Advertisement

Can Wheeled Robots Illuminate Adaptive Behaviour?

  • Jon Bird
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2159)

Abstract

This paper evaluates Bedau’s proposal that the fundamental properties of living systems are best investigated using unrealistic models. Two issues raised by this position are considered. Firstly, how can unrealistic models be validated? Secondly, can unrealistic models produce, rather than just simulate, the phenomena they aim to explain? The discussion is focussed by considering wheeled robot models of adaptive behaviour.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M.A. Bedau. Can Unrealistic Computer Models Illuminate Theoretical Biology? In A.S. Wu, Editor, Proceedings of the 1999 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Workshop Program, Orlando, Florida, July 13, 20–23, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. A. Keijzer. Some Armchair Worries about Wheeled Behavior. In R. Pfeifer, B. Blumberg, J.-A. Meyer and S.W. Wilson, Editors. From Animals to Animats 4: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. MIT Press/ Bradford Books, 13–21, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E.A. Di Paolo, J. Noble and S. Bullock. Simulation Models as Opaque Thought Experiments. In M.A. Bedau, J.S. McCaskill, N.H. Packard and S. Rasmussen, Editors, Artificial Life VII: The Seventh International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems, Reed College, Portland, Oregon, USA, 1–6 August, 497–506, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Webb. Using Robots to Model Animals: A Cricket Test. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 16, 117–134, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    H.H. Lund, B. Webb and J. Hallam. A Robot Attracted to the Cricket Species Gryllus buimaculatus. In P. Husbands, and I. Harvey, Editors, Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life, MIT Press, 246–255, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Pfeifer and C. Scheier. Understanding Intelligence. MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Sober. Learning from Functionalism-The Prospects for Strong Artificial Life. In [9], 361–378, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H.H. Pattee. Simulations, Realizations, and Theories of Life. In [9], 379–393, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.A. Boden, Editor. Philosophy of Artificial Life. Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T.S. Ray. An Approach to the Synthesis of Life. In C. Taylor, J.D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen, Editors, Artificial Life II, Santa Fe Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, 10 [12], 371–408, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Cariani. Emergence and Artificial Life. In C. Taylor, J.D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen, Editors, Artificial Life II, Santa Fe Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, 10 [12], 775–797, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.G. Langton, C. Taylor, J.D. Farmer and S. Rasmussen, Editors, Artificial Life II, Santa Fe Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proceedings, 10, Addison-Wesley, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Dennett. Brain Children: Essays in Designing Minds. Penguin, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Bird
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Computational Neuroscience and Robotics School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations