Little Man question

[Martin Taylor 2016.04.16]

A quick question to which I suspect I know the answer.

Does anyone know whether Bill (or anyone else) looked at the Little Man's reorganization when the space contained an obstruction to the physical movement of the fingertip or to the vision of the Little Man's eyes? I know of no public reference to such an experiment, but I suspect Bill did a lot of experiments known to his friends and not made public.

Martin

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.04.17.0855)]

Martin Taylor 2016.04.16 --

MT: A quick question to which I suspect I know the answer.

MT: Does anyone know whether Bill (or anyone else) looked at the Little
Man's reorganization when the space contained an obstruction to the physical
movement of the fingertip or to the vision of the Little Man's eyes? I know
of no public reference to such an experiment, but I suspect Bill did a lot
of experiments known to his friends and not made public.

I am not aware of such a version. Interesting problem, though. It's an
example of a larger question: how the nervous system "decides" which parts
of the skeleton to move in order to accomplish some goal, such as reaching
for a coffee cup. More degrees of freedom usually are available for the
movement than are needed. For example, when reaching for that cup, one
could straighten the arm at the elbow while changing the angle of the upper
arm at the shoulder, and/or one could lean forward to bring the shoulder
closer to the cup (among several possibilities). Little Man does not have
this excess DF problem as it has only one way to reach outward: raise the
upper arm while straightening the elbow.

Placing objects in the way adds constraints as to which combination of joint
rotations will move the hand without colliding with the object, making the
problem similar to the situation in the "crowd" demo when objects are placed
in the path between the start and goal regions. There, each individual has
a proximity control system that alters the individual's direction of
movement to keep proximity (distance between object and individual) from
falling below a reference value.

Bruce

[Martin Taylor 2016.04.17.09.54]

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.04.17.0855)]

Martin Taylor 2016.04.16 --

MT: A quick question to which I suspect I know the answer.

MT: Does anyone know whether Bill (or anyone else) looked at the Little
Man's reorganization when the space contained an obstruction to the physical
movement of the fingertip or to the vision of the Little Man's eyes? I know
of no public reference to such an experiment, but I suspect Bill did a lot
of experiments known to his friends and not made public.

I am not aware of such a version. Interesting problem, though. It's an
example of a larger question: ...
Placing objects in the way adds constraints as to which combination of joint
rotations will move the hand without colliding with the object, making the
problem similar to the situation in the "crowd" demo when objects are placed
in the path between the start and goal regions. There, each individual has
a proximity control system that alters the individual's direction of
movement to keep proximity (distance between object and individual) from
falling below a reference value.

Bruce

You are following my train of thought, which is about the relationship among control at different perceptual levels, and how reorganization in a complex environment differs from reorganization in an environment empty of constraint. The crowd demo deals with the overt activity of a fixed control structure. How did reorganization build a structure that is connected that way? What perceptual functions should be produced in a world that contains "objects" whose parts can be perceive and influenced? Would the connection of proximity detection and direction change be the result to be expected of e-coli reorganization of uncommitted levels in a crowd-like universe?

Martin