IMAGES AND REVERSALS
Vol.33 No.2 May 1999
Make All Things Make Themselves
“The reaction to the Darwinian theory was … diverse when it first exploded onto the Victorian scene… . For Charles Kingsley, a deity who could make all things make themselves was far wiser than one who simply made all things.” 
Computer graphics has always been about making things, whether making 3D images of real objects, making images of imagined visions or making models of the “unseen” in visualizations of scientific data.
During the Renaissance, the goal of art was to imitate nature, to make true and accurate images of the real world. Even in the poetry of the period, the “prime aim … was to make an imitation” in order to “grasp the essential meaning and value.” 
Although this goal fell away some time ago, we can now see that our newest tools make it possible to imitate nature once again - but this time at much deeper levels. The imitation can be not only of images of surfaces, but also imitation of nature’s growth, its physical motion, its processes, its inner workings, its unfolding instructions according to an simple code - imitating the immense complexity generated by variation of a simple code within a context of meaningful selection. And it is already becoming clear that part of this imitation is developing some understanding of things that “make themselves.”
More on Karl Sims|
More on Richard Dawkins
Years ago, when I first saw the short silent movies of Karl Sims’ block creatures - walking, swimming, seeking light and guarding their food - I was thunderstruck. I felt immediately that something very powerful indeed was afoot. And I imagined that what I was seeing was really only the very beginning. 
Of course, Sims’ work is in many ways mainly a highly sophisticated extension of Richard Dawkins’ “Blind Watchmaker” program developed for the early Macintosh. With this program (included with Dawkins’ book of the same name), two-dimensional, static, monochrome stick figures varied their form in random ways. This allowed the player to select among an array of mutations for different kinds of shapes and traits, play after play, generation after generation - until a new and wonderful centipede, starfish or complex crystal was produced. 
This piece of software showed the potential of a modest interactive game to reveal a deeper concept, a fundamental process of nature. However, for me, although the stick figures were fascinating, it took the more life-like motions and behavior of Sims’ virtual creatures to drive the point home.
Accordingly, I think our new tools and our new toys are bringing us face to face with a deeper understanding of how nature’s system really works - how truly dazzling adaptations to a particular environment can be generated with a relatively simple mechanism, constantly interacting with a particular and changing environment.
This deeper understanding also belies the idea of fixed superiority, since so much depends upon one form of environmental context for any particular form of superiority. The system may evolve an amazingly superior swimmer, but this does not make for a superior walker.
With such models, we can see what an effective mechanism such as evolution is, partly because of this intense and constant interaction between genetic code and outside environment. Indeed, we might reflect that even if there were overt intention by a “maker,” this might not be a good thing. We humans are constantly designing things by intention. But how often do we come up with the “unintended consequences” that are so often observed and lamented. It becomes clear that making things that make themselves may be a much more practical strategy in an ever-changing world.
But there is a rub here - for many people, an enormous change of metaphor. We now have to view the maker’s role not as a craftsman or designer or engineer, but as a maker of things over which the maker has only limited control. Over time, the vast complexity generates a freedom of form and function well beyond the power of the maker. And often, I would argue, this is a good thing.
One of Sims’ creatures in particular stands out in my mind. The design specified walking as forward motion. One creature found that by simply building itself very tall (with an appropriately placed weight), it could fall and tumble heel over head so that it could generate ample forward motion and thus satisfy the selection criteria. Sims observed that this was a strategy that had never occurred to him - the programmer, the arms-length designer.
What is no less remarkable is that Sims also found that other creatures took advantage of the bugs and programmer’s mistakes in specifying the physical world. Indeed, Sims noted that such a process was so reliable that it might be seen as a “lazy” way of finding such bugs.
Thus he argues that “it is important that the physical simulation be reasonably accurate when optimizing for creatures that can move within it. Any bugs that allow energy leaks from non-conservation, or even round-off errors, will inevitably be discovered and exploited by the evolving creatures. Although this can be a lazy and often amusing approach for debugging a physical modeling system, it is not necessarily the most practical.” 
Unexpected innovation and relentless exploitation of possible advantage - these are impressive indeed and show the amazing power of nature’s engine of adaptation. If these striking innovations are so easy to observe in a synthetic universe, in only a handful of generations, how much more should we expect in the real world of nature?
Of course, when viewed in this way, ample evidence can be seen in every direction. A recent article in Science News, for example, noted that a graduate student has just found a kind of bacteria living on ants that proved to be highly beneficial to the ants. The ants “farm” a certain kind of fungus for their own food.
However, this fungus would be easily killed by another pest fungus - if it were not for the antibiotic secretions of the ants’ bacteria ride-along buddies. Thus the graduate student “who once mused about funny-looking patches” on the ants found that the insects have “a microscopic partner species overlooked despite about a century of study.”
“What’s interesting from an evolutionary perspective is that once again the ants hit on something before we did. Ants beat humans in developing agriculture by some 50 million years. Now, says [one scientist], it looks as if the same ants came in ahead on bacterial antibiotics by millions of years.” 
National Dyslexia Research Foundation
The copyright of articles and images printed remains with the author unless otherwise indicated.
Learning from the Lowly
Such stories take us to a place where we should be prepared to have much higher respect for apparently ordinary and humble creatures. What we are not sufficiently aware of is that these creatures are the beneficiaries of a system capable of innovation far beyond our own small imaginings.
Perhaps it is time to reconsider centuries of human self-congratulation on our own cleverness and begin to look at the cleverness - indeed the wisdom - of humble creatures. These creatures have used an elegant process to not only produce clever innovations, but to produce clever innovations that are proven to work, again and again, over millions of years. Such accomplishments should teach us a great deal about the possibilities for “sustainable development.”
We have built an elaborate maze of justifications and explanations. Modern culture has sophisticated arguments to explain why human beings are at the top the pecking order and why human language is a supreme achievement. Accordingly, it is very hard for us to fully appreciate the accomplishments of the humble ant, the unsavory fungus and the insignificant microbe.
Yet, our newest technologies - as the microscope and telescope did centuries ago - are slowly opening up these worlds so that we may see clearly once again what we should have known all along.
However, learning from such lowly creatures is not easy. Our whole culture, for most of us, has trained us not to think such thoughts. Certainly there is very little in the Modern Western tradition to cultivate such an appreciation. Generally, there has been virtually no respect for the intelligence of animals. Intelligence is not seen as manifest in nature. Rather, it comes in spoken words and in writing. Respecting the intelligence of animals and creatures that make themselves would seem to be more consistent with the worldview of our very distant ancestors.
It would indeed be curious if our new visualization technologies and computer simulations were to take us back in time to a place where we can admire - once again, as our distant ancestors did - the high intelligence of lowly creatures. These creatures learn and innovate not from the words and logic but from relentless experimentation and selection over long periods of time, thus showing the deep wisdom of making “all things make themselves.”
Thomas G.West is author of In the Mind’s Eye. He is currently consulting for the National Library of Medicine helping to develop a research agenda and plan a future conference. New computer graphic and information visualization technologies are seen as an emerging force in redefining the abilities required to do high level work in many fields - and as a unifying force across the traditional boundaries between science, medicine, art, history, geography and culture. West has long been interested in expressions of intelligence in a variety of creatures, however lowly, however small.