ALife day 5

ALife day 5; last but not least.

The day started as usual with a fascinating keynote: today it was Linda Smith on “We need a developmental theory of environments”. Linda’s work is on development in human babies. She has gathered a rich corpus of information on babies’ perceived environments over their first two years of life. This has been gathered from head-mounted cameras (which today are so small they are just a chip in a headband), and demonstrate convincingly that the baby’s perceived environment changes dramatically over time, and that those changes are deeply embedded in its development. Early on, there are lots of close up faces, of a few adults. Later on, the baby’s view moves to hands: watching others, and its own, manipulating objects. Different experiments demonstrate the essential nature of the body / brain / environment feedback loop.  What is in this loop changes as the baby grows, and we need to understand when and how. And, of course (unless you are purely into how to experiment on babies for fun and profit), what does this tell us about developmental artificial life? The (perceived) environment is crucial to development.

I then went to the morning technical session on Artificial Chemistries, a potential substrate for ALife. We started with a talk on a novel replicator system based on a chemistry of functional combinators, with conservation of mass. The crucial design tradeoff is not to make the underlying artificial physics so strong that replication is trivial (a “copy organism” operation in the physics), nor to make it so sparse that replication is computationally infeasible. One way to strike the happy medium is to ensure the “functional units” are composed of a few “primitive units”, giving the system a small but crucial distance from the “atoms”. Next we heard about an extension of Hutton’s original replicator AChem, adding kinetics under the Gillespie algorithm, to find a “sweet spot” where a rich set of reaction occur in a computationally feasible time. Then we heard about “messy chemistries”, those that produce a wide range of uncontrolled products, and the conditions for one of the products to come to dominate, suggesting a “selection-first” AChem route to ALife. Then we had a description of a reaction-diffusion system incorporating energetics, and how a combination of exothermic and endothermic reaction systems can stabilise temperature across a region. Finally, we heard about taking mathematics seriously in order to use algebraic concepts, particularly non-associative algebras, to design a novel sub-symbolic AChem.

Then on to the closing keynote of the conference: Katie Bentley on “Do Endothelial Cells Dream of Eclectic Shape?” She explained the title: her work is about computational modelling of real biological systems, based on computational complex systems approaches. She had been warned biologists wouldn’t read something with the word “computational” in the title, so needed to use just biological words. But she wanted to signal to the CS-types that this might be of interest to them too, so used the punning title. She asked us if we got the pun: all but one hand went up. She then asked that person if they had seen the film; yes. She told us that if this was a straight biological conference, no one would have got the pun, and hardly anyone would have seen the film. Divided communities indeed. She went on to describe her computational model of vascular growth, in normal tissue and in tumours. Agent Based modelling, combined with real data and close interactions with biologists (who know which published results to trust, and which not), have resulted in several predictions that have been tested and confirmed in the wet lab. Mostly information flows from biology to ALife; this work demonstrates a great feedback from ALife into biology.

Then it was all over bar the closing ceremony: information about the International Society for ALife, the next two ALife conferences (ECAL 2017 in Lyon, France; ALife 2018 in Japan), and a variety of awards for best papers, lifetime achievements, and contributions to the community.

A truly excellent conference, in content and in organisation. I had a wonderful time, and my head is buzzing with ideas and connections. My neural pathways have been exercised and reconfigured. I need to go home and process all this information further.

Next year in Lyon.

ALife day 4

ALife day 4. I’m at that point in conference-going where I keep having to check what day it is, as I’ve lost track.  Apparently it’s Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays.

This particular Thursday started brilliantly. Keynote speaker Randall Beer talked about “Autopoiesis and Enaction in the Game of Life”. Autopoiesis, or system self-production and self-maintenance, can be a slippery concept to explain. Beer takes the Game of Life, and uses it as a “toy” system, to get a handle on the concepts. The key is to look at the GoL from a process perspective (a toy “chemistry”), rather than from the more usual automaton perspective (the lower-level GoL toy “physics”). (This new modelling perspective is emergent under our definition, as it is actually a new meta-model.) In this different view, a glider can be seen as a very primitive autopoietic system, a network of processes constituting a well-defined identity that is self-maintained. In a marvellous tour de force, Beer showed how all the components fit together, and how GoL can be used to explain and illuminate concepts from autopoiesis in a beautifully clear and elegant manner.

The morning technical session was on Development (although not all the papers were). We started off with a discussion of the relationship between developmental encodings and hierarchical modular structure. Next; simulation is crucial for many ALife experiments, and MecaCell is one being built for developmental experiments. Then our paper; Bioreflective architectures generalise and combine the concepts of computational reflection and von Neumann’s Universal Constructor. Finally; it can be difficult to evolve heterogeneous specialist cooperative behaviours unless the specialists can recognise their partners.

The afternoon keynote was Francisco Santos talking about “Climate Change Governance, Cooperation and Self-organization”. This was an application of game theory in large finite populations to cooperation and coordination problems. He showed some counter-intuitive results: it is easier to get global cooperation via small groups initially, and it is better for small groups to invoke actions than to leave enforcement to a global organisation. In the end, the results show the old adage: think globally, act locally”, and that there is yet hope for cooperation.

I then went to the technical session on “Living technology and Human-Computer interaction”. First there were a couple of talks on the EvoBot, a modular liquid handling robot, covering both the hardware and the software. This system, being built as part of the EvoBliss EU project, is an open source design that costs two orders of magnitude less than current laboratory systems. It allows programmable chemical experiments, with precise, repetitive, complex operations. Real-time droplet identification allows complex operations to be specified. For example, it can be programmed to apply a droplet, wait for the droplet to start moving with a certain speed, then suck the droplet back up again; or to apply a chemical once an array of droplets has clustered. Next we learned about developing a computational agent to “play” a cooperative herding game with novice humans: some of the humans learned how to play from the agent, some never did, and most thought they were playing with another person. Finally we heard about a NetLogo-based approach to teaching school children about complex systems principles.

My brain is full, and there is still a day to go!

ALife day 3

Day 3 of ALife, and the great science continues!

First up was the keynote by Jorge M. Pacheco, on “Linking Individual to Collective Behavior in Complex Adaptive Networks”. A nice discussion of investigating iterated prisoner-dilemma cooperation-defection situations where the agents are distributed over social networks. Agents can change their behaviours (from Cooperator to Defector or v.v, by copying the strategy of their most successful neighbours), or change their network (both Cs and Ds want to drop connections to Ds, but Ds want to make connections to Cs). Interestingly, it seems that changing the network (changing who your friends are) is more effective than changing your strategy (changing what you do). So it’s best to isolate defectors. (Hmm.)

Next was the morphology session. Although several of the speakers admitted their work wasn’t truly about morphology, all the talks were all interesting. We heard about difficulties of co-evolving morphology and body controllers. Morphology seems to converge quickly, because if it changes, the co-evolving brain can’t adapt fast enough. The speaker had some suggestions on how to improve the situation. Next we heard about evolving soft body robots, exploiting “passive dynamics” and using this capability as a sort of embodied “computational reservoir”. Then there was an examination of how the shape of space (a “donut” shaped torus v a “bicycle tyre” shaped torus) affects iterated prisoner dilemma: donuts are better. Then finally there was a nice talk about co-evolving predator field of view and prey “swarminess”, with interesting Red Queen style oscillations: prey evolve to swarm to confuse the predator, which evolves a narrower field of view to avoid confusion, so the prey then evolve to scatter to hide from the focussed predator, which evolves a wider field of view, and so on.

The second keynote of the day was Mark Bickhard, talking on “Cognition and the Brain”. In a brilliant talk, he covered what it means to be an anticipatory system (having a set of possible future actions to choose from), and how that can allow representation to be true or false (to see if a representation is true, wait and see what the future brings). The talk wove together this philosophy with details about microstructures in the brain, particularly the possible role of glial cells being large scale slow processes that modify the attractor landscape of the brain to influence smaller scale faster neural processes. The whole approach sits within a process philosophy, which permits the emergence that duality is designed to make impossible. I now want to go away and simulate the nested oscillator modulatable resonant architecture he speculated might underlie these processes.

The final session of the day was on computational biology, with a range of talks covering the self-organisation of badger latrines, chopping the tails off tadpoles, making C.Elegans models that swim correctly, a multiscale simulation of E.Coli (from molecular to Petri dish scales), and experiments on the evolution of genetic networks. That’s quite a varied bunch!

ALife day 2

Day 2 of ALife, and more great science!

First was Ezequiel Di Paolo’s keynote on “Gilbert Simondon and the enactive conception of life and mind”. There are a lot of French philosophers whose work is relevant to complexity and systems and ALife who I have heard of but not read (Gilles Deleuze, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Edgar Morin), but Gilbert Simondon was one I hadn’t heard of (and so presumably haven’t read, either). As I understand the presentation, Simondon was critiquing the duality of matter and form: form is intrinsically embodied in the rich physical material. Examples range from bricks, turbines, to life itself. The systems more and more exploit the rich embodied properties of their material embodiment. There is a process of individuation, or taking of form, but it is the process, not the end-point, that is key. There is a pre-individual state full of potentialities, which are exploited during the individuation process, and the fully individuated system has no more potentialities, and so is “dead”. Matter is more than mere stuff, it includes potentialities, transformations, operations, and changes. There was a lot more in the talk, all fascinating. I may have to start reading this particular French philosopher!

I didn’t get to go to any of the morning technical sessions, as I was in a committee meeting. So the next thing, after perusing the posters in the reception area, was the next keynote, Alexandra Penn’s, on “Artificial Life and Society: Philosophies and Tools for Experiencing, Interacting with and Managing Real World Complex Adaptive Systems”. Alex described how her group was using a participative approach to systems modelling, including diverse stakeholders. The models built are deliberately rough and ready, partly because there is no hard data, but partly to make it easier for the stakeholders to challenge them. Modelling allows for the discovery of relevant factors, and for diverse stakeholders to appreciate each other’s concerns. Analysis of the resulting models then allows the exploration of scenarios and identification of system levers. Since the system will respond to manipulations, there needs to be a continual modelling and monitoring process. The metaphor is system steering, rather than system control.

Then it was off to the snappily titled “Synthesising Concepts from Biology and Computer Science” (SCBCS) workshop. This was a bunch of short presentations about potentially suitable areas for writing review articles: diversity, fitness, open-ended evolution, self-modification, plasticity, modularity, recombination, co-evolution, Each of these areas is important in computer science (“natural” computing) and in biology. What could each discipline learn from the other? I find review articles that engage in deep synthesis some of the most valuable publications: they bring together small patches of research, and actually build the subject area. A good review is not a mere “annotated bibliography”: it is a constructive part of science itself. I am not qualified to contribute to many of these proposed articles, but I certainly want to read all of them! If only half the proposals were to be taken forward, it would be an extremely valuable contribution to the relevant disciplines.

So, another day, another ton of thoughts to process.

out in the heat

I applied sun screen / insect repelant combo, and went for a stroll.  I managed half an hour outside in the heat (despite staying in the shade where possible) before I needed to return to the inside coolth.

I saw some interesting birds, that looked like slim blackbirds with longer legs, and a long triangular tail:

my Google-fu tells me this is probably a Great-tailed grackle

Also, what looked like some kind of parasite growing on a palm tree:

parasite? with fruits? growing half way up a palm tree

That was enough heat, and I returned to the hotel, and went up onto the roof, where there is better view than from my window:

view from the roof; turquoise and blue sea

After a chat in the hotel with some other conference goers, it was time to venture out again, for lunch.  Off to Mocambo, a Mexican seafood restaurant, with an "indoors" that was actually open, but under a thatched roof, with views over the sea, and accompanying welcome sea breeze.  Delicious food, a great view, plus pelicans flying by!

view from a hotel window

I arrived in Cancun, Mexico, yesterday evening, ready for the ALife conference starting on Monday.  There were several ALifers on the flight...

The flight landed a 6pm local time, only half an hour late.  (I say "only" because we took off an hour late from Gatwick, despite being all boarded on time.)  Then there was a long queue at immigration.  Then outside (bam! the heat!) to find the shuttle bus.  "It will be the guy wearing an orange tabard, holding a sign."  Am I grateful for that, as there were a zillion guys with signs, but only one with an orange tabard.  Then off to the hotel, in a gloriously air-conditioned shuttle bus.

I was a bit zonked by the 10 hr flight, and 6 hour time difference, but 8 hours sleep plus breakfast plus coffee, and I'm feeling human again.  Human enough to take the traditional photos from the window.

view from the window (at an angle)

view from the end of the corridor

Now off to slather myself in sunscreen/insect repellant, then explore the beach/air-conditioned restaurants.