robot post

CSGnet Archive CSG2002
1

[From Bill Powers (2002.04.09.21328 MDT)]

Here is a message forwarded from Isaac Kurtzer. As he suspects, I do not
agree with him, but I will defend to the death his right to speak his mind.
Not _my_ death, of course.

The "CSG funds" mentioned are not general CSG funds, but a special fund
earmarked by donors for a specific purpose.

Best,

Bill P.

···

===========================================================================

At 12:34 AM 4/10/2002, you wrote:

Bill, I am not able to send a message directly to the net right now. I'll
have to track down the reason. Could you forward this message for me in the
meantime.
I know it might not agree with your take but I think its a valid point.
Thanks in advance.

isaac

i.kurtzer (2002.04.09.1500)
I don't think the investment into the robot fund is the best use of funds
for CSG. Right now its seems like maybe a grand is going towards it with
there being no clear goal, no deadline, nor a participant that is interested
and capable of making an impact on the relevant literature. I don't even
think that is a goal at all. And if so, why give money for a toy? Basically,
Dr. Abbott is not an engineer and has no interest in becoming one, Bill
thinks of this as a hobby, and Dr. Kenneway is busy already. If CSG funds
are to be used I suggest they be used to fund a specific scientific project
with a person that already has expertise in the field. For example, I
suggest using that money for Dr. Abbott to do a series of animal learning
experiments, or for Dr. McClelland to study group behavior, or Dr. Vancouver
to do something with organizational psychology: a specific scientific
question led by a person with the relevant knowledge.

Isaac

2

[From Rick Marken (2002.04.10.0830)]

i.kurtzer (2002.04.09.1500) --

Bill, I am not able to send a message directly to the net right now.

I'll

have to track down the reason.

The reason could be that the list has been reconfigured so that it will
only distribute messages received from the e-mail addresses of
subscribers. Perhaps you are not subscribed from you current e-mail
address.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

3

[From Bill Powers (2002.04.10.1218 MST)]

Isaac Kurtzer (2002.04.10);

>I understand that the funds are earmarked funds. I just feel that earmarked

funds would be better used for a
specific scientific project rather than an undirected engineering project.
And since this occurs on CSG-net by
CSG donors for CSG recipiants it would be a stretch to say its a side
project.
I feel it would be best to pool the money into a general and official
"Research Fund".

If the membership of the CSG agrees with you (you can request a vote, I
suppose), then it will be that way. However, in that case I would ask for
my money back so I can give it directly to Bruce Abbott for building his
robot, since that is the project I am interested in supporting at this
time. Others would be free to do the same, of course.
I presume you are not trying to tell me what to be interested in or how to
spend my money.

Several individuals could even _apply_ for the funds with a grant proposal
so people/donors have an idea about
where and why the money is going where its going. Nothing too beaurcratic,
just a professional summary with clear aims.
This should benefit the prestige of the money giving body, CSG, and the
individuals getting the money.

I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the kind of competition that
approach would foster. Everybody thinks his own approach is best and his
own project is the most important. I don't care about Science with a big S.
I don't care about having prestige. I don't care how other people do it. I
want to support Bruce A's project, and that is what I am going to do,
whether through the CSG or not.

"Undirected engineering projects" indeed. When you get your PhD you're
going to be insufferable. But that's all right. I have several insufferable
friends already.

Best,

Bill P.

Best,

Bill P.

4

i.kurtzer (2002.04.10.1300EST)

This is a check to see if I'm getting through. If so, I have a short
clarification on the post below.

[From Bill Powers (2002.04.09.21328 MDT)]

Here is a message forwarded from Isaac Kurtzer. As he suspects, I do not
agree with him, but I will defend to the death his right to speak his

mind.

Not _my_ death, of course.

The "CSG funds" mentioned are not general CSG funds, but a special fund
earmarked by donors for a specific purpose.

I understand that the funds are earmarked funds. I just feel that earmarked
funds would be better used for a
specific scientific project rather than an undirected engineering project.
And since this occurs on CSG-net by
CSG donors for CSG recipiants it would be a stretch to say its a side
project.
I feel it would be best to pool the money into a general and official
"Research Fund".
Several individuals could even _apply_ for the funds with a grant proposal
so people/donors have an idea about
where and why the money is going where its going. Nothing too beaurcratic,
just a professional summary with clear aims.
This should benefit the prestige of the money giving body, CSG, and the
individuals getting the money.

Isaac

···

Best,

Bill P.

===========================================================================

At 12:34 AM 4/10/2002, you wrote:
>Bill, I am not able to send a message directly to the net right now.

I'll

>have to track down the reason. Could you forward this message for me in

the

>meantime.
>I know it might not agree with your take but I think its a valid point.
>Thanks in advance.
>
>isaac
>
>i.kurtzer (2002.04.09.1500)
>I don't think the investment into the robot fund is the best use of funds
>for CSG. Right now its seems like maybe a grand is going towards it with
>there being no clear goal, no deadline, nor a participant that is

interested

>and capable of making an impact on the relevant literature. I don't even
>think that is a goal at all. And if so, why give money for a toy?

Basically,

>Dr. Abbott is not an engineer and has no interest in becoming one, Bill
>thinks of this as a hobby, and Dr. Kenneway is busy already. If CSG funds
>are to be used I suggest they be used to fund a specific scientific

project

>with a person that already has expertise in the field. For example, I
>suggest using that money for Dr. Abbott to do a series of animal learning
>experiments, or for Dr. McClelland to study group behavior, or Dr.

Vancouver

>to do something with organizational psychology: a specific scientific
>question led by a person with the relevant knowledge.
>
>Isaac

5

Isaac Kurtzer (2002.04.10.1530)

[From Bill Powers (2002.04.10.1218 MST)]

Isaac Kurtzer (2002.04.10);

>I understand that the funds are earmarked funds. I just feel that

earmarked

>funds would be better used for a
>specific scientific project rather than an undirected engineering

project.

>And since this occurs on CSG-net by
>CSG donors for CSG recipiants it would be a stretch to say its a side
>project.
>I feel it would be best to pool the money into a general and official
>"Research Fund".

If the membership of the CSG agrees with you (you can request a vote, I
suppose), then it will be that way. However, in that case I would ask for
my money back so I can give it directly to Bruce Abbott for building his
robot, since that is the project I am interested in supporting at this
time. Others would be free to do the same, of course.
I presume you are not trying to tell me what to be interested in or how to
spend my money.

I'm not presuming that. I just saw 5 people offer money and wanted to
suggest that there could be a more focused way of supporting PCT.

>Several individuals could even _apply_ for the funds with a grant

proposal

>so people/donors have an idea about
>where and why the money is going where its going. Nothing too

beaurcratic,

>just a professional summary with clear aims.
>This should benefit the prestige of the money giving body, CSG, and the
>individuals getting the money.

I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the kind of competition that
approach would foster. Everybody thinks his own approach is best and his
own project is the most important. I don't care about Science with a big

S.

I don't care about having prestige. I don't care how other people do it. I
want to support Bruce A's project, and that is what I am going to do,
whether through the CSG or not.

I don't think there would be much competition; in yiddish, "may we be
blessed by such misfortune". Instead, I think the money would be a
incentive. Or other money could be given for such a fund. I think much
more impact will be made by doing a project that _does_ care about science
with big s's and produce results that impacts that field.
I can think of several researchable projects that would require more
investment. For example, more experimental work with baseball catching
requires mountable
cameras. There's no shortage of topics.
Are there other opinions out there?

Isaac

6

[From Mary Powers 04/12/02]

i.kurtzer (2002.04.09.1500)
I don't think the investment into the robot fund is the best use of funds
for CSG. Right now its seems like maybe a grand is going towards it with
there being no clear goal, no deadline, nor a participant that is interested
and capable of making an impact on the relevant literature. I don't even
think that is a goal at all. And if so, why give money for a toy? Basically,
Dr. Abbott is not an engineer and has no interest in becoming one, Bill
thinks of this as a hobby, and Dr. Kenneway is busy already. If CSG funds
are to be used I suggest they be used to fund a specific scientific project
with a person that already has expertise in the field. For example, I
suggest using that money for Dr. Abbott to do a series of animal learning
experiments, or for Dr. McClelland to study group behavior, or Dr. Vancouver
to do something with organizational psychology: a specific scientific
question led by a person with the relevant knowledge.

Isaac

I'm sorry, Isaac, that you have the notion that everyone belongs in little
boxes and shouldn't go outside their specialty because it isn't "relevant"
to do so. How could Kent write about PCT in sociology if he didn't step
outside of his box to learn PCT in the first place? Why shouldn't Bruce
Abbott try to build a PCT-based robot? What do you know about what he
knows about doing this? Finally, what do you mean that Bill P. thinks of
this as a hobby? Bill has spent 50 years on his "hobby". It's called
Perceptual Control Theory. Maybe he should have just stayed in his box and
designed control systems. Sheesh.

Mary P.

7

i.kurtzer (2002.04.12.1345)

[From Mary Powers 04/12/02]
>i.kurtzer (2002.04.09.1500)
>I don't think the investment into the robot fund is the best use of funds
>for CSG. Right now its seems like maybe a grand is going towards it with
>there being no clear goal, no deadline, nor a participant that is

interested

>and capable of making an impact on the relevant literature. I don't even
>think that is a goal at all. And if so, why give money for a toy?

Basically,

>Dr. Abbott is not an engineer and has no interest in becoming one, Bill
>thinks of this as a hobby, and Dr. Kenneway is busy already. If CSG funds
>are to be used I suggest they be used to fund a specific scientific

project

>with a person that already has expertise in the field. For example, I
>suggest using that money for Dr. Abbott to do a series of animal learning
>experiments, or for Dr. McClelland to study group behavior, or Dr.

Vancouver

>to do something with organizational psychology: a specific scientific
>question led by a person with the relevant knowledge.
>
>Isaac

I'm sorry, Isaac, that you have the notion that everyone belongs in little
boxes and shouldn't go outside their specialty because it isn't "relevant"
to do so. How could Kent write about PCT in sociology if he didn't step
outside of his box to learn PCT in the first place? Why shouldn't Bruce
Abbott try to build a PCT-based robot? What do you know about what he
knows about doing this? Finally, what do you mean that Bill P. thinks of
this as a hobby? Bill has spent 50 years on his "hobby". It's called
Perceptual Control Theory. Maybe he should have just stayed in his box and
designed control systems. Sheesh.

Mary, chill. Bill, himself, said that he thought of THE ROBOT PROJECT as a
hobby and in his post he
dismissed the idea of science that has big S's. Ergo, he has no intention
in making this a presentable thing to the robotics literature.
My point was very modest. It was _not_ that people should _not_ learn
more.
(I have spent three years trying to catch up from my previously abysmal
training in math.)
Nor am I suggesting that Bruce is totally incapable of this. Only that to
do it _where anyone outside this clique_ gives a damn would require
a lot more tools than Bruce has. Briefly, a 4 year engineering degree, at
least. Since he does not even have calculus I would consider this not
"going outside the box" but a hobby project that has very little chance of
making a scientific impact anytime in the next four years.
This is also acknowleged by Bruce and Bill.
I'm also not saying "give me the money" lest that be an even slight
suspicion. I am saying that people that are interested in furthering PCT
by sponsoring projects that have no direction and, maybe, one expert are not
likely to be depressed. I also suspect that this is
is a subtle way of NIMBA--not in my backyard.
So I'd rather see donations go to a fund for specific scientific projects
that people have within their fields.
I don't think that is a "sheeshable" point.

Isaac

8

[from Mary Powers 04/15/02]

To Isaac:

Mary, chill. Bill, himself, said that he thought of THE ROBOT PROJECT as a
hobby

You may think hobbies are trivial pursuits, but you have no idea what a
hobby is for Bill. Come out to D'go some time and see his little satellite
tracking system, with the computer and extra monitor in the house and the
five cables going out the window to the observatory to control the
telescope, the tv system on the telescope, the other tv keeping an eye on
the telescope, the computer programs he has written for locating and
tracking and grabbing images...in other words, a hobby that calls on all
the things he knows about - math, engineering, computing. Not unlike PCT.

and in his post he dismissed the idea of science that has big S's. Ergo,
he has no intention of making this a presentable thing to the robotics
literature.

The intention is to make the thing work. If it does, it should be perfectly
presentable. If it does work and it is rejected by the robotics community,
the fault will not lie with Bruce or Bill.

Nor am I suggesting that Bruce is totally incapable of this.

No? I think that is exactly what you are suggesting. As it happens, he has
designed and built numerous electronic and mechanical devices, and has
access to many experts.

I am saying that people that are interested in furthering PCT by
sponsoring projects that have no direction and, maybe, one expert are not
likely to be depressed.

Do you mean impressed?

What do you mean by "no direction"? The direction here is perfectly clear:
build a walking robot using PCT as the fundamental design (instead of
tacking feedback circuits on here and there as is occasionally done).

So I'd rather see donations go to a fund for specific scientific projects
that people have within their fields. I don't think that is a "sheeshable"
point.

I still don't get why you think that this project, the reification of the
Kennaway Bug, is non-specific.

Part of the problem, Isaac, is that you think of "scientific fields" as
those listed in the university catalogs. I believe that most people in CSG
think of PCT as a scientific field. Why not? New fields are born all the
time - things like bioinformatics, and so forth. PCT is having a harder
time becoming accepted, because it is interdisciplinary, not a narrow
specialty, and therefore upsets a rather large number of apple carts. But
it is a scientific field nevertheless.

And while it is so very small, there is no reason for its research
proposals and procedures to be anything but informal.

···

At 01:02 PM 04/12/2002 -0700, you wrote:

9

i.kurtzer (2002.04.12)

Mary, I think you're defending your husband from an imaginary attack.
And I think my points were and remain valid.
Putting money into a project that lacks specific aims and isn't tied to
a legitimized literature are unlikely to be sucessful. If what you're
advocating works it would've 40 years ago.
It doesn't, it hasn't, and I doubt it will no matter how true PCT might be
or deluded everyone else is.
I suggest a specific scientific project by someone that knows the literature
would be best.

i.

10

[From Bruce Nevin (2002.04.19.1641 MDT)]

i.kurtzer (2002.04.10.1300EST)

> [From Bill Powers (2002.04.09.21328 MDT)]

I've been wondering how you get more than 24 hours in the day, Bill!

I feel it would be best to pool the money into a general and official
"Research Fund". Several individuals could even _apply_ for the funds with a grant proposal so people/donors have an idea about where and why the money is going where its going. Nothing too bureaucratic, just a professional summary with clear aims. This should benefit the prestige of the money giving body, CSG, and the individuals getting the money.

Setting aside contentious questions of scientific merit, engineering vs. science, etc. I strongly endorse the idea of broadening the purposes of this fund to establish a CSG fund for PCT research to which researchers could apply and in which donations could be earmarked for particular projects.

It happens that all the money so far in this fund are earmarked for the hexapod robot fund.

Framing it this way increases credibility (of the fund and of CSG with researchers, with other organizations, and with the IRS), may make it more attractive to potential donors, and may make it easier for researchers to get funds from other agencies by documenting some (possibly quite small) prior support from this fund.

BTW, my donation is delayed while I work to get the CSG added to the list of agencies, donations to which Cisco will match. The pledge is valid even if they for some reason balk at the match, but the process will be smoother if I have the match set up before the donation rather than after. They're working all this through a third party and they have a web site set up that suggests lists of charitable organizations to give to. Needless to say, CSG is not (yet) on any of the lists.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 01:28 PM 4/10/2002 -0700, Isaac Kurtzer wrote:

11

[From Bill Powers (2002.04.19.1452 MDT)]

  Bruce Nevin (2002.04.19.1641 MDT)--

Setting aside contentious questions of scientific merit, engineering vs.
science, etc. I strongly endorse the idea of broadening the purposes of
this fund to establish a CSG fund for PCT research to which researchers
could apply and in which donations could be earmarked for particular projects.

Fine with me, as long as the donations earmarked for the robot project
remain intact.

Best,

Bill P.