Advertisement

Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 112, Issue 4, pp 357–368 | Cite as

Trans-algorithmic nature of learning in biological systems

Original Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

Learning ability is a vitally important, distinctive property of biological systems, which provides dynamic stability in non-stationary environments. Although several different types of learning have been successfully modeled using a universal computer, in general, learning cannot be described by an algorithm. In other words, algorithmic approach to describing the functioning of biological systems is not sufficient for adequate grasping of what is life. Since biosystems are parts of the physical world, one might hope that adding some physical mechanisms and principles to the concept of algorithm could provide extra possibilities for describing learning in its full generality. However, a straightforward approach to that through the so-called physical hypercomputation so far has not been successful. Here an alternative approach is proposed. Biosystems are described as achieving enumeration of possible physical compositions though random incremental modifications inflicted on them by active operating resources (AORs) in the environment. Biosystems learn through algorithmic regulation of the intensity of the above modifications according to a specific optimality criterion. From the perspective of external observers, biosystems move in the space of different algorithms driven by random modifications imposed by the environmental AORs. A particular algorithm is only a snapshot of that motion, while the motion itself is essentially trans-algorithmic. In this conceptual framework, death of unfit members of a population, for example, is viewed as a trans-algorithmic modification made in the population as a biosystem by environmental AORs. Numerous examples of AOR utilization in biosystems of different complexity, from viruses to multicellular organisms, are provided.

Keywords

Stability Optimization Physical computability Active operating resource Kinetic force principle Mutation rate 

References

  1. Abbott D, Davies PCW, Pati AK (eds) (2008) Quantum aspects of life. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams A, Zenil H, Davies PCW, Walker SI (2017) Formal definitions of unbounded evolution and innovation reveal universal mechanisms for open-ended evolution in dynamical systems. Scientific Reports 7, Article number 997Google Scholar
  3. Chaitin G (2013) Proving Darwin: making biology mathematical. Vintage Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Copeland BJ (2015) The church-turing thesis. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter 2017 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/church-turing/. Accessed 22 Apr 2018
  5. Cubitt TS, Perez-Garcia D, Wolf MM (2015) Undecidability of the spectral gap. Nature 528:207–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutland N (1980) Computability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis M (2006) Why there is no such discipline as hypercomputation. Appl Math Comput 178:4–7Google Scholar
  8. Eisenbach M (2004) Chemotaxis. Imperial College Press, River EdgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisert J, Müller MP, Gogolin C (2012) Quantum measurement occurrence is undecidable. Phys Rev Lett 108:260501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Etesi G, Nemeti I (2002) Non-turing computations via Malament–Hogarth spacetimes. Int J Theor Phys 41:341–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Futuyma DJ (1998) Evolutionary biology. Sinauer Associates Inc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  12. Galhardo RS, Hastings PJ, Rosenberg SM (2007) Mutation as a stress response and the regulation of evolvability. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 42:399–435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gare A (2008) Approaches to the question ‘What is life?’: reconciling theoretical biology with philosophical biology. Cosm Hist J Nat Soc Philos 4:53–77Google Scholar
  14. Hernández-Espinosa A, Hernández-Quiroz F, Zenil H (2017) Is there any real substance to the claims for a ‘new computationalism’? In: Kari J, Manea F, Petre I (eds) Unveiling dynamics and complexity. CiE 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10307. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  15. Hernández-Orozco S, Hernández-Quiroz F, Zenil H (2016) The limits of decidable states on open-ended evolution and emergence. In: 15th international conference on the synthesis and simulation of living systems, artificial life conference (ALIFE). MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Hutter M (2004) Universal artificial intelligence: sequential decisions based on algorithmic probability. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalman RE, Bertram JF (1960) Control system analysis and design via the second method of Lyapunov. Trans ASME, J Basic Engineering 88:371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Karr JR, Sanghvi JC, Macklin DN, Gutschow MV, Jacobs JM, Bolival B Jr, Assad-Garcia N, Glass JI, Covert MW (2012) A whole-cell computational model predicts phenotype from genotype. Cell 150:389–401CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelemen J, Kelemenová A (2009) The new computationalism—a lesson from embodied agents. In: Rudas IJ, Fodor J, Kacprzyk J (eds) Towards intelligent engineering and information technology. Studies in computational intelligence, vol 243. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Kieu TD (2003) Quantum algorithm for Hilbert’s tenth problem. Int J Theor Phys 42:1461–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laub MT (2016) Keeping signals straight: how cells process information and make decisions. PLoS Biol 14:e1002519CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Leeuw KD, Moore EF, Shannon CE, Shapiro N (1956) Computability by probabilistic machines. In: Shannon CE, McCarthy J (eds) Automata studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 183–212Google Scholar
  23. Li M, Vitanyi PMB (2008) An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Los DA, Zorina A, Sinetova M, Kryazhov S, Mironov K, Zinchenko VV (2010) Stress sensors and signal transducers in cyanobacteria. Sensors 10:2386–2415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. MacLean RC, Torres-Barceló C, Moxon R (2013) Evaluating evolutionary models of stress-induced mutagenesis in bacteria. Nat Rev Genet 14:221–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. MacLennan BJ (2003) Transcending turing computability. Minds Mach 13:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell A, Romano GH, Groisman B, Yona A, Dekel E, Kupiec M, Dahan O, Pilpel Y (2009) Adaptive prediction of environmental changes by microorganisms. Nature 460:220–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Piccinini G (2011) The physical Church–Turing thesis: modest or bold? Br J Philos Sci 62:733–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rao CV, Kirby JR, Arkin AP (2004) Design and diversity in bacterial chemotaxis: a comparative study in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. PLoS Biol 2:E49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanjuán R, Domingo-Calap P (2016) Mechanisms of viral mutation. Cell Mol Life Sci 73:4433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Schrödinger E (1944) What is life?. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Schumann W (2007) Bacterial stress sensors. In: Atassi MZ (ed) Protein reviews. Springer, New York, pp 36–56Google Scholar
  33. Sender R, Fuchs S, Milo R (2016) Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body. PLoS Biol 14:e1002533CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Shimansky YP (2004) The concept of a universal learning system as a basis for creating a general mathematical theory of learning. Minds Mach 14:453–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shimansky YP (2007) Role of optimization in simple and learning-based adaptation and its biologically plausible mechanisms. In: Williams TO (ed) Biological cybernetics research trends. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 95–164Google Scholar
  36. Shimansky YP (2009) Biologically plausible learning in neural networks: a lesson from bacterial chemotaxis. Biol Cybern 101:379–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Shimansky YP (2010) Adaptive force produced by stress-induced regulation of random variation intensity. Biol Cybern 103:135–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Stannett M (2004) Hypercomputational models. In: Teuscher C (ed) Alan Turing—life and legacy of a great thinker. Springer, Berlin, pp 135–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tagkopoulos I, Liu Y-C, Tavazoie S (2008) Predictive behavior within microbial genetic networks. Science 320:1313–1317CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Uspensky V, Semenov A (1993) Algorithms: main ideas and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Verlinde E (2011) On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. J High Energy Phys 2011:29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Werfel J, Ingber DE, Bar-Yam Y (2015) Programmed death is favored by natural selection in spatial systems. Phys Rev Lett 114:238103–238108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Zurek WH (2009) Quantum darwinism. Nat Phys 5:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  2. 2.St. Joseph’s HospitalPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations