I just came back from a 3-day Summer School on self-organization here in Germany. Although it was about self-organization in general, and the participants were coming from all major German universities, nearly every member of the Summer School except myself was involved in developing software for WSNs (Wireless Sensor Networks), mostly with simulations (using ns-2) or real hardware, mainly with German ESB nodes, see http://www.scatterweb.net/research_products/esb.en.html There were also surprisingly few discussions about the definitions of self-organization or emergence. On the one hand this is a positive thing, since these discussions are always a bit like the debates at the first councils. At the first council of Nicaea for example, convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325, there was a debate if the Son is of the same substance as the Father, or if they are only of similar substance. It is the kind of problem you meet if you treat abstract concepts in a wrong way as terms for concrete things. These debates appear from a practical point of view often as irrelevant, meaningless and unnecessary. On the other hand I think that there is more to self-organization than sensor-networks, although sensor networks are probably typical examples of systems that need self-organization: systems that are very small or very large, very distributed or very remote, etc. Yet even in sensor-networks real self-organization - which is so badly needed - is more a wish than a reality. Popular algorithms (for instance routing protocols like AODV and DSR) are often only as simple as possible and rely on flooding without any spectacular form of self-organization. Concrete attempts to realize self-organization in WSNs usually end in a cramp. All participants for instance agreed that complicated algorithms to determine the topology of large sensor networks would probably never work in practice, see the Video "Geometry-Based Reasoning for a Large Sensor Network" at http://www.math.tu-bs.de/~ali/fk-geometry-mpeg4v2.avi (attention, quite large - 113 MB - but still worth it) So what do you think ? Are self-organization and sensor-networks synonymous ? Is it the best area to realize self-organization, or just another example where self-organization is hard to achieve ? -J. |
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 09:20:16PM +0200, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> > So what do you think ? Are self-organization and sensor-networks > synonymous ? Is it the best area to realize self-organization, > or just another example where self-organization is hard to achieve ? > > -J. > Certainly not synonymous. But I could imagine situations where self-organised behaviour is a useful property of a such a sensor network. Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish at unsw.edu.au Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-3
Jochen Fromm wrote:
> > So what do you think ? Self organization is a part of many systems/networks whether sensors or otherwise. > Are self-organization and sensor-networks synonymous ? No. > Is it the best area to realize self-organization, > or just another example where self-organization is hard to achieve ? I wouldn't think static sensor webs are the best area to realize self-organization. Sensor webs as I know them are static - that is the sensors themselves don't move. A much more interesting example of self-organization would be robotic agents in various applications. One application I have heard of would be robots randomly placed in an area that need to sweep the area for mines. The agent society fails if they don't cover the entire area. They need to account for losses due to finding the mines the hard way. If one assumes the environment is malevolent, then they need to communicate with each other but cannot freely trust each other. I've only heard of this performed in simulation. Actual robots were built, but not in the quantity needed for an actual test. There's also the Robot World Cup <http://www.robocup.org/>, which has teams of agents/robots that self-organize into football teams. The ad-hoc routing that is required for communication within dynamic self-organizing systems has to trade-off between the inefficiency of broadcast routing and continuous re-routing. One of the interesting concepts behind the Future Combat System (you can research this online) is the ad-hoc routing of the various components. I suppose one could call the nodes in FCS sensors, but that is not their primary function. -- Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 |
See attached.
Gus Koehler, Ph.D. Principal Time Structures 1545 University Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895 Cell: 916-716-1740 www.timestructures.com -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Raymond Parks Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:27 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization Jochen Fromm wrote: > > So what do you think ? Self organization is a part of many systems/networks whether sensors or otherwise. > Are self-organization and sensor-networks synonymous ? No. > Is it the best area to realize self-organization, or just another > example where self-organization is hard to achieve ? I wouldn't think static sensor webs are the best area to realize self-organization. Sensor webs as I know them are static - that is the sensors themselves don't move. A much more interesting example of self-organization would be robotic agents in various applications. One application I have heard of would be robots randomly placed in an area that need to sweep the area for mines. The agent society fails if they don't cover the entire area. They need to account for losses due to finding the mines the hard way. If one assumes the environment is malevolent, then they need to communicate with each other but cannot freely trust each other. I've only heard of this performed in simulation. Actual robots were built, but not in the quantity needed for an actual test. There's also the Robot World Cup <http://www.robocup.org/>, which has teams of agents/robots that self-organize into football teams. The ad-hoc routing that is required for communication within dynamic self-organizing systems has to trade-off between the inefficiency of broadcast routing and continuous re-routing. One of the interesting concepts behind the Future Combat System (you can research this online) is the ad-hoc routing of the various components. I suppose one could call the nodes in FCS sensors, but that is not their primary function. -- Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Independent Robots Team Up For Search Task.doc Type: application/msword Size: 148992 bytes Desc: not available Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060621/55db28f1/attachment-0001.doc |
In reply to this post by Parks, Raymond
Well, if sensor networks responded to what they sensed that would be
technically self-organizing wouldn't it? Trouble of course is someone has to design all that other circuitry and some prefered outcome... Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Raymond Parks > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 7:27 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization > > > Jochen Fromm wrote: > > > > So what do you think ? > > Self organization is a part of many systems/networks > whether sensors > or otherwise. > > > Are self-organization and sensor-networks synonymous ? > > No. > > > Is it the best area to realize self-organization, > > or just another example where self-organization is hard to achieve ? > > I wouldn't think static sensor webs are the best area to realize > self-organization. Sensor webs as I know them are static - > that is the > sensors themselves don't move. A much more interesting example of > self-organization would be robotic agents in various applications. > > One application I have heard of would be robots randomly > placed in an > area that need to sweep the area for mines. The agent > society fails if > they don't cover the entire area. They need to account for > losses due > to finding the mines the hard way. If one assumes the environment is > malevolent, then they need to communicate with each other but cannot > freely trust each other. I've only heard of this performed in > simulation. Actual robots were built, but not in the quantity needed > for an actual test. > > There's also the Robot World Cup > <http://www.robocup.org/>, which has > teams of agents/robots > that self-organize into football teams. > > The ad-hoc routing that is required for communication > within dynamic > self-organizing systems has to trade-off between the inefficiency of > broadcast routing and continuous re-routing. > > One of the interesting concepts behind the Future Combat > System (you > can research this online) is the ad-hoc routing of the various > components. I suppose one could call the nodes in FCS > sensors, but that > is not their primary function. > > -- > Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov > IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 > IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 > http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 > http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
In reply to this post by Parks, Raymond
No, they don't self-organize into football teams. It is perhaps what they should do, but reality looks very different. Two of my colleagues are taking part in the RoboCup and just came back from the tournament in Bremen (see http://carpenoctem.das-lab.net/). >From what I have learned, the RoboCup teams do the following: the AIBOs crawl around aimlessly and hit the own goal, the fragile humanoid robots fall backwards everytime they kick the ball, and only the robots of the middle size league offer more or less interesting games. Even they are unable to coordinate and organize themselves, usually all team members head for the ball at the same time until they form a big knot of robots, and if one manages to get behind the ball he tries to kick the ball directly towards the goal. Not a very smart behavior, and no robot team is able to implement a more complex behavior such as give-and-go. Even real soccer teams don't organize themselves as you can observe in the world cup currently. Every team member has a clear role (goal keeper-defender-midfielder-striker), the overall strategy is determined by the coach or trainer, and most of the goals are caused by some kind of accident. I like to consider a soccer game as a sort of co-evolution conflict between two adaptive systems, where each system tries to adapt itself to the other. Normally the boundary between both systems shifts slowly from one goal to the other, on the one side are the players of team 1, on the other side are players of team 2. A goal is usually only possible if the balance is disrupted quickly enough by an accident or a surprise attack, if the imbalance is strongly enough to disrupt the process of adaptation. -J. -----Original Message----- From: Raymond Parks Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:27 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization There's also the Robot World Cup <http://www.robocup.org/>, which has teams of agents/robots that self-organize into football teams. |
Yea, how far away would anyone guess it is to the invention of the first
'intelligent' machine? Do you think it's a matter of one or many missing discoveries, or just applying current knowledge in a more complex way? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:35 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization > > > > No, they don't self-organize into football teams. It is > perhaps what they should do, but reality looks very > different. Two of my colleagues are taking part in the > RoboCup and just came back from the tournament in Bremen (see > http://carpenoctem.das-lab.net/). > >From what I have learned, the RoboCup teams do the following: > the AIBOs crawl around aimlessly and hit the own goal, the fragile > humanoid robots fall backwards everytime they kick the ball, > and only the robots of the middle size league offer more or less > interesting games. Even they are unable to coordinate and organize > themselves, usually all team members head for the ball at the > same time > until they form a big knot of robots, and if one manages to > get behind the ball he tries to kick the ball directly > towards the goal. Not a very smart behavior, and no robot > team is able to implement a > more complex behavior such as give-and-go. > > Even real soccer teams don't organize themselves as you can observe > in the world cup currently. Every team member has a clear role > (goal keeper-defender-midfielder-striker), the overall strategy > is determined by the coach or trainer, and most of the goals are > caused by some kind of accident. I like to consider a soccer > game as a sort of co-evolution conflict between two adaptive > systems, where each system tries to adapt itself to the > other. Normally the boundary between both systems shifts > slowly from one goal to the other, on the one side are the > players of team 1, on the other side are players of team 2. A > goal is usually only > possible if the balance is disrupted quickly enough by an > accident or a surprise attack, if the imbalance is strongly > enough to disrupt the process of adaptation. > > -J. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Parks > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:27 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization > > There's also the Robot World Cup <http://www.robocup.org/>, > which has > teams of agents/robots that self-organize into football teams. > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
Intelligence is a very fuzzy and cloudy concept. My guess it that the first machines with human-like intelligence and self-consciousness are not far away, 10-20 years perhaps (see the bets at http://www.longbets.org/1 or http://www.longbets.org/15). This will certainly be a major breakthrough - the next big evolutionary transition. I personally think it is easier to build intelligent agents in virtual worlds than robots in real worlds, and I would expect the breakthrough here in the virtual world. For the "secret of true AI", see the discussion at http://tinyurl.com/j4qck or http://tinyurl.com/k88wd -J. -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 2:43 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization Yea, how far away would anyone guess it is to the invention of the first 'intelligent' machine? Do you think it's a matter of one or many missing discoveries, or just applying current knowledge in a more complex way? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com |
My guess it won't happen that soon. The major hurdle I see is
intelligence doesn't come from passively conforming to an imposed landscape (Darwin's idea), but from creatively exploring discovered ones (the living systems idea). ...I think maybe we're making great progress, but sort of need to start over with our design principle reversed! Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:37 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization > > > > Intelligence is a very fuzzy and cloudy concept. My guess > it that the first machines with human-like intelligence > and self-consciousness are not far away, 10-20 years > perhaps (see the bets at http://www.longbets.org/1 or > http://www.longbets.org/15). This will > certainly be a > major > breakthrough - the next big evolutionary transition. > I personally think it is easier to build intelligent > agents in virtual worlds than robots in real worlds, > and I would expect the breakthrough here in the virtual > world. For the "secret of true AI", see the discussion at -J. -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 2:43 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization Yea, how far away would anyone guess it is to the invention of the first 'intelligent' machine? Do you think it's a matter of one or many missing discoveries, or just applying current knowledge in a more complex way? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> My guess it won't happen that soon. The major hurdle I see is > intelligence doesn't come from passively conforming to an imposed > landscape (Darwin's idea), but from creatively exploring discovered ones > (the living systems idea). ...I think maybe we're making great > progress, but sort of need to start over with our design principle > reversed! In reply to Jochen Fromm: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm > > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:37 AM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sensor networks and self-organization > > > > > > > > Intelligence is a very fuzzy and cloudy concept. My guess > > it that the first machines with human-like intelligence > > and self-consciousness are not far away, 10-20 years > > perhaps (see the bets at http://www.longbets.org/1 or > > http://www.longbets.org/15). This will > certainly be a > > major > > breakthrough - the next big evolutionary transition. > > I personally think it is easier to build intelligent > > agents in virtual worlds than robots in real worlds, > > and I would expect the breakthrough here in the virtual > > world. For the "secret of true AI", see the discussion at > http://tinyurl.com/j4qck or http://tinyurl.com/k88wd My opinion, FWIW, is that we will never see machines exhibit human-like intelligence and self-consciousness. I'm not saying that machines will never exhibit intelligence and self-consciousness equivalent to humans. I'm saying that machines will be different but equal. Machines may come to the same conclusion as a human but will follow different paths in reasoning to that conclusion. Especially if we make machines that are self-aware/self-conscious, we will see that their behaviours will be unexpected. The analog is the difference between human intelligence and that of animals. When faced with the same circumstances (or equivalent) that require the same intelligence as an animal faced with the circumstance, humans will make different choices than the animals. This, of course, presumes that one believes that animals are intelligent, albeit to a lesser degree than humans. -- Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |