Slashdot Mirror
Digital Biology
It should come as no surprise that the infatuation is requited because some biologists are just as fascinated with the bits that live in computers. They love to wonder whether the software crosses the line and become a sentient being, whatever that may be. They want to know whether a programmer can play Dr. Frankenstein and create life or at least an indistinguishable imitation. They are entranced with the computer's ability to boil vast amounts of data into a coherent answer and they want to harness this power to solve problems about truly organic creatures.
Peter J. Bentley's new book, Digital Biology is a lively tour through some of the research that joins both of these worlds. It's a quickly paced, colorful examination of how computer scientists and biologists can share metaphors like "the immune system" or "growth." If both groups sit down and compare metaphors, computer scientists may learn something about building robust, self-healing, self-reproducing software from looking at carbon- based creatures while biologists will learn something about creatures by studying them with silicon-based software software.
The book is aimed at the same market that embraced the meme of "Chaos" through reading James Gleick's book. The book is light on equations and heavy on showmanship. In many cases, this is more than satisfying. One description of digital flocks of birds describes how three simple rules can keep the birds floating and swarming with all of the coordinated rolling and swooping. There's no need to invoke numbers or distance measurements to convey what's happening.
At other times, the examples can be so tantalizing that the lack of depth can be a bit frustrating. Bentley promises "The number of different applications that we have successfully used evolution for is immense." To explain this, he offers an example of a coffee table designed by a computer program mixing, matching and cross-breeding varieties. After each generation, the computer cuts some desks apart, creates new combinations and then uses an equation to find the most fit and desirable desks. Eventually, a reasonable candidate emerges. After explaining that genetic algorithms may find patterns of credit card fraud and help us find better jet turbine blades, there's no space to tell us the finer details. We do learn that stunning results can emerge when computer programmers mix the three principles of inheritance, variation and selection. But no book can include everything.
While the book is aimed at a broad market, it does not come with many of the traditional flourishes of journalism. Bentley is research fellow at University College in London, not a newspaper hack who churns out stories for a living. So when he introduces other researchers and colleagues, he doesn't bother with dressing them up with details about their homes, their wives, or the usual chestnuts journalists offer in the hope of humanizing the subjects. The book focuses on the ideas and metaphors themselves and doesn't bother with the window dressing. The names are just incidental markers to give credit and a pointer for further research. Scientists will love the lack of distraction, but casual readers looking for colorful anecdotes about the wacky geniuses in labcoats will need to look elsewhere.
The book, as expected, is generally enthusiastic and heavily invested in the field. Software modeled on biological systems, we are told, will, "detect crime for us, identify faults, ... design new products for us, create art, and compose music."
Despite this partisan flavor, the book shines in the few paragraphs where Bentley pauses to discuss some of the limitations of the systems. "We cannot prove that evolution will find us a good solution-- but it almost invariably does. And we certainly cannot predict that solutions that evolution generates," he notes as a caveat to everyone planning to use genetic programming to solve world peace.
At one point, he discusses one of the principle criticisms of the entire area. After describing flourishing digital forests filled with fractal ferns, problem solving viruses, and swooping swarms of evolving birds and insects, he pauses and offers this quote from another biologist: "Where's the experiment?" He notes that most of these creatures are flights of our imagination untested in the lab against real ferns, viruses or birds. Nor is there any real way to test a fern hypothesis. The digital versions look real, but there's little gritty lab work to establish them as true metaphors for sussing out the secret laws of nature. Is looking real enough? Can you measure verisimilitude? Do any traditional experiments measure anything better than the quality of a simulacrum? Is appearance enough or is it only skin deep? After a pause, though, the book is on to more talk of big payoff and grand promises.
In its heart, the book is more a document that shows evolution of problem solving techniques. If you want to get the sales pitch from the computational biology world, you can turn to this book. When there were no machines, scientists used symbols, algebra, calculus and other mathematics to describe the world. Biologists have long employed differential equations to describe the booms and bust in ecologies of predators and prey. Now that we have computers capable of billions of operations in a second, we don't need the old school of mathematics to provide a closed-form solution. The computers can just simulate the world itself. There's no need to struggle for a set of equations that is both easy-to-solve and appropriate. We can just use little worlds of sims creatures, sim fronds, sim viruses, and sim antibodies.
Bentley's book is an ideal way to learn just how and why some biologists are absolute enraptured with the new powers discovered by these computer simulations of genetics, growth, flocking and other natural phenomenon. These models don't offer the kind of concrete certainty of mathematical models, but there's no denying that something is somehow there. Is it as much a breakthrough as Bentley believes? Well, maybe you the reader can create a genetic experiment to cross fertilize the ideas from the book with the ideas in your experience. After a few generations of thought, perhaps a few generations of beer, an answer might evolve.
Peter Wayner is the author of Free for All, a book on the open source software movement and Disappearing Cryptography , the second edition of a book on steganography expected to appear later this spring. He is also the author of several articles on simulation including studies of studies of the relationship between sex and AIDS , segregation , and the length of baseball games. (Each of these links includes a Java applet so you can run the simulator from your browser.) You can purchase Digital Biology from Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.
At least to some programmers....
Writing a living, breathing program would be the goal of many of us, not just AI programmers
To the worst extent possible.
:(
My psych professor explained our language lecture using layman's computer terminology, instead of psychology. I wanted to strangle him the entire time. "So... you've got this memory stuff... and it get accessed - that is - processed, by this other bit over here, right, this area of the brain... let's just call that the "software"."
It was enough to make any techie of any note sick. He actually used Microsoft as a language. Talk about wanting to shoot someone.
But what can we do? Everyone thinks they're a programmer or a techie these days, and everyone thinks that because kids use IM they must have some other association with the grey box.
Sorry fellers, that's wrong. Most kids today don't know jack about computing, much less are able to relate better when you babble incessantly about things in your half-tech, half-psychologist manner. Stick to the psychology or the biology, instead of using computer terms to explain simple concepts. It's just more confusing and more hellish.
Humans have a tendancy to cast biological, and even human, behaviors on anything that is outside their ken.
Case in point. When I was helping my mother restore her computer after she was infected with Code Red, she was infuriated at the worm. While she is a computer professional, she is not a coder and has no understanding of... say... how machine code executes a loop or a goto. She talked about Code Red as if it really was a living thing despite the fact that she knew better. One of the things she said that stuck in my head was 'Why would it do that to me?'
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Unless, say, an Apple IIe in the wild mated and birthed a mutant Apple IIgs, which due to advantages in the environment lived to mate more and more with other machines, then thats not evolution. Just because something is advancing doesn't mean its "evolution".
I love this comment
People with open minds may want to avoid this book
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
http://www.digitalbiology.com/
Plenty of good stuff. Anyone have other good links?
I'm a little worried that if this gets too 'faddy' that people could start looking for biological metaphors and ignore other eqeually effective, or perhaps more effective solutions.
:).
For example, from the review above:
genetic algorithms may find patterns of credit card fraud and help us find better jet turbine blades
The genetic algorithm is a great algorithm for optimization problems. However, its not significantly more effective than the simulated annealing algorithm or the less-known controlled random search algorithm.
Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but getting too caught up in the metaphors these algorithms and techniques are based on will unnecessarily shackle your thinking. Of course, the opposite is also true. Refusing to embrace metaphors at all will leave you without the insights that we use metaphors to see, so don't take me too seriously
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
I would probably not respond to the above and disregard it if it were not for a recent Sci Am article that showed ~40% of Americans believe in creationism over evolution.
I cannot understand how seemingly intelligent people can ignore overwhelming scientific evidence. Evolution is the most widely explanation for how we came to be. I do not see any inconsistencies with the Genesis *metaphor* for the creation of life. The Bible is written by humans, not God. They may have had divine inspiration, but it was not God's pen in the inkwell. Why do you think there are four "Gospel according to XXXX"?
BTW, God is omniscient. Don't you think He can understand and use a metaphor?
Of all the types of ignorance in the world. Those that perpetuated under the guise of religion are the most virulent and dangerous.
You can never equivocate too much.
This area has always interested me because I did my undergraduate degree in molecular biology, and my professional career has been in software engineering.
The first thing that strikes me when biology and computer science are brought together is that although we try to apply principles of the former to the latter, we really have a much firmer grasp of computer science than we do of biology. What we're really doing, I think, is taking some theories and concepts from biology -- evolution and immunology seem to be the big ones -- and adapting those theories to suit digital computers; we're not modelling life per se. It's important to remember, too, that although we can model evolutionary processes like variation and selection in a computer system and produce the anticipated results, we can't thereby prove that evolution applies to life. (I happen to believe that it does, but I have to admit that we have yet to irrefutably prove it). All we're doing is nicely illustrating the theory.
Someone mentioned earlier that everyone claims to be some sort of computer expert these days, and that biologists and psychologists routinely misapply computer concepts. From my perspective, the reverse is true. There seems to be a misconception that biology is straightforward and well-understood, and I just don't know where that comes from. I'm sure I'm not the only biologist who grimaces when "virus" is used to describe software. And the most gaping errors in science fiction always seem to be ones of biology. Computer scientists use words like "genotype" and "phenotype", but genetic algorithms seem to me to be so far removed from the actual complexities of gene expression as to be at best distant cousins. It's more a matter of biology lending ideas and inspiration to computer science than it is some direct translation of life processes to software processes.
Please donate your spare CPU cycles to help fight cancer and other diseases
The "moral community"? Gee, there's no unwarranted elitism in that, is there? From my life experiences, people who accept evolution as true are generally of a higher moral calibre than those who believe in the "theory" of creationism. Funny how that works...
This is a special excite
This
Saying that the frog jumps out immediately from the boiling water assumes: a) the water is suffeciently shallow for the frog to push against the bottom of the pot (I don't know if the pressure exherted against water would be enough to propel a frog out of a pot); b) that the difference in height between the water level and top of the pot is small enough for said amphibious hopper to get out; c) that being submerged in boiling water does not immediately disable the frog's jumping capacities.
I've fried crickets before (yes, I eat strange things), and when you toss them onto a hot pan with some oil (mmm.... butter), they simply don't have time to react before the proteins in their muscles are hydrolized. Not to be morbid about it, but I really don't think our frog has a chance in the boiling water.
Conversely, how dumb do we really think frogs are?? I mean, come on-- if you feel your legs scalding, don't you generally get out of the tub? Admittedly, when the temperature is raised gradually your heat tolerance increases. Indeed, people get so comfortable in saunas that they post warnings about brain damage from being in there too long. But come on. Is the frog really going to sit there and pass on blissfully to oblivion? A fish, I can understand. As the water gets hotter, fewer gasses can be dissolved in it. Since the fish breathes the dissolved gasses, it gradually suffocates. Which is beside the point, since the fish can't jump out of the pot in the first place, but you get the idea.
Somebody, please! Clear up this confusion! In the name of all that is analgous! In the meantime, I'm going to get back to my cricket stir-fry.
p.s. True science and true religion never conflict. To have a complete understanding of science is to understand the universe as it is. True religion is the same. Religion covers the why, science coveres the how. Since our understanding of both is imperfect at best, it's pointless to argue about frivolous details that don't pertain to our salvation. One way or another when we're all dead and sitting around in the waiting room, maybe there will be a documentary video playing in the VCR (DVD? What format do celestial beings use?). Then we can all nod our heads and say, "Oh, duh! Of course." Until then, deal with the fact that currently neither science nor religion has a monopoly on the full truth of "how" things came into being. Let science debate the how of the universe, let religion inspire us with the why, and what our purpose in it is.
Darned tropical millipede! What's it doing in our apartment?