventional AI, even if people don’t understand it,
agree with it or like it, I hope it generates discussion and gets
PCT more widely known.

  I am motivated with the assumption, and confidence, that PCT will

have its time. But as it is battling against ill winds we have to
push it into the limelight, and I am hoping that building robots
in the real world will capture people’s imagination. But it has
been a long road just to get to this point. In the mid-80s I was
working in the most boring place in the universe, Kuwait, and had
a lot of time to think about my own purpose and existence. At the
same time I bought a Commodore Amiga, which, with a colour
graphical screen and a whopping half a meg of RAM really
catapulted computers into my life and imagination. So, with my
dissatisfaction with my existence as it was, and my new found
interest in the Mind and computer technology I did what anyone
would do under the circumstances… I went and lived on a tropical
island in Thailand (I’d lived there for four years as a child) for
a year and a half and ran a business for water skiing and
parasailing.

  However, living on a tropical island is not all it is cracked up

to be, with very little mental stimulation. So, I returned to the
UK, and in the late 80’s I heard about something I’d never
imagined, but combined my two main interests at the time;
Artificial Intelligence. I managed to get on a degree course as a
mature student, and fancied being an academic. Most AI courses
were Computer Science with a bit of AI, but mine was different. It
was actually a BA as it combined AI computing, Cognitive
Psychology and Philosophy of the Mind.

  I was somewhat unimpressed by the state of AI and found the

approaches unconvincing. This was exemplified by the dominant
approach to computer vision being David Marr’s static feature
extraction methodology. Gibson’s dynamic approach seemed more
realistic so went on to do PhD with some intention of looking in
to more “active” vision.

To be continued …

pr-logo8.png

···

Regards,
Rupert

On 26/05/2017 21:05, Bruce Nevin wrote:

Rupert,

      You must be immensely proud of this achievement, and justly

so!

      This has such great importance. An existence proof,

demonstrating autonomous control within an environment with
arrangements and changes in arrangement that are unpredictable
by the robot. A demonstration that no other theory (do they
merit that term?) can match.

      The recovery from deadlock uses a very simple means that

may be an alternative answer to our questions about what
happens when an organism meets insurmountable conflict.

/Bruce

      On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM,

Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com
wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)]


Regards,
Rupert

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter LinkedIn YouTube

                    +44 7795

480387

          I am pleased to announce that after three years of hubble

and bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over and my
paper is published, in the Artificial Life journal.
Commence the fireworks! (As long as there is not just
indifference).

          [http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mitpressjournals.org_doi_pdf_10.1162_ARTL-5Fa-5F00229&d=DwMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=kQ7Axk3by-EsiNDG4Fb3laxabd_rIw0sl_4L2JDbXsU&s=mR8swZHLhrl5XAywVhhLkO5nE2hbV1hTXPXb3oVvP3c&e=)



          If anyone would like a not-to-be-distributed pdf copy send

me a private email and I’ll oblige.

[From Dag Forssell (2017.05.31 16.30 PST)]

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.27
11.30)]

To be continued …

Rupert, what an interesting story. I eagerly await the “To be
continued” part.
I take it you are no longer teaching, though it appears so here:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/9832
Or is that part time?
I have now read your paper. I asked my daughter at Stanford to download
the final version. She said it would not work. I now note that at your
link says:
Artificial Life
Volume 0 | Issue 0 | -Not available-
p.236-286
Does that mean it has not been published yet?
As I am preparing to lecture on PCT (no deep explanations in an
introductory talk), I think this paper will be a simply wonderful
credibility-building resource for my intended audience of engineers
interested in human relations in general and management in particular.
I drove some 1,200 miles round trip in May of 2007 to see Phil Runkel a
month before he passed on, and again in September to attended the
celebration of his life. I came away with three cartons containing what
to me appeared to be the PCT section of his library. It included the 2000
doctoral dissertaion of a certain Rupert Young.
Just now I made a point of digging it out and looking at it more closely.
What a marvelous work. Beautifully printed and bound, and significantly
with a splendid introduction to PCT.
Chapter 3 Perceptual Control Theory (pp 23-37) holds not only a
good introduction of PCT, HPCT, and terminology, plus good examples, but
also a superior expose of 3.2 The Conventional Error, with 6
progressive diagrams and a thorough discussion.
Chater 4 Basic Perceptual Control Systems (pp 39-52) provides a
rather detailed overview of the math, slowing factors, transport lag and
such; all with numerous color charts.
Chapter 11 Conclusions and Future Work (pp 141-147) begins
with a discussion of perspectives. Runkel underlined part of the
paragraph that reads:
All of the patterns and transitions which can be observed in the
Game of Life arise from these three simple rules. None of the behaviours
are specifically implemented but emerge from the above rules.
Here, then, lies the danger of taking the observer’s
perspective. [Red pen underline typical of Runkel. Always
meticulous, he added the apostrophy :)]
Runkel also typed one of his typical notes on a 2x2 inch paper and taped
it next to Fig 11.1: *The Game of Life * “Showing
that many complex patterns can be produced from 3 simple rules. How easy
it is, in observing events, to look for lots of rules – to mistake
apparent complexity for underlying complexity.”
Section 11.4 PCT holds Summary and Results followed by Future
Work
.

···

==========
Is this dissertation available today? Would be a good reference,
especially chapters 3 and 4.
So I google: Visual control in Natural and Artificial Systems
Lo and behold, it is available!

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.40.9589

Download pdf: 10.1.1.40.9589.pdf 1,802 KB.
This file does not display properly. A dialog box opens, saying there is
a problem with fonts, and the List of Tables heading does not
display at all.

Download ps (postscript): 10.1.1.40.9589.ps 44,605 KB.

Opened and saved by Dag using Adobe Acrobat Pro 9.5.5:

10.1.1.40.9589_ps.pdf 1,671 KB. This pdf file
displays properly.

Dag will be happy to provide this file.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2591860_Visual_Control_in_Natural_and_Artificial_Systems

Download thesis (uploaded by Rupert Young June 03, 2014)

ThesisRJY-10.1.1.40.9589.pdf 1,843 KB

This file 41 KB larger than 10.1.1.40.9589.pdf above due to the addition
of a ResearchGate front page. This file suffers the same display
problem.

It would be easy to create a short version, focused on PCT, of
10.1.1.40.9589_ps.pdf.

All in all, I join with the congratulations. Now, how about that

To be continued …

Pretty please! The rest of the story.

Best, Dag

[From Rupert Young (2017.06.01 8.00)]

(Rick Marken (2017.05.26.1130)

Glad you like it, as I was considering removing it as I thought it
might be too simplistic. Yes, the term “bowie” was my own invention.
It was my own private joke, but assumed many would understand the
reason. Was it obvious? Sounds interesting!
Yeah, that would be great. Does it come with funding :wink: ?
Cheers,
Rupert

···
          RM: By the way, Rupert, I love the bowie control demo

(section 9 in your paper). Was the term “bowie” (defined
as a “perceptual signal combining both sound and vision”)
your invention?

          I developed a little demo of a control system that

controlled a combination of light and sound. I did it
using an Arduino processor as the control system and some
photo and audio sensors as the inputs and a sound
generator and LEDs as disturbances. It was a little clunky
but it worked. But your bowie demo has motivated my to
create a javascript version. I think it would be a nice
way to demonstrate the use of The Test to determine what
perception was being controlled when the perception
controlled is not one that can be experienced by the
tested except with the use of a bowie sensor.

          RM: On that note, I realized that a robot like the one

you describe in your paper could be used to demonstrate
the use of The Test to determine what perceptions the
robot is controlling. Maybe this could be the basis of
some joint research – robotics combined with experimental
psychology (done the PCT way).

[From (Richard Pfau (2017.05.24 15:15 EDT)]
Rupert,
Congratulations! What a terrific article – and published by MIT to round off its wonderful informativeness (sp?). It will certainly help give PCT a boost as the last sentence of your Abstract indicates: “The central process of perceptual control has the potential to unify the behavioral sciences and is proposed as the missing behavioral principle of Artificial Life.”

Terrific!

With Regards and Excitement,
Richard Pfau

···

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: richardpfau4153@aol.com
Date: Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: A General Architecture for Robotics Systems
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com
To: csgnet csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Sent: Wed, May 24, 2017 11:44 am
Subject: A General Architecture for Robotics Systems

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)]

I am pleased to announce that after three years of hubble and

bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over and my paper is
published, in the Artificial Life journal. Commence the fireworks!
(As long as there is not just indifference).

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229

If anyone would like a not-to-be-distributed pdf copy send me a

private email and I’ll oblige.


Regards,
Rupert

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter LinkedIn
YouTube

+44 7795 480387

He had two different coloured eyes?

One of his albums is called Sound and Vision?

He was ‘bi’ sexual??

···
          RM: By the way, Rupert, I love the bowie control demo

(section 9 in your paper). Was the term “bowie” (defined
as a “perceptual signal combining both sound and vision”)
your invention?

          I developed a little demo of a control system that

controlled a combination of light and sound. I did it
using an Arduino processor as the control system and some
photo and audio sensors as the inputs and a sound
generator and LEDs as disturbances. It was a little clunky
but it worked. But your bowie demo has motivated my to
create a javascript version. I think it would be a nice
way to demonstrate the use of The Test to determine what
perception was being controlled when the perception
controlled is not one that can be experienced by the
tested except with the use of a bowie sensor.

          RM: On that note, I realized that a robot like the one

you describe in your paper could be used to demonstrate
the use of The Test to determine what perceptions the
robot is controlling. Maybe this could be the basis of
some joint research – robotics combined with experimental
psychology (done the PCT way).

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.01.0930)]

···

Rupert Young (2017.06.01 8.00)–

RY: Glad you like it, as I was considering removing it as I thought it

might be too simplistic. Yes, the term “bowie” was my own invention.
It was my own private joke, but assumed many would understand the
reason. Was it obvious?

RM: A common complaint about PCT demos is that they are too simplistic. Maybe that’s why they made such a big impression on simple-minded me. And I thought “bowie” had something to do with Bowie knives. I never really got into David Bowie but that sure makes more sense as a description of that particular controlled variable. I’m sure he was a brilliant musician; but I pretty much left popular music starting in about 1980, at which point it was pretty much all Bach, all the time for me.

RY: Yeah, that would be great. Does it come with funding :wink: ?

RM: This, of course, is my “psychorobotics” proposal. And, no, it does not yet come with funding. But it does come with “fundamentaling”:wink: I think if we could convince the Trump administration (God it’s hard to write that!) that this research would produce results that would markedly reduce the quality of life for all US citizens with a net worth less of than $100 million we could get plenty of funding;-)

BestÂ

Rick


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

          RM: By the way, Rupert, I love the bowie control demo

(section 9 in your paper). Was the term “bowie” (defined
as a “perceptual signal combining both sound and vision”)
your invention?

          RM: On that note, I realized that a robot like the one

you describe in your paper could be used to demonstrate
the use of The Test to determine what perceptions the
robot is controlling. Maybe this could be the basis of
some joint research – robotics combined with experimental
psychology (done the PCT way).Â

[From Rupert Young (2017.06.02
17.30)]

(Dag Forssell (2017.05.31 16.30 PST)]
  Rupert, what an interesting story. I eagerly await the "To be

continued" part.

  I take it you are no longer teaching, though it appears so here:


http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/9832
Or is that part time?

Ah, well, that isn't me. Are you saying you don't remember what I

look like from when we last met 18 years ago ;-( ? No idea who that
upstart, with my name is, even if he is at the same university I
went to!

  I have now read your paper. I asked my daughter at Stanford to

download
the final version. She said it would not work. I now note that at
your
link says:
Volume 0 | Issue 0 | -Not available-

  Does that mean it has not been published yet?
It went live today.
  As I am preparing to lecture on PCT (no deep explanations in an

introductory talk), I think this paper will be a simply wonderful
credibility-building resource for my intended audience of
engineers
interested in human relations in general and management in
particular.

Yes, I think it provides legitimacy to talk about and promote PCT

robotics in future. That’s what I am hoping anyway.

  I drove some 1,200 miles round trip in May of 2007 to see Phil

Runkel a
month before he passed on, and again in September to attended the
celebration of his life. I came away with three cartons containing
what
to me appeared to be the PCT section of his library. It included
the 2000
doctoral dissertaion of a certain Rupert Young.

Yes, I met Phil, I think at CSG Vancouver in '99. We later

communicated and we did a swap, my thesis for his “Casting nets…”.
His book “People as living things” contains the only known reference
in the universe to my thesis.

  Just now I made a point of digging it out and looking at it more

closely.
What a marvelous work. Beautifully printed and bound, and
significantly
with a splendid introduction to PCT.

Thanks! I haven't read it for years.

Chapter 3 Perceptual Control Theory (pp 23-37) holds not
only a
good introduction of PCT, HPCT, and terminology, plus good
examples, but
also a superior expose of 3.2 The Conventional Error , with
6
progressive diagrams and a thorough discussion.

  Chater 4 *Basic Perceptual Control Systems* (pp 39-52)

provides a
rather detailed overview of the math, slowing factors, transport
lag and
such; all with numerous color charts.

Really? I must read it again that sounds useful.

To be continued …

  Pretty please! The rest of the story.
Ok, since you insist, coming soon.

Rup

[From Rupert Young (2017.06.02 18.00)]

(Rick Marken (2017.06.01.0930)]

Well, I love the term "Psycho Robots!"! Definitely something with

which Trump would identify and want to get behind. Now if the
psycho robot then turns on its owner …

Cheers,

Rupert
···

RM: This, of course, is my “psychorobotics” proposal.
And, no, it does not yet come with funding. But it does
come with “fundamentaling”:wink: I think if we could convince
the Trump administration (God it’s hard to write that!)
that this research would produce results that would
markedly reduce the quality of life for all US citizens
with a net worth less of than $100 million we could get
plenty of funding;-)

I don’t read everything on CSGnet - largely because of time constraints but also because I lack the background to process the information. However, I always read anything that has to do with your work, Rupert! As you said in your first post: " I think there is a significant advantage of
robotics over other fields in that actual physical systems are
produced that everyone can see and touch; you don’t have wait to
replicate studies or experiments to actually see something." I completely agree with this and have always felt that robot demos would do a lot to gain attention for PCT.

Congratulations on getting published in the Artificial Life journal! Yes, Dad and Mom would have been very happy to see this. It did not go without notice that you posted this on the anniversary of Dad’s passing - except that… I didn’t notice it until today since I was so busy with my daughter’s graduation.

I wasn’t quite so happy with the Psychorobots suggestion (sorry Rick!) since it too easily brings to mind something more negative that we would like to suggest. Perceptual Robots to me is a perfectly good term (perceptual robotics). Why don’t we just use that?

One of the things we want to discuss in August at our organizational meeting is how we might leverage the money we currently have in the CSG account. It isn’t a lot in terms of funding anything huge. But if we use it wisely and do something like set up a really nice website as Fred Good mentioned to me and which I think Rick Marken also mentioned, then we might use such a website not only for teaching and dissemination of information, but also for fund raising.

I’m curious - how much do you think it would it cost to build this new generation of robot… a PI (Perceptual Intelligence) robot you might say?

If you could send a pdf of your paper to me, I also would love that. The controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com is essentially a private email address

Thanks!

···

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2017.06.02 18.00)]

(Rick Marken (2017.06.01.0930)]

Well, I love the term "Psycho Robots!"! Definitely something with

which Trump would identify and want to get behind. Now if the
psycho robot then turns on its owner …

Cheers,

Rupert
          RM: This, of course, is my "psychorobotics" proposal.

And, no, it does not yet come with funding. But it does
come with “fundamentaling”:wink: I think if we could convince
the Trump administration (God it’s hard to write that!)
that this research would produce results that would
markedly reduce the quality of life for all US citizens
with a net worth less of than $100 million we could get
plenty of funding;-)

[From Rupert Young (2017.06.18 13.30)]

(Dag Forssell (2017.05.31 16.30 PST)]

DF: Rupert, what an interesting story. I eagerly await the "To be

continued" part.
Here goes.

  So, on my PhD I started with an interest in "visual attention" as

I thought that movement was important aspect of vision, rather
than just the static information extraction approach of Marr.
Though I wasn’t really in tune with my department which was
basically electrical engineering, and their philosophy was in line
with Marr. I went there because they had a robot arm/camera I
wanted to use. So, my supervisor and I didn’t really see
eye-to-eye, as he didn’t have an interest the more active,
bio-inspired approach. I had to toe the line and at one point he
had me analysing images to extract measures of symmetry (yawn!).
Going into my second year I still had no idea where my research
was going.

  Around this time I had an epiphany when I was walking around a

supermarket. I was thinking of being in an art gallery, when you
can’t work out what a picture was. I realised that to recognise
what was in the picture you sometimes had to move back or
forwards. So, it wasn’t a matter of static “information” flow
from the image to the observer, but the observer was able to
influence the information by how they acted in the world. I wasn’t
quite sure where this would take me but it seemed important.

  At some point I posted a message on a forum about how the neural

architecture could implement simple mathematical functions.
Someone called Shannon Williams responded and recommended a book
called B:CP. Luckily there was a single copy in my University
(Surrey) library so I sought it out and began to read. It was then
that my head exploded! This seemed to provide significant answers
to all my questions, and there had been no mention of it
whatsoever on my AI degree. I had found a direction for my
research.

  Unfortunately for my supervisor it was around then that he had a

personal crisis and withdrew from his supervisory duties.
Fortunately for me my supervisor had a personal crisis and
withdrew from his supervisory duties, which meant I was let to my
own devices for about two years in which time I was able to focus
on PCT research. Unfortunately for me after two years my
department realised that I wasn’t being supervised, and that I had
been focussing on PCT, research that they didn’t understand. This
meant that I had to give up PCT research and work on a project
which was in line with their way of thinking. This is why my
thesis has two quite different themes. I thought that this might
be a big problem for graduating, but fortunately the external
examiner approved my thesis saying that he liked it because he
thought it was “wacky!”

  During this time I discovered CSGNet, and conversed with Bill.

Surprisingly he invited me to stay at his place if I ever visited
the US, and also offered me money to attend the CSG conference in
1997. I did wonder if I was being drawn into some sort of obscure
cult and I would never make it back home! But I did attend (see
attached) and was impressed with the hospitality. I stayed with
Bill and Mary for a night at their place in Durango, and well
remember watching the space shuttle live on his TV, and also
looking at the moon through his telescope in the garden.

  Anyway, in 2000 I completed my PhD, five and a half years after I

started. Bill read my thesis and called it a “masterpiece”, though
I’ve since tried to find that email to no avail so maybe I was
just dreaming :slight_smile:

  I had thought that I wanted to be an academic, but now realised

that I could only do that if it involved PCT, as I would not want
to teach subjects and approaches in which I no longer believed and
thought were invalid. However, there were no PCT opportunities at
that time. So, I decided to go into commercial IT. Bill Powers
killed my academic career!

  PCT had to take a back burner as I had the distraction of a large

student loan to pay off and a new marriage.

  However, PCT remained a passion of mine and occasionally I would

return to it in my spare time. I spent quite a long time trying to
apply it to the stock market, only to realise it was a fool’s
errand as the only action available, buying and selling shares,
had no effect on the value of the funds invested. The only
variable that can be controlled is the number of shares invested,
which was of no use to anyone.

  I discovered the Lego robots and started to implement some simple

PCT systems on them. In 2009 I posted one such video on youtube.
Two years later I noticed a comment on the video, which had been
there for months. It was from a guy called Warren Mansell. We
communicated and as I happened to visit Manchester to give an IT
talk we met up for a beer. I was amazed to hear that someone was
actually teaching a course on PCT at a real university and doing
research as well. This inspired me to take my “hobby” seriously
and that there was real potential to progress PCT-based robots.

  In 2012 I went freelance so I could spend more time with my

robots. And in 2014 as I no longer had the pesky distraction of a
student loan, or a marriage, I stopped work to concentrate on PCT
robotics full-time. I decided that what I needed to do was to get
the PCT robotics approach published, to give it legitimacy, in the
eyes of most of the world. So, I thought I’d write up the
architecture and methodology I’d been working on in a paper. As it
was January I thought I could do it in cold, wet UK or go
somewhere more interesting. So I went to India and cycled 1,000
miles down the West coast from Mumbai to the southern tip
(attached, me arriving in Kanyakumari). I did it over two months
stopping off for a few days here and there to write on scraps of
paper and then type it up when I could find an internet cafe. It
was a very interesting and, at times, very dodgy trip, but I would
recommend it as a good way to write a paper, if time allows. The
actual cycling gave me time to think about what I was writing so I
think it turned out better than if I had stayed at home and
written it all in one go.

  When I returned to the UK I submitted it. The Artificial

Intelligence journal rejected it outright, but the Artificial Life
journal accepted it, pending review. They said the earliest they
could publish it was August, of 2014. But that didn’t take into
the account what turned out to be a horrendously slow review
process. It went through the review process twice and each time it
took well over six months for me to get the reviews back. Thanks
for feedback and advice I got from Rick, Martin and Warren through
this time. Eventually it was accepted last summer, but not
scheduled for actual publication until now.

  So, I managed to achieve (and no-one is more surprised than me)

the goal I set three years ago, and twenty years on I am also
still part of the cult. More than ever I feel optimistic that PCT
can be shown to have significant impact on robotics and
fundamentally change the direction of the entire field. Hopefully,
if that happens, it will have a domino effect throughout the
behavioural sciences. That’s the plan anyway :slight_smile:

pr-logo8.png

···

Regards,
Rupert

  On 27/05/2017 11:34, Rupert Young

wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.27 11.30)]

Thanks Bruce, and Fred and Rick, for your kind words.

    Yes, I am pleased that this has been published. Not just

because it is a major journal, but also that it is not just a
brief report of some results, but a substantial presentation of
the theory. When I first submitted it (a less substantial
document) I was buoyed that the first feedback I got, before
reviews, from the editor (philosopher Mark Bedau), was that it
had “significant merit”. So all credit to him for recognising
there was value there!

    I concur with others that it is important to publish in high

impact journals. I think there is a significant advantage of
robotics over other fields in that actual physical systems are
produced that everyone can see and touch; you don’t have wait to
replicate studies or experiments to actually see something.

    So, I would encourage all to get involved in PCT robotics. We

could do it reasonably simply with Lego robots implementing PC
systems I have already created. Over the next few months I hope
to have progress a PCT application and GUI, for the execution of
PC systems, on robots like the Lego system. And you won’t have
to write a line of code!

    When I left my day job three years ago to work on PCT full time

I had two goals in terms of promulgating PCT. One was to try and
get PCT robotics published in a major journal; I’ll mention the
other when I manage to achieve it (otherwise I’ll keep quiet).
So, as it is a substantial piece, in terms of the claims it
makes with respect to conventional AI, even if people don’t
understand it, agree with it or like it, I hope it generates
discussion and gets PCT more widely known.

    I am motivated with the assumption, and confidence, that PCT

will have its time. But as it is battling against ill winds we
have to push it into the limelight, and I am hoping that
building robots in the real world will capture people’s
imagination. But it has been a long road just to get to this
point. In the mid-80s I was working in the most boring place in
the universe, Kuwait, and had a lot of time to think about my
own purpose and existence. At the same time I bought a Commodore
Amiga, which, with a colour graphical screen and a whopping half
a meg of RAM really catapulted computers into my life and
imagination. So, with my dissatisfaction with my existence as it
was, and my new found interest in the Mind and computer
technology I did what anyone would do under the circumstances…
I went and lived on a tropical island in Thailand (I’d lived
there for four years as a child) for a year and a half and ran a
business for water skiing and parasailing.

    However, living on a tropical island is not all it is cracked

up to be, with very little mental stimulation. So, I returned to
the UK, and in the late 80’s I heard about something I’d never
imagined, but combined my two main interests at the time;
Artificial Intelligence. I managed to get on a degree course as
a mature student, and fancied being an academic. Most AI courses
were Computer Science with a bit of AI, but mine was different.
It was actually a BA as it combined AI computing, Cognitive
Psychology and Philosophy of the Mind.

    I was somewhat unimpressed by the state of AI and found the

approaches unconvincing. This was exemplified by the dominant
approach to computer vision being David Marr’s static feature
extraction methodology. Gibson’s dynamic approach seemed more
realistic so went on to do PhD with some intention of looking in
to more “active” vision.

To be continued …

Regards,
Rupert

    On 26/05/2017 21:05, Bruce Nevin

wrote:

Rupert,

        You must be immensely proud of this achievement, and

justly so!

        This has such great importance. An existence proof,

demonstrating autonomous control within an environment with
arrangements and changes in arrangement that are
unpredictable by the robot. A demonstration that no other
theory (do they merit that term?) can match.

        The recovery from deadlock uses a very simple means that

may be an alternative answer to our questions about what
happens when an organism meets insurmountable conflict.

/Bruce

        On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 11:44 AM,

Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com
wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2017.05.24 16.40)]


Regards,
Rupert

www.perceptualrobots.com
Twitter LinkedIn YouTube

                      +44 7795

480387

            I am pleased to announce that after three years of

hubble and bubble, my toil and trouble is finally over
and my paper is published, in the Artificial Life
journal. Commence the fireworks! (As long as there is
not just indifference).

            [http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ARTL_a_00229](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mitpressjournals.org_doi_pdf_10.1162_ARTL-5Fa-5F00229&d=DwMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=kQ7Axk3by-EsiNDG4Fb3laxabd_rIw0sl_4L2JDbXsU&s=mR8swZHLhrl5XAywVhhLkO5nE2hbV1hTXPXb3oVvP3c&e=)



            If anyone would like a not-to-be-distributed pdf copy

send me a private email and I’ll oblige.

[From Rick Marken (2016.06.18.1030)]

···

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Alison Powers controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com wrote:

  AP: I don't read everything on CSGnet - largely because of time constraints but also because I lack the background to process the information. However, I always read anything that has to do with your work, Rupert! As you said in your first post: " I think there is a significant advantage of

robotics over other fields in that actual physical systems are
produced that everyone can see and touch; you don’t have wait to
replicate studies or experiments to actually see something." I completely agree with this and have always felt that robot demos would do a lot to gain attention for PCT.

RM: I also think that robotics is a great way to demonstrate PCT. But I think it is important to understand that any robot that can successfully produce some behavior in a disturbance prone environment – that is, any robot that can control – is a perceptual control system. For example, here is a bicycle riding robot (a favorite of my granddaughter) that is successfully controlling its balance on the bike despite continuous, unpredictable force disturbances:Â

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT3vfSQePcs

RM: This robot’s behavior is clearly organized around the control of sensed variables, such as the location of its center of gravity relative to the bike. The designers of this robot were unlikely to be thinking in terms of perceptual control when they designed it. They were likely thinking of what variables it should sense to which it could react to correct disturbances to its balance.Â

RM: It turns out that it is possible to build successful robots under the assumption that one is building a stimulus-response device. An excellent example is Braitenberg Vehicles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braitenberg_vehicle). The reason this works is that robots exist in the real world so that what they do has immediate feedback effects on what they sense. So a robot is inherently a closed loop system, which means there are both  S-R and R-S causal paths going on simultaneously.Â

RM: What most (all?) robots don’t have (other than Rupert’s) are levels of control, which allows one level of control to set the reference for the sensory (perceptual) input to the lower level. This is the robot architecture that Rupert’s work demonstrates. It is what provides the “autonomy” that Rupert mentions in the title of his paper. It is a very important contribution to designing robots and, I think, provides a very nice way of demonstrating how to understand the controlling done by the living organisms that these robots imitate.Â

AP: I wasn’t quite so happy with the Psychorobots suggestion (sorry Rick!) since it too easily brings to mind something more negative that we would like to suggest. Perceptual Robots to me is a perfectly good term (perceptual robotics). Why don’t we just use that?

RM: Because I never suggested Psychorobots as an alternative to Perceptual Robots. I suggested Psychorobotics as the name of a new field of study aimed at demonstrating how to determine what perceptions living organisms are controlling by showing how that would be done with robots which are controlling known perceptions. But don’t worry about not liking my suggestion; I’ve made many suggestions for research on PCT here on CSGNet since your Dad passed away and nobody has liked them (I’m pretty sure he would have). So, like Inigo Montoya, I’m getting used to disappointment;-)

BestÂ

Rick

One of the things we want to discuss in August at our organizational meeting is how we might leverage the money we currently have in the CSG account. It isn’t a lot in terms of funding anything huge. But if we use it wisely and do something like set up a really nice website as Fred Good mentioned to me and which I think Rick Marken also mentioned, then we might use such a website not only for teaching and dissemination of information, but also for fund raising.

I’m curious - how much do you think it would it cost to build this new generation of robot… a PI (Perceptual Intelligence) robot you might say?

If you could send a pdf of your paper to me, I also would love that. The controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com is essentially a private email address

Thanks!

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

[From Rupert Young (2017.06.02 18.00)]

(Rick Marken (2017.06.01.0930)]

Well, I love the term "Psycho Robots!"! Definitely something with

which Trump would identify and want to get behind. Now if the
psycho robot then turns on its owner …

Cheers,

Rupert
          RM: This, of course, is my "psychorobotics" proposal.

And, no, it does not yet come with funding. But it does
come with “fundamentaling”:wink: I think if we could convince
the Trump administration (God it’s hard to write that!)
that this research would produce results that would
markedly reduce the quality of life for all US citizens
with a net worth less of than $100 million we could get
plenty of funding;-)

Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery