Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 295–308 | Cite as

Programming the Emergence in Morphogenetically Architected Complex Systems

  • Franck Varenne
  • Pierre Chaigneau
  • Jean Petitot
  • René Doursat
Regular Article

Abstract

Large sets of elements interacting locally and producing specific architectures reliably form a category that transcends the usual dividing line between biological and engineered systems. We propose to call them morphogenetically architected complex systems (MACS). While taking the emergence of properties seriously, the notion of MACS enables at the same time the design (or “meta-design”) of operational means that allow controlling and even, paradoxically, programming this emergence. To demonstrate our claim, we first show that among all the self-organized systems studied in the field of Artificial Life, the specificity of MACS essentially lies in the close relation between their emergent properties and functional properties. Second, we argue that to be a MACS a system does not need to display more than weak emergent properties. Third, since the notion of weak emergence is based on the possibility of simulation, whether computational or mechanistic via machines, we see MACS as good candidates to help design artificial self-architected systems (such as robotic swarms) but also harness and redesign living ones (such as synthetic bacterial films).

Keywords

Artificial life Bio-inspiration Complex systems  Self-architected systems Functional form Weak emergence Pattern formation Morphogenesis Morphogenetic engineering Swarm robotics Synthetic biology 

References

  1. Ball P (1999) The self-made tapestry: pattern formation in nature. Oxford Univ Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Beal J (2011) Functional blueprints: an approach to modularity in grown systems. Swarm Intell 5:257–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bedau MA (1997) Weak emergence. Noûs 31:375–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bedau MA (1999) Can unrealistic computer models illuminate theoretical biology? In: Proceedings of the 1999 International Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 1999), pp 20–23Google Scholar
  5. Bedau MA (2002) Downward causation and the autonomy of weak emergence. Principia 6:5–50Google Scholar
  6. Bonabeau E et al (1998) A model for the emergence of pillars, walls and royal chambers in termite nests. Philos Trans R Soc B 353:1561–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodu N (2009) A synthesis and a practical approach to complex systems. Complexity 15:36–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camazine S et al (2003) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton Univ Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Castro-González C et al (2014) A digital framework to build, visualize and analyze a gene expression atlas with cellular resolution in zebrafish early embryogenesis. Plos Comput Biol 10(e1003):670Google Scholar
  10. Crutchfield JP (1994) The calculi of emergence: computation, dynamics and induction. Phys D 75:11–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delile J, Doursat R, Peyriéras N (2013) Computational modeling and simulation of animal early embryogenesis with the MecaGen platform. In: Computational systems biology 2. Academic Press, London, pp 359–405Google Scholar
  12. Dill KA, MacCallum JL (2012) The protein-folding problem, 50 years on. Science 338(6110):1042–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorigo M et al (2013) Swarmanoid: a novel concept for the study of heterogeneous robotic swarms. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 20:60–71Google Scholar
  14. Doursat R (2008) Organically grown architectures: creating decentralized, autonomous systems by embryomorphic engineering. In: Organic computing. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–199Google Scholar
  15. Doursat R, Sánchez C (2014) Growing fine-grained multicellular robots. Soft Robot 1:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doursat R, Sayama H, Michel O (2009) Proceedings of the 1st international morphogenetic engineering workshop (MEW 2009). http://iscpif.fr/mew2009
  17. Doursat R, Sayama H, Michel O (2013) A review of morphogenetic engineering. Nat Comput 12:517–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dowek G (2011) Proofs and algorithms: an introduction to logic and computability. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giavitto JL, Michel O (2002) The topological structures of membrane computing. Fund Inf 49:123–145Google Scholar
  20. Godfrey-Smith P (2004) Genes do not encode information for phenotypic traits. In: Contemporary debates in philosophy of science. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 275–289Google Scholar
  21. Holland JH (2012) Signals and boundaries: building blocks for complex adaptive systems. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Humphreys P (1997) How properties emerge. Philos Sci 64:1–17Google Scholar
  23. Huneman P (2008a) Emergence and adaptation. Minds Mach 18:493–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huneman P (2008b) Emergence made ontological? computational versus combinatorial approaches. Philos Sci 75:595–607Google Scholar
  25. Kim J (1999) Making sense of emergence. Philos Stud 95:3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kube CR, Zhang H (1993) Collective robotics: from social insects to robots. Adapt Behav 2:189–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ladyman J, Lambert J, Wiesner K (2013) What is a complex system? Eur J Philos Sci 3:33–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Langton CG (1989) Artificial life. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  29. Millikan RG (1984) Language, thought and other biological categories. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Grady R, Christensen AL, Dorigo M (2009) SWARMORPH: multirobot morphogenesis using directional self-assembly. IEEE Trans Robot 25:738–743Google Scholar
  31. Pascalie J et al. (2015) Spatial computing in synthetic bioware. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL 2015)Google Scholar
  32. Pattee H (1995) Evolving self-reference: matter, symbols and semantic closure. Commun Cognit 12:9–27Google Scholar
  33. Petitot J (2003) Modèles de structures émergentes dans les systèmes complexes. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the International Academy of the  Philosophy of Science, pp 57–71Google Scholar
  34. Petitot J (2011) The morphogenetic models of René Thom. In: Morphogenesis. Springer, Berlin, pp 273–281Google Scholar
  35. Petitot J (2013) Complexity and self-organization in Turing. In: The legacy of A.M. Turing. Franco Angeli, Milano, pp 149–182Google Scholar
  36. Peyriéras N (2011) Animal morphogenesis. In: Morphogenesis. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–188Google Scholar
  37. Sartenaer O (2014) Synchronic vs. diachronic emergence: a reappraisal. Eur J Philos Sci 5:31–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sayama H (2014) Four classes of morphogenetic collective systems. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (ALife XIV), pp 105–114Google Scholar
  39. Shalizi CR (2006) Methods and techniques of complex systems science: an overview. In: Complex systems science in biomedicine. Springer, Berlin, pp 33–114Google Scholar
  40. Thom R (1994) Structural stability and morphogenesis. Advanced books classics. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson P (2006) A role for mathematical models in formalizing self-organizing systems. In: Self-organization and emergence in life sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 301–313Google Scholar
  42. Turing AM (1952) The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philos Trans R Soc B 237:37–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turner JS (2000) The extended organism: the physiology of animal-built structures. Harvard Univ Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Varenne F (2009) Models and simulations in the historical emergence of the science of complexity. In: From system complexity to emergent properties. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  45. Varenne F (2013) Chains of reference in computer simulations. Tech. Rep. WP-2013-51, FMSH Working Paper, http://www.fmsh.fr/en/c/4002

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franck Varenne
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pierre Chaigneau
    • 3
  • Jean Petitot
    • 4
  • René Doursat
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Sorbonne Research Group in Sociological Analysis Methods (GEMASS), CNRS (UMR8598)Paris-Sorbonne UniversityParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of RouenRouenFrance
  3. 3.“Science, Philosophy, History” (SPHERE) Laboratory, CNRS (UMR7219)Paris-Diderot UniversityParisFrance
  4. 4.Center for Social Analysis and Mathematics (CAMS), CNRS (UMR8557)School of Advanced Studies in Social Sciences (EHESS)ParisFrance
  5. 5.Complex Systems Institute Paris Ile-de-France (ISC-PIF)CNRS (UPS3611)ParisFrance
  6. 6.BioEmergences LaboratoryCNRS (USR3695)Gif-sur-YvetteFrance

Personalised recommendations