On display: constraints and limitations, control (systems control), power (capability, can do power), freedom (in fully-caused deterministic systems), types or varieties of freedom, decision-making, variation (organismal), incapability, collaboration.
Apparently those little buggers only weight 25lbs.
that's pretty cool. I can imagine a lot of potential in that medium. Or rather, those media (gel plus water hydraulics plus water environ). Ingenious!
Exciting times.
...
Wait. But "goal-directed"? How could that be? After all, these robots are simply "just" executing a set of "is" statements. Right?
Where is the "goal-directed" aspect? Whence comes the "ought"?
re: is vs ought
1. Silver is a better conductor of electricity than lead. (IS statement)
2. We ought to go skiing today. We ought to help these people. (OUGHT statements)
You cannot derive an ought from an is (so we're told).
“is” and “ought” seems like a false dichotomy. To me, “is” statements form rules and inputs to a system, while “ought” statements are outputs. You populate a bunch of “is statements” to describe a system that operates on dynamic environmental inputs, and you have probabilistic outputs attached to different input triggers to form the “ought” behaviors, and you can end up with highly variable output that is indistinguishable from a chaotic and messy human.
“is” and “ought” seems like a false dichotomy. To me, “is” statements form rules and inputs to a system, while “ought” statements are outputs.
...
It seems to me when we're discussing the famous - or infamous - "is vs ought" topic esp as it relates to computer programs, robotic systems or living organisms, the OUGHT is reflected by, or else incorporated into, the IS statement either by the designer/programmer in the case of the robot, as exemplified above, or by natural selection in the case of living things.
At the level of the human, the "ought" is rendered often as a moral or morality: We must (ought to, should) help these people.
RE: "ought” statements vis a vis outputs
It seems to me the IS and OUGHT work together reflexively in "designed" systems (by Man, by Mother Nature) to help render a system output.
It's too bad Hume couldn't spend some time in the 21st century, I bet he'd love to explore further his IS vs OUGHT dichotomy (esp in relation to evolutionary theory, systems control theory, etc) and further elaborate on it.
Wording it differently... a system designer has in mind beforehand the features, functions or goals she's trying to implement. Toward this end she shapes/steers the parameters, program, whatever - thereby incorporating into the IS the OUGHT! (almost as if my magic or the invisible hand).
The is-ought topic and its understanding is no longer philosophy, at least not academically; it's now, for many, straight up science and engineering.
I like to think if Hume didn't live a pre-evolutionary timeline, he might have become an evolutionary psychologist, systems control engineer... or perhaps even an inter-disciplinary blend of the two... or blend of many.
This change is imperceptible... -Hume
but nonetheless grok-able... in the context of (goal-directed) design (systems design, organismal design) either by engineer or evolution, in modern times.
Hume's Guillotine: The complete severing of "is" from "ought".
Thanks for that first link, HFCS. Reminds me of one of the episodes of Black Mirror this season. It was a scary one -- like a little doggie terminator. I don't feeling like playing around in these threads anymore. I'll stick my science reading.
I just read a review of that Black Mirror episode, Metalhead, that I mentioned in my previous post. Turns out, according to Black Mirror creator, Charlie Booker, this episode was inspired by these robotics videos by Boston Dynamics. How about that.
Whoa, Jim. Thanks for that. The result of some university robotics challenge? I can't imagine the work that went into making that "band." So the bots can play, but can they rock? Do they dig the head banging?
Let us know!