With the advent of artificial life, we may be the
first creatures to create our own successors. . . If we fail in our task as
creators, they may indeed be cold and malevolent. However, if we succeed, they
may be glorious, enlightened creatures that far surpass us in their
intelligence and wisdom. It is quite possible that, when conscious beings of
the future look back on this era, we will be most noteworthy not in and of
ourselves but rather for what we gave rise to. Artificial life is potentially
the most beautiful creation of humanity (Doyne Farmer and Alletta Belin).
Christopher Langton is the main originator of the
subject of artificial life. The term artificial life (AL, or Alife) was coined by him around 1970: AL
is ‘. . an inclusive paradigm that
attempts to realize lifelike behaviour by imitating the processes that occur in
the development or mechanics of life.’
In the more
familiar field of artificial intelligence (AI) one uses computers to model
neuropsychology. Likewise, in the field of AL one uses computers to model the
basic biological mechanisms of evolution and life (Heudin 1999). In
abstracting the basic life processes, the AL approach emphasizes the fact that
life is not a property of matter per se, but the organization of that matter. The laws of life must be laws of
dynamical form, independent of the details of a particular carbon-based
chemistry that just happened to arise here on Earth. It attempts to
explore other possible biologies in new media, namely computers and robots.
The idea is to
view life-as-we-know-it in the
context of life-as-it-could-be. There
was a recent report of how Lee Cronin of the University of Glasgow
could create lifelike cells out of metal.
In
conventional biology one tries to understand life phenomena by a process of analysis: We take a living community or
organism, and try to make sense of it by subdividing it into its building
blocks. By contrast, AL takes the synthesis
or bottom-up route. We start with an assembly of very simple interacting units,
and see how they evolve under a given set of conditions, and how they change
when the environmental conditions are changed.
One of the
most striking characteristics of a living organism is the distinction between
its genotype and phenotype. The genotype
can be thought of as a collection of little computer programs, running in
parallel, one program per gene. When activated, each of these programs enters
into the logical fray by competing and/or cooperating with the other active
programs. And, collectively, these interacting programs carry out an overall
computation that is the phenotype. The system evolves towards the best solution of a posed problem.
By analogy,
the term GTYPE is introduced in the field of AL to refer to any collection of
low-level rules. Similarly, PTYPE means the structure and/or behaviour that
results (emerges) when these
rules are activated in a specific environment.
What makes
life and brain and mind possible is a certain kind of balance between the
forces of order and the forces of disorder. In other words, there should be an edge-of-chaos existence. Only such
systems are both stable enough to store information, and yet evanescent enough
to transmit it.
Life is not
just like a computation; life literally is computation. And once we
have consciously made a link between life and computation, an immense amount of
computational theory can be brought in. For example, the question ‘Why is life
full of surprises?’ is answered in terms of the undecidability theorem of computer science, according to
which, unless a computer program is utterly trivial, the fastest way to find
out what it would do (does it have bugs or not?) is to actually run it and see.
This explains why, although a biochemical machine or an AL machine is
completely under the control of a program (the GTYPE), it still has surprising,
spontaneous behaviour in the PTYPE. It never reaches equilibrium, and there is
perpetual novelty.
The
computational aspect of the AL approach invokes the theory of complex
dynamical systems (Wadhawan 2010). Such
systems can be described at various levels of complexity, the global properties
at one level emerging from the interactions among a large number of simple
elements at the next lower level of complexity. The exact nature of the
emergence is, of course, unpredictable because of the extreme
nonlinearities involved.
Here are some
websites devoted to artificial life:
- http://biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/bio3/AI/A_LIFE/a_life.html
- http://www.biota.org/nervegarden
- http://www.digitalspace.com/avatars
- http://www.biota.org/
Life arose from an interplay of the blind forces of
Nature, with one thing leading to another. There was no 'Designer' involved. In
1986 Richard Dawkins published his famous book The Blind Watchmaker. The book also had the Blind Watchmaker Applet. The computer code mimics Nature's power of
cumulative Darwinian natural selection in the evolution of life. Of course, it is not possible to simulate all the
complex interactions at work in a real system in Nature. But the applet catches
the essence of the processes by introducing slight variations in each
generation of the population, the 'selection' being determined by the whims and
fancies of the user. Here is a sampling of the kind of 'biomorphs' that get
'created':
Truly exciting
times are ahead! It's a jolly good idea to be a science-literate person.
No comments:
Post a Comment