From Angus Jenkinson (2017-06-19, 15:12 BST)
Rupert
Thank you also for sharing some of your biography. I am glad that it reveals you as not a robot. But I also appreciate how it is indicative of how PCT
has worked in your life, in the sense that you have clearly heard vital goals, and you have worked to overcome obstacles and achieve them. You did not always describe it explicitly, but there are phrases like “combined my two main interests�, “battling against
ill winds�, “the approaches [looked] unconvincing�. I think it particularly reflects the long-term strategic autonomy of a human being, in which the choice of a very particular degree course looks right not in itself but as part of the path.
So I am as impressed by your biography as I am sure I will be by your paper once I have had a chance to read it – note sent to you for private ccopy as
requested, thanks.
···
…………………………………¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦………………….
Angus Jenkinson
On 27/05/2017, 11:34, “Rupert Young” rupert@perceptualrobots.com 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)]
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
+44 7795 480387