A latter-day Frankenstein


What a queer thing Life is! So unlike anything else, don’t you know, if you see what I mean.

P.G. Wodehouse, My Man Jeeves

As the words for this introduction start to form in my mind, I am lying in bed, curled around my wife’s sleeping body. As I hold her I enjoy the sensation of her presence – her touch, her scent, the ebb and flow of her breathing. Yet it is clearly not the sensations themselves that I savour. If someone were to replace her with a cunningly designed machine, warmed to 36 degrees Celsius, suffused with synthetic pheromones, programmed to wriggle engagingly and to emit a gentle rhythmic hissing noise, it would do nothing for me at all. It is not the sensations but their meaning that keeps me awake and captivated. To put it in a rather more macabre way: suppose Ann died right now, here in my arms. I imagine I would continue to hold her awhile, but it would no longer really be her that I’d be holding, just her memory. Her inner being, her élan vital, would have gone. This is a book about that vital essence – a scientific search for the soul. More than that, more adventurously, more arrogantly, more grandly than that, it’s a book that tries to answer the question, ‘How can we build a soul?’

The vital spark

One of the phenomena which had peculiarly attracted my attention was the structure of the human frame, and, indeed, any animal endued with life. Whence, I often asked myself, did the principle of life proceed? It was a bold question, and one which has ever been considered as a mystery; yet with how many things are we upon the brink of becoming acquainted, if cowardice or carelessness did not restrain our enquiries. I resolved these circumstances in my mind, and determined thenceforth to apply myself more particularly to those branches of natural philosophy which relate to physiology …

After days and nights of incredible labour and fatigue, I succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life; nay, more, I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter …

It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs.

Mary Shelly, Frankenstein

When Victor Frankenstein breathed life into his creation, it was with electricity. He, or rather his own creator, Mary Shelley, refused to allow us access to the exact recipe, but it seems that Frankenstein constructed his monster laboriously from ordinary, everyday chemicals and then finally animated him by means of a vital spark.

Electricity was the miracle of Mary Shelley’s time. A generation earlier, in 1780, Luigi Galvani had demonstrated the significance of electricity in the processes of life, by showing how amputated frogs’ legs would twitch when momentarily connected to a crude electric battery made from body fluids and two dissimilar metals. If the lifeless limb of a frog could be made to behave as if alive by the infusion of the electric fluid, then surely electricity itself must be the source and very essence of life?

The idea that living things possess some special substance that separates them from inanimate matter and gives them their astonishing properties goes back a long way. When they weren’t occupied with turning base metals into gold, the ancient alchemists were intent on discovering the elixir vitae, or water of life, which they hoped, would enable them to cheat death and live for ever. This was certainly their technological aim, as it were, but they also had what today we would call a pure-science motive for their work: they wished to understand life; they wanted to divine the nature of the soul.

We human beings are obsessed with our souls. Painters don’t paint portraits because they enjoy applying pigment to canvas. Poets don’t write for the joy of seeing squiggles on paper. Both want to capture some essence, some aspect of that which we call the human condition. What happens to us when we die is, of course, what strikes us as the most pertinent and sometimes the most pressing question when we dwell upon the topic of soul. One day, each of us will face death. Ideally, most of us would prefer to forego the experience altogether, but at the very least we would like some hints, if not assurances, as to what will befall us when our time comes. But before we die we are alive, and life itself is such a strange phenomenon, something so distinctive and inexplicable, that I think we are all deeply fascinated by what it means. What is life? How does it come about? What exactly is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything?

The notion that life resides in some special substance, which is excused from compliance with the normal laws of physics, is called vitalism. In the late Middle Ages this vital essence was deemed to be chemical in nature. By the early nineteenth century it had become electrical. As our mastery over the chemical and electrical world increased, and we found ourselves still no nearer to discovering the essence of life, the concept was pushed into even more abstract realms. The vague notion of a ‘life force’ surfaces today in science fiction, with the implication that life is akin to magnetism or gravity. Vitalism is not yet dead by any means, but the vital essence continues to flee into whatever phenomenal realm currently lies just beyond our understanding. Roger Penrose, in his book The Emperor’s New Mind, deals with the nature of consciousness and concludes that the answer may lie in quantum physics. He argues that the nature of thought transcends the limits of a mechanical computer, and so may require a form of ‘hypercomputation’ that exploits quantum uncertainty. His is a very sophisticated argument, but to my mind it is filled with vitalist desperation. He rests his hope on yet another poorly understood physical phenomenon to explain and contain life or, in this case, consciousness.

The ogre from which the vitalists have been running ever since the rise of rationalism in Galileo’s day is the doctrine of materialism. This is odd, because vitalism itself is largely a materialistic notion, since despite its best intentions it tries to embody a spiritual idea in an essentially physical form. Materialism holds that there is no separate division into material and spiritual worlds. So there is no magical soul, no life beyond death, no need or room for a god. Everything is subject to the laws of physics and everything that exists belongs in the physical domain. This is perhaps a bleak outlook as far as the soul is concerned, but its success over the past three hundred years cannot be denied. From the time the great scientists of the Renaissance banished the Hand of God by showing how the planets move according to clear, unvarying rules, the universe has been gradually reduced to clockwork. When Mary Shelley first dreamed up the story of Frankenstein she was in Switzerland, sharing a house with her husband and his friend, Lord Byron. Byron was the father of Ada, Countess Lovelace, and it was she who so clearly saw and explained the implications of her friend Charles Babbage’s inventions. Babbage used clockwork as the basis of his unfinished Difference Engine and, later, his even less complete Analytical Engine. These were the forerunners of the modern computer – a machine designed to ‘think’ – and it is perhaps this invention that has done more than anything to reduce the human spirit to a simple mechanical process.

I would like to assert that, although the materialist viewpoint is undoubtedly the truth, it is not the whole truth. I am a computer programmer by background, and as familiar as anyone with the means by which apparently abstract ideas can be reduced to simple mechanical steps. But I believe that the computer, if interpreted correctly, can be the saviour of the soul rather than its executioner. It can show us how to transcend mere mechanism, and reinstate a respect for the spiritual domain that materialism has so cruelly (if unintentionally) destroyed. The modern, fast, digital computer can give us a new understanding of the world of software, and this puts the world of hardware into a new perspective.

Save our souls

The beauty of materialist, mechanist, reductionist thinking is that it can explain so much about our world; its danger is that it can also explain things away. If you had just seen an impressive conjuring trick and I told you how the trick was done, I would be guilty of explaining it away. The beauty of the trick depends on it being inexplicable and magical, and reducing that magic to mere sleight of hand would trivialize it and spoil it for you. On the other hand, if you were enjoying a beautiful landscape painting and the artist began to explain to you how she had used light and shade, pigment and brush stroke, to fool the eye and suggest a feeling of depth or poignancy of mood, you would not find the painting any the less beautiful for this elucidation. Indeed, your increased understanding might considerably enhance your appreciation of it.

Science usually aims to achieve the latter effect, and scientific theories are advanced in the hope that they will enhance the beauty of the phenomena they seek to explain, rather than diminish it. Sadly, science also occasionally explains things away – perhaps inadvertently, sometimes deliberately. Often the difference comes down to a poor or malicious choice of words, especially the insertion of qualifiers such as ‘just’ or ‘simply’, as in ‘consciousness is simply a product of nerve impulses’. To a large extent, philosophical speculation about life and consciousness has been a sad, gradual process of ‘explaining away’ the soul. It has been turned into first a substance, then a force, and now a mechanism. Yet recognizing that life and consciousness are products of material processes need not ‘explain them away’ in the slightest. In fact, I think it calls into question the meaning of ‘material process’ itself.

Only a fool or a coward would want life to retain its mystery as if it were a magic trick. Nothing is lost and much is gained by understanding things, and life should be no different from anything else in this respect. Yet we cannot allow these explanations to diminish us, as living beings. The poetry of life must not be replaced with matter-of-fact prose.

We have good reasons to be protective of our souls. Quite apart from our fear of mortality, we rely on our veneration of life to guide our everyday choices. Our division of the world into the categories ‘living’ and ‘non-living’ seems to be one of the most fundamental judgements we make and, whether it is fair or not, we treat each category in very different ways. Perhaps the most profound distinction we make between living and non-living is in our application of morals. The concepts of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are applicable only to living things. We never accuse an avalanche of being a murderer, and we never campaign for the rights of hurricanes. We are sure that killing other human beings is wrong, and some people are so clear on this point that they are even willing to kill the killer, in pursuit of some concept called ‘justice’. We are less certain about whether it is wrong to kill a cow or an ant or a bacterium, but we generally assume that it is merely less wrong (or at least more defensible) as we move down some assumed hierarchy of soul-hood. On the other hand, we seem to believe that there is a sudden, qualitative change at the division between living and non-living, so we never trouble ourselves for a moment about the welfare of rivers or hills.

If life is reduced to mere clockwork, where does that leave our sense of morality? In fact, as life has indeed begun to be reduced to clockwork, and especially as we have gained mastery over that clockwork, so has our moral certainty declined. Today we face difficult moral judgements about abortion, euthanasia, genetic manipulation and mind control, which arise because our ability to understand has failed to keep pace with our ability to act.

But moral and ethical quandaries aside, I believe there is a sense in which our understanding of the universe has become a little inside-out. The primitive, dualistic distinction between mind and matter, spirit and substance, has been replaced by a more modern one which in effect claims that there is only substance. I would prefer to claim that there is only spirit. One of the points of view this book seeks to explore can be stated as follows:

Life is not made of atoms, it is merely built out of them. What life is actually ‘made of’ is cycles of cause and effect, loops of causal flow. These phenomena are just as real as atoms – perhaps even more real. If anything, the entire universe is actually made from events, of which atoms are merely some of the consequences.

Some of these ideas will, I hope, emerge as you read the following chapters. In any case, I want to try to show that life is more than just clockwork, even though it is nothing but clockwork.

Applying the ghost in the machine

Life has always been an ineffable mystery, and many people understandably prefer to keep it that way. Science has steadily been eroding this mystery, and sometimes it seems that the poetry of our souls is about to dissipate in a haze of prosaic logic. This book sets out to do two apparently incompatible things: to retain and reassert life’s majesty while explaining how we can create it for ourselves. Part of my purpose is to show that life is more than the sum of its parts, yet at the same time I want to show that it is possible to understand these parts and assemble them afresh to create new life. This fact has more than mere curiosity value, and there are better reasons to play at being god than simply self-aggrandizement. Living, thinking, caring, motivated beings are very different from other classes of machine, and there are strong technological as well as social reasons why an understanding of life and mind is important.

Once upon a time, all machines were integrated with living things. Every plough was pulled by oxen and guided by a man; every lathe was turned by hand and controlled by the eye. The Industrial Revolution removed the need for muscle power, and to some extent the progress of automation has reduced our reliance on human supervision for the control of machines. Yet many jobs can’t be done, or are done badly, without an intelligent living organism at the helm. A tractor can pull a larger plough than a team of oxen can, but unlike the oxen it cannot refuel itself or navigate rough terrain without an external brain to guide it. Since oxen are notoriously bad at driving tractors, this dull and relatively mindless duty fell to the far more adaptable but rather overqualified brains of human beings. Research into artificial life[*] is inspiring a new engineering discipline whose aim is to put the life back into technology. Using A-life as an approach to artificial intelligence, we are beginning to put souls into previously lifeless machines – not the souls of slaves, but of willing spirits who enjoy the tasks they are set. The first great age of technology can be thought of as the Inanimate Age, during which hammers and ploughs needed separate biological controllers and power sources. After that came the Animate Age, in which steam replaced muscle and rudimentary automation took animals (if not people) out of the loop. The third great age of technology is about to start. This is the Biological Age, in which machine and synthetic organism merge. Taking our technological inspiration from biological systems promises to deliver a more adaptable, intelligent, robust and, above all, personable class of machines. Whether removing the need to employ profoundly intelligent human beings on mind-numbing and tedious jobs will alleviate the suffering in the world or exacerbate it is perhaps a moot point. Nevertheless, it will be good to have the choice, and undoubtedly there are many situations in which biologically inspired machines could improve or protect people’s lives.

Seeing how the trick is done

After years of idle experimentation with the ideas to be described in this book, my first real opportunity to create artificial life came in 1992, under the cunning disguise of writing a computer game. This game was called Creatures, and it turned out to be more successful than I could ever have imagined. Roughly a million people across the world now look after the artificial organisms I created, and the global population of the creatures themselves even outnumbers that of many natural species.

One of the big surprises for me was the large following of devoted enthusiasts the product attracted. Many of them (quite rightly) regarded Creatures not as a computer game but as a scientific hobby, and some of their activities are astounding in their own right – so much so that some of the most experienced artificial life experts in the world today are probably non-academics who bought this game and took it and its creatures apart, piece by piece. I hope many of these enthusiasts will read this book. Perhaps you are one of them.

A game it may have been but, if you’ll forgive the staggering lack of modesty this implies, Creatures was probably the closest thing there has been to a new form of life on this planet in four billion years. At the time of writing (and ignoring my present research work), these creatures probably still represent the state of the art in synthetic life forms.

Understandably, many people have since asked me to ‘reveal the secret’ of how to create artificial life, either out of scientific curiosity or even because they wanted to produce something like it for themselves. Trade secrets aside, I’ve generally been happy to explain how the trick is done, and have described many of the details in lectures, papers and articles for both scientific and lay audiences. But the facts alone are not really enough. I can and will tell you how it was done, and I’m sure you will follow what I am saying without any difficulty at all. If the facts were all you wanted, you could simply skip to Chapter 11 now and avoid all the philosophical stuff completely. But if you did, would you really understand it?

Maybe; maybe not. In my job as senior programmer and later as technical director of the company that made Creatures, I frequently tried to explain how the trick was done to some very bright programmers, many of whom are trained in A-life and far better qualified than I am. Yet I met with only limited success. This is not because the ideas are inherently difficult, or because the system I developed is especially complex (although it’s not exactly simple!). No, for many people the reason is that to understand life, both natural and artificial, they have to change the way they look at the world.

I certainly had to think about a lot of interesting things in order to be able to write Creatures. But perhaps more important is the stuff I learned while I was writing it – the insights I gained from the experience. The problem with insights is that they are like skills: you can’t use language to transfer them from person to person. I can tell you how to operate a video recorder, because that is knowledge. But even if I knew how to do it myself, I couldn’t tell you how to be a better gymnast because that is a skill. Skills can be learned only through personal experience, and insights are much the same. Where new knowledge is simply added to one’s existing mental store, insights bring understanding, and understanding changes one’s whole being.

The act of writing Creatures – of trying to solve for myself many of the problems that Nature has had to solve through evolution – taught me many nameless things about life. It was by direct personal experience that I saw how Nature’s trick is done, and it changed my understanding of the world profoundly. Unless you plan to shut yourself away for five years like I did, you may never discover these things for yourself. So I want to try to give you some of these insights vicariously instead. As you read, please remember that insights cannot be coded in prose. They are not things that you can simply take in; they have to be felt. What I’m trying to get across in this book is not so much a series of facts or opinions but a way of looking at things. You may have to read between the lines.

In a nutshell, the view I want to convey in this book is largely an anti-reductionist, anti-materialist and (to a degree) anti-mechanist one. The argument I want to put forward is that the natural world is composed of a hierarchy of ‘persistent phenomena’, in which matter, life, mind and society are simply different levels or aspects of the same thing. I also propose that this natural hierarchy can be mirrored by an equivalent one that exists inside a parallel universe called cyberspace. I then want to sketch an outline for a common descriptive language which can be used at all levels of the hierarchy. In this language we shall find the basic operators of which life and mind are constructed. To create artificial life we have to understand the nature of this hierarchy, implement simulations of these basic operators using a computer (or other device) and build upon that foundation the higher levels of persistent phenomena that we seek. A computer cannot be intelligent, but it can create a parallel universe in which natural forms of intelligence can be replicated.

Playing God

In summary, I am an aspiring, latter-day Baron Frankenstein. Like him, I believe that life can be created where there was none before. Like him, I think that it is possible to make thinking, caring, feeling beings and that, when these beings exist, it may be reasonable to ascribe to them a soul. Like him, this is what I have set out to do. Frankenstein’s terrible and ultimately fatal mistake was to carry out the act of creation first, and to think about the consequences afterwards. Mary Shelley made him suffer for his impudence and his arrogance. Perhaps she was right, maybe it is arrogant to attempt to ‘play god’ in that way. To do so with the aim of debunking and debasing life would certainly be arrogant. But I think that there is a kind of understanding that can be achieved only by building things for oneself, and that this kind of understanding generates a respect for the subject that may be lacking in one who merely ‘sees how the trick is done’. So far, my faltering attempts to create life have only increased my admiration for it. If we succeed in grasping the mechanism of life, as we have grasped electricity and chemistry, then, rather than familiarity breeding contempt, I suspect we shall find a new, harmonious understanding of everything, and life will be elevated once more to its proper place.

12 Responses to A latter-day Frankenstein

  1. PhoenixRebirth says:

    Wow. I bet I’m one of the youngest teens to find this as one of the most intresting concepts. Although you ask the question of what makes the soul, shoulden’t we ask wether or not it’s the chemicals in our minds? Also, to those who think studying this is playing god, God created Man, and he was sentient. It’s very likely we will do the same.

    • stevegrand says:

      🙂 Actually you’re not as alone as you might think, although many of the people who were young teens when I wrote that book or especially the computer game that came before it are grown up with children of their own now!

      Yes, that’s exactly what I did ask, not only whether but how. Personally, I think the evidence points very strongly to Man having created God, but I definitely take your point. If it happened once it can be made to happen again. That’s my life’s work, in fact!

      • Steven says:

        I don’t know if you’ll ever see this. But aside from saying (as a student programmer) how much I admire and look up to what you’re doing/have done.

        I wanted to give you something to think about. You can see for yourself how much thought and hardcore work has gone into what you’ve been doing. You could work at it for a thousand years 24/7 and it will still be nothing more than a elaborate simulation. A product of your deliberate intelligent design.

        Now compare all of the work you’ve put into this, with the complexity of the actual human brain. Really take in the flawless system of functions that has to take place every second for a human to put 2 original thoughts together let alone wiggle their nose. Do you really think such flawless complexity can randomly put itself together on it’s own? To say that it could, would that also be saying that your AI simulation could write itself given enough time? Is the human brain not a trillion times more complex?

      • stevegrand says:

        Hey Steven,

        Thanks for the compliment!

        Oh, believe me, I’ve spent a whole lifetime thinking about those things! Your arguments are perfectly rational, but if you’ll forgive me, they’re based on some faulty assumptions that you probably wouldn’t be able to see WITHOUT spending years studying this subject.

        For instance the human brain is not actually trillions of times more complex. This is a common misunderstanding even among those who study artificial evolution or AI. It’s complex, for sure, but it’s much simpler than it looks. It’s hard to explain in a short reply and I’d be happy to try again at greater length, but I’m about to go away for the weekend and it would be tricky to do on my phone 🙂

        But as an example, consider trying to learn every multiplication table by heart, from 1×1 up to a billion times a billion. Now consider learning to multiply. Once you know how to multiply, you can multiply any two numbers you like. It’s vastly easier. The process of turning genes into biological structures like brains works more like being able to multiply. For instance, creating a million copies of some substructure is exactly as simple as creating two copies. You already know this, as a programmer. And the human brain is extremely structured and array-like; It’s not just a tangle of neurons.

        In a tangled structure, 1) making a small change in the instructions produces a small change in the outcome, 2) if you want to create more substructures similar to the one you’ve already got, you have to start from scratch every time, and 3) any small change is likely to break the whole thing, because tangles are highly interdependent.

        But in an array structure produced by the genetic equivalent of a program, 1) making a small change in the program can produce a profound change in the outcome, 2) if you want to create a second structure similar to the first, you just need to change ‘for (i=0; i<1; i++)' into 'for (i=0; i<2; i++)' and you can produce a million such structures just as easily, and 3) array-like entities are extremely robust, because of redundancy and isolation between parts.

        The human brain is an array structure made by a program, and hence is a great deal simpler and more controllable than most people assume.

        Another common misunderstanding is about what it means to say that evolution is random. It's not. It's a highly NON-random process that's driven by random noise. Much as a great impressionist painting is the non-random result of semi-random dabs of paint. People who believe that random chance couldn't possibly give rise to something as complex as life or a brain are misunderstanding (or more often have been misinformed about) the process. If you try throwing a hundred coins at the same time, until all of them end up heads, you're going to be there a very long time. But if you throw a coin and, if it turns up tails, you throw it again until you get heads, then you keep it and throw the next one, it doesn't take very long until all one hundred are showing heads. On average, the second method will take a few hundred throws, but the first one may take longer than the universe has been in existence. People who haven't studied evolution (including some famous scientists who should have known better) assume it works like throwing all the coins at the same time, but really it contains a RATCHET. Things that work, even a tiny bit, get kept, and so the next generation starts out 'one coin' further ahead. The difference is profound.

        And yes, the work I did that you're talking about COULD write itself, given enough time. The snag is the amount of time. Real evolution is acting on billions of creatures simultaneously, in a complex and exacting environment, over hundreds of millions of years. My stuff has a handful of creatures in a simple simulated world, and I can't afford to wait that long! So I use intelligent design purely because I'm too impatient to wait millions of years, not because there's any reason in principle why it couldn't or wouldn't happen all by itself. I went to some trouble to make sure it COULD happen all by itself, once I'd finished my part. I just gave the system a leg-up.

        I also want to say that the work I've done in the past is very limited compared to the work I'm doing now. But almost nobody has seen that yet. Again I'm using intelligent design because I don't have millions of years available to me. But what I'm doing now is highly structured and much closer in concept to the human brain. Unlike evolution, I can plan ahead, and learn to appreciate the elegance of what it had to stumble blindly (but progressively!) upon over trillions of attempts. I've learned a LOT about how brains have to work in the 20 years since my last published attempt. The more I learn, the 'simpler' brains seem to me to be. Yes, real ones contain a hundred billion neurons, but a simple crystal contains zillions upon zillions of atoms. It's not the number of parts that matter but how neatly they're arranged.

        Anyway, I see some hints that you're perhaps starting from a social background that I'm familiar with, and if I'm right about that you'll need a LOT more convincing than I can spare the space for here. Feel free to object to my arguments. If you want to email me about it, write to steve at grandroids dot com and I'll try to give you a more comprehensive answer. I'm always happy to chat to programmers about complexity! 🙂

  2. PhoenixRebirth says:

    I really wish more people would take more intrest into your field of work. I really look forward to your new game (which I found on that kickstart website), but I only wish is that the organsims vary in shape and size, so they are not all mammals. If you have read Ender Quartet, it suggests of sentience through insects, based off of ants and there queens, a hive being a “being”, the queen being the mind, and the workers, the body. Such organisms could be in your game, but I program, and don’t have a clue on how you could make a simulation so advanced that it could handle so much. You stated somewhere that you hoped the creatures would become sentient. When you mean sentient, do you mean they would understand that somehow, there was some force interacting with their world? (ex: Us) Or do you mean they will act as if we are not there?

    • stevegrand says:

      They’ll vary somewhat, although I’m specifically interested in mammalian intelligence, so most of them will probably look like mammals. They’ll certainly “know” we exist because they’ll be able to see us, in one way or another, but whether this means they’ll know in a conscious awareness sense is a trickier question! What I’m interested in is mental imagery – how we are able to imagine things we can’t see and imagine doing things we aren’t doing. Without imagery, consciousness can only be a sort of dull “going along for the ride”, and I think imagery is vital for the kind of consciousness we usually mean when we talk about sentience. So imagery is necessary, but I don’t know if it is sufficient – that’s part of the debate I hope we’ll all be able to have once I’ve put the creatures in your hands!

  3. Maurice Dubosson says:

    Hi Steve,

    I’ve just read your book “Creation”. Love your work! You say that creating artificial life is harder than expected, but I think I might have the answer to this…

    I’ve been working on the issue for many years and I’m looking for the right person to bring my theory to life. You seem to be the perfect candidate!

    Please read: http://www.amazon.com/Journal-of-Thought-ebook/dp/B00AJ67WI8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364736247&sr=8-1&keywords=dubosson

    A small book that combines both philosophy and biology, but that needs a computer science expert such as yourself.

    Looking forward to hearing from you,

    Maurice (mauricedubosson@yahoo.fr)

    • stevegrand says:

      Thank you. It’s very nice of you to offer, but I think you’re missing the point. I’ve devoted my life to this work because I already HAVE some pretty good ideas of my own. So why would I want to implement yours? I think what you need is a programmer. In fact what I think you really need is to learn to program yourself, because honestly I don’t think it’s even possible to know whether your own ideas are good unless you also know enough about computation to implement them. I get sent people’s pet theories all the time, usually with requests to help implement them, and in most cases there’s a huge gap between the idea and the actual details that would be needed to make it work. There’s a REASON why I say it’s harder than it looks! Unless you’ve thought the idea through in such depth that you already know how to explain it to a computer it’s very hard to know whether the idea is actually implementable or just “sounds about right.” Good luck with finding a collaborator, though. I became a computer scientist because I already had biological ideas I wanted to explore and develop. You need someone who is a computer scientist because he or she wanted to be a computer scientist, and is looking for something to do. Be careful, though, because conventional computer science needs a lot of rethinking before it can successfully be applied to biology, and not many programmers are used to thinking in the right way. Good luck.

  4. Maurice Dubosson says:

    Thanks for your quick response and advice. It’s a real shame you can’t get involved! I do believe my theory is compatible with computer science, hence the reason why I’ve contacted you and asked you to read about it. As an expert in the field, could you possibly put me in touch with a fellow programmer who’s used to thinking the right way, as you rightly put it? Thanks again for your help, all the best.

    • stevegrand says:

      Sorry to have been so blunt about it but it happens to me a lot and I find it very exasperating. It’s rather like telling a sculptor that you have a brilliant idea for a sculpture and asking whether he’d like to drop what he’s working on and carve it for you. For one thing sculptors don’t learn to carve just because they like chisels – it’s because they already have things they passionately want to say in stone. They don’t need other people’s ideas. For another, there’s a big difference between having an idea for a sculpture and actually creating a work of art. The difference between a beautiful carving and a failure isn’t due to the subject matter; it’s in the way the stone is worked. So it is with artificial life – it’s an art. I do it because I have things I passionately want to say, not because I like programming. And the devil is definitely in the detail. A lot of people who send me their ideas massively underestimate the problems of sensory perception, for instance. The flaws in their ideas (and my own, for that matter) simply won’t show up until they try to explain it to a computer. Computers can’t infer what you mean or read between the lines, so you have to explain it extremely precisely, and that’s when we all tend to realize we haven’t thought it through in nearly as much detail as we fondly believed. All too often there’s a little box tucked away in a corner of the flowchart labeled “then a miracle happens”!

      There’s no substitute, imho, for learning to program yourself. It’s the only way to truly validate an idea in this field, and the only way to really pin down the all-important details. I appreciate that this is a major task, but then so is learning to carve. There really aren’t all that many programmers out there who are gifted in this somewhat unconventional form of programming and yet have no theory of their own – the programming skill tends to follow from the idea (just as learning to sculpt comes from wanting to create art), so I can’t think of anyone specific who’s sitting at a computer just waiting for someone to come along with a theory, but a good place to look would be the Biota community (http://biota.org). Tom Barbalet, who runs it, is very keen on collaborative approaches, and the members tend to be enthusiasts with more computing background than biological. There’s a contact link on the home page.

  5. Maurice Dubosson says:

    I totally understand your point of view and I appreciate whatever help comes your way. Thank you ever so much for the tip about the Biota community! I will follow your advice and get in touch with Tom Barbalet. I’m very excited about this project and I am determined to turn it into a work of art! Like you, I’ve spent a life time trying to find The Answer… As it’s the case for sculptors, talent is of course the key, but belief also plays a crucial part. And I do believe in my theory!
    I will keep you posted, should the miracle occur! All the best.
    Maurice Dubosson

  6. maurice dubosson says:

    Hi Steve, time goes by so fast and I’am a sick old man now. You answered me six years ago rather hard and I understand your point of view but if you could take the time (oh, only a few minutes) to read my little essay on amazon and give me your opinion. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00E1LPR20. I would be so pleased at the end of my life to read the opinion of a great researcher even if he does not subscribe to my ideas.

Leave a Reply to maurice dubosson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: