Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!umich!caen.engin.umich.edu!srvr1!zarnuk From: zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: "Sensor Evolution" Message-ID: <1990Mar22.182005.3293@caen.engin.umich.edu> Date: 22 Mar 90 18:20:00 GMT References: <782@berlioz.nsc.com> Sender: news@caen.engin.umich.edu (Mr. Usenet) Organization: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Lines: 42 > andrew@dtg.nsc.com (Lord Snooty) writes: > [... How can a machine know when/how to build its own > sensors/actuators? ...] Mankind has been building its own sensors for a couple of centuries now. The development of radar, radio, telescopes, microscopes (...ad nauseum...) represent sensors which humans have developed to extend the capabilities of the ones that were "built-in". How/why did humans develop these instruments? 1) Recognizing "interesting" characteristics of existing devices and extrapolating, experimenting. 2) Recognizing logical implications of existing "world-models" which imply the existence of some property/characteristic beyond current sensor- capabilities and applying the results of (1) above to investigate the predictions of that "world-model". 3) Serendipity. 4) Market-forces. I am not really trying to assign any "intentional" force to mankind as a whole. However, I think it is fair to assign "intention" to most of the individuals who have been primarily responsible for the development of these "sensors". I think the motivations/methods implied by (1) and (2) are machine-implementable. The program "AM" by Doug Linnet (then at Stanford) was supposed to have developed its own "tools" for investigating set-theory. It was given an initial set of characteristics which were "interesting" and a small number of simple axioms from set-theory. Not only did the program go on to expand its small set of tools (--this is the program that "discovered" prime numbers--), but it also went on to refine its meaning of "interesting". ---Paul...