I have a hard time considering the Phalanx a robot. For one, it is completely stationary as it is physically mounted onto some sort of manned vessel or vehicle and cannot roll relative to it's ground station. Traditionally, a robot requires more than two degrees of freedom to describe it's pose (even though it may only move within two degrees in an environment. This is considered non-holonomic). Second, I'm not sure what differentiates it from any other stationary gun with a FCS.
Second, I'm not sure what differentiates it from any other stationary gun with a FCS.
Because the Phalanx is an entirely self contained system. It contains it's own FCS, Searches for, detects, tracks, and it makes it's own decision on if it shall engage a target or not, then confirms the kill before seeking a new target. Once switched on, it generally requires minimal human intervention to perform it's duty - In fact, the only human intervention needed in it's regular operation - not counting maintenance, of course - is to turn the system on, and change the Magazine when it runs dry.
What's your definition of a robot, then? I can't see why degrees of freedom should come into it.
Again, we don't consider washing machines robots. But like Luke said, they can sense and respond in an intelligent manner. The reason being is that they are limited to one degree of freedom. A Robot is some sort of unmanned system which can sense and interact with it's environment through moving, manipulating, and responding with intelligence. It's not really a precise definition and sort of a subjective decision, but there is no real consensus of what is a robot.
I lay my line around the presence of sensor-related feedback loops and reactive behavior.
Cheap washing machines just load water and spin. Expensive ones determine how much water to load based on what's inside of them. The latter is a low-end robot, while the former is a high-end device.
A car is not a robot, but one could argue that individual mechanisms within a car could be called robotic.
What? Of course not. It doesn't have any moving parts or physical interaction with other things.
but you did not mention feedback until your most recent post.
I only made two posts. One of them used the word "feedback" and the other described the same concept but without using that word. I'm not making any new assertions.
What? Of course not. It doesn't have any moving parts or physical interaction with other things.
Moving parts? No. But there is obviously physical interaction.
I only made two posts. One of them used the word "feedback" and the other described the same concept but without using that word. I'm not making any new assertions.
Acting on data gathered by sensors does not imply feedback. A computer with a keyboard input has sensors and acts on the data gathered by them, but there is no feedback.
Acting on data gathered by sensors does not imply feedback.
Again, you are taking one part of my original statement alone, and ignoring the other part! Why don't you take the full statement as I originally wrote it, and discuss that.
"independent control over its actions, using data gathered by its own sensors."
The word independent is as important as control which is as important as actions which is as important as data which is as important as gathered which is as important as own which is as important as sensors. If you want to bring up an example to dispute my statement, first check it against the words I've used.
That's why I asked you in the first place what "independent control over actions" means, but rather than answer that question you told me that feedback was "the important part"
You aren't understanding the plain English I am using then.
Independent = from the beginning to the end of a task, it doesn't need supervision from a human to perform the task (safety concerns aside). If a human is controlling the action, it isn't independent control.
Control = it is guiding an action in some way.
Action = something is happening that effects the world.
Using data = it relies on information to make a decision, rather than operating automatically.
Gathered = it senses its environment.
Own sensors = If it needs to have a human to help in this regard, it is no longer independent.
Again, I'm not sure which of these concepts you are failing to grasp. I'm being really, really clear here.
So I gather human involvement disqualifies the chess computer for you?
That's an oversimplification. By the very same logic, nothing is a robot, for all things make decisions based on the code, created by man. The programmer has already made every choice there was to make.
I think if it had some sort of mechanical apparatus for moving the chess pieces around a physical board, I'll call it a robot, but if it doesn't, I wouldn't.
So I gather human involvement disqualifies the chess computer for you?
That's an oversimplification. By the very same logic, nothing is a robot, for all things make decisions based on the code, created by man. The programmer has already made every choice there was to make.
Granted, but my comment was in the context of Luke's explicit definition. If it's playing against a human then direct human supervision is required in order for it to play chess, hence it wouldn't class as independent.
However, my next question would then be "What if it were playing against another computer?"
Let me explain with images, because words are obviously too complicated for you to understand
Independent control over its actions, using data gathered by its own sensors:
Non-independent control over the actions of a human, using data not gathered by its own sensors.
Seriously, I'm not going to continue explaining very basic English words and very simple concepts to you. If you've got any real questions which aren't answered implicitly by my original statement, I'll answer them, but just asking for yes or no answers isn't particularly stimulating.
Nowhere did I mention a chessboard of the kind in your images. Churba got that point and mentioned that for his definition of robot there had to be one, which is fine. You seem to have completely missed the point. I'm talking about a computer communicating with another computer in what happens to be a chess game with no human involvement at all.
Now, take one of the computers in this hypothetical situation, and draw the line between the entity in question and the environment at its I/O ports. It is independent, since as I said before there is no human involvement. It is taking an action, since it is outputting a signal to its environment. It senses its environment, since it receives a signal.
If we replace the computer it's playing against with a human, I don't think this should change whether or not it's considered a robot. So, I think that based on your definition of "robot", the answer to "Is a computer running a human vs computer game of chess a robot?" should be "yes".
How does electricity flowing along a wire constitute action? If you are taking alternative definition of this word, that is fine, but then I'll have to put a clearer definition in place. Action requires some kind of physical influence on the world apart from the robot, and considering a robot is a kind of machine, I take this to mean some kind of motion. If you think electricity flowing along a wire constitutes an action, then you've rendered the word meaningless, along with any definition of robot I can possibly give.
I'm not sure how one computer is interacting with another in your example. Is there a physical chess board and piece involved at all? If parts aren't moving physically on a board, the entire concept of robot is reduced to "any kind of electrical signal" which is quite reductive. Too reductive.
If he wants to put forward his own definition of robot, we can see how it matches up to mine, but at the moment there is no discussion. He wants me to answer a question when he has different definition of "action", and defines "sensor" as "recognizing preformatted signals generated by a computer inputted into a wire" while my working definition would be more like "a device which allows a computer to measure real world information". Also gathering does not equal receiving.
Comments
Cheap washing machines just load water and spin. Expensive ones determine how much water to load based on what's inside of them. The latter is a low-end robot, while the former is a high-end device.
A car is not a robot, but one could argue that individual mechanisms within a car could be called robotic.
"independent control over its actions, using data gathered by its own sensors."
The word independent is as important as control which is as important as actions which is as important as data which is as important as gathered which is as important as own which is as important as sensors. If you want to bring up an example to dispute my statement, first check it against the words I've used.
Is a computer running a human vs computer game of chess a robot?
Independent = from the beginning to the end of a task, it doesn't need supervision from a human to perform the task (safety concerns aside). If a human is controlling the action, it isn't independent control.
Control = it is guiding an action in some way.
Action = something is happening that effects the world.
Using data = it relies on information to make a decision, rather than operating automatically.
Gathered = it senses its environment.
Own sensors = If it needs to have a human to help in this regard, it is no longer independent.
Again, I'm not sure which of these concepts you are failing to grasp. I'm being really, really clear here.
However, my next question would then be "What if it were playing against another computer?"
Independent control over its actions, using data gathered by its own sensors:
Non-independent control over the actions of a human, using data not gathered by its own sensors.
Seriously, I'm not going to continue explaining very basic English words and very simple concepts to you. If you've got any real questions which aren't answered implicitly by my original statement, I'll answer them, but just asking for yes or no answers isn't particularly stimulating.
I'm talking about a computer communicating with another computer in what happens to be a chess game with no human involvement at all.
Now, take one of the computers in this hypothetical situation, and draw the line between the entity in question and the environment at its I/O ports. It is independent, since as I said before there is no human involvement. It is taking an action, since it is outputting a signal to its environment. It senses its environment, since it receives a signal.
If we replace the computer it's playing against with a human, I don't think this should change whether or not it's considered a robot. So, I think that based on your definition of "robot", the answer to "Is a computer running a human vs computer game of chess a robot?" should be "yes".
I'm not sure how one computer is interacting with another in your example. Is there a physical chess board and piece involved at all? If parts aren't moving physically on a board, the entire concept of robot is reduced to "any kind of electrical signal" which is quite reductive. Too reductive.