Re: >H Self reshaping robots

Forrest Bishop (
Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:24:04 -0500 (CDT)

>>>..... it seems
>>> obvious that the concept will be very successful in the long run.
>>Well, it depends. I agree that the basic idea is quite neat, but
>>there is an appalling lack of technical information and calculation
>>on the pages (including the "academic" section - what?! no literature
>>references?). Of course, this could be because Robodyne wants to
>>patent it etc., but there are enough grandiose claims about
>>terraforming, uploading, nanotechnology and self-repair to make my
>>bogosity detectors chime.

Um yeah. This has been detrimental to my own work, as comparisons have
been drawn.

I have asked Joe Michael about these things
>>but have not yet got an answer.

I wouldn't hold my breath. There is also a 'Stellar Drive" at the site that purports to
exploit a "little known flaw" in Maxwell's Equations...

>>Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
>I agree that there are a huge number of details to be worked out- a lot
>would depnd on how self contained you coudl make these things, as well as
>the scale you could make them at.. And the site certainly does send the
>hype-meter way over into the red. I'm not about to send this guy any money
>(even if I had it..heh), but I think the basic idea of these cubes which can
>organize themselves is a very poweful one. In fact I've started working
>this morning on a program to simulate the idea and see what I can get them
>to do with a few basic rules.

I published a paper in an IEEE Proceedings on CA modeling of these structures.
I'll put it on my website pretty soon.

As I've said, I have no idea how original
>this all is- in fact it seems almost impossible that Robodyne is the
>originator of the concept....

I am not sure if Joe Michael (he is essentially Robodyne) thought it up
independently or not (nor do I care). See the "Me n Joe" post.

Forrest Bishop