Stocks and News
Home | Week in Review Process | Terms of Use | About UsContact Us
   Articles Go Fund Me All-Species List Hot Spots Go Fund Me
Week in Review   |  Bar Chat    |  Hot Spots    |   Dr. Bortrum    |   Wall St. History
Stock and News: Hot Spots
  Search Our Archives: 
 

 

Dr. Bortrum

 

AddThis Feed Button

https://www.gofundme.com/s3h2w8

 

   

02/13/2003

Hanging Out Together

In what has become our annual February ritual, my wife and I
have fled New Jersey’s cold for the warmth of Marco Island in
Florida. Followers of this column will know that for me a
highlight of Marco is the early predawn walk on the beach. In
the past, I’ve found topics for my column based on such things as
the effects of red tide on the beach environment, black water off
the coast of Florida, etc. So far this year the beach has been
devoid of any striking features. Especially interesting is a
virtually complete lack of any shells larger than an inch in size.
This is most unusual but I haven’t found an explanation yet.
Fortunately, there are still the birds.

The past couple of mornings, I have walked through gatherings
of about a hundred birds, a mix of common seagulls and my
favorites, birds with longer beaks and peaked heads. When I
walk through this crowd of birds, virtually all the seagulls just
walk a few feet out of my way. The other birds, however, will
fly off together in a swarm, typically circling in formation back
to land again in the same area after I’ve passed through. It’s as
though one member of the group gives a signal and they all
follow that bird’s lead. Actually, this “swarming” behavior is a
subject of great interest and generally the swarming group
appears to behave in a more intelligent manner than is the case.

Swarming is the theme of a rather scary book I received for
Christmas and just finished reading here on Marco. The book is
“Prey” by Michael Crichton, author of “Jurassic Park” and
creator of the TV show ER. “Prey” examines what might happen
if nano-, bio- and computer technologies were combined to
create a swarm of nanoparticles. Crichton’s miniscule
nanoparticles aren’t simply bits of dust but are imbued with
sensors and other capabilities. The swarms turn out to reproduce
and quickly evolve into a menace that threatens mankind. I
won’t go into details so as not to spoil the plot for potential
readers of the book.

Normally, I would dismiss the possibility of such a scenario as
just a clever sci-fi story. However, a marriage of computer and
nanotechnologies with a biological component gives me pause.
We’ve already seen HIV, drug-resistant TB and other diseases
evolve with great speed in a matter of years. Adding swarming
behavior could indeed be frightening. Spurred by the Crichton
novel, I went online to find out more about swarms and was quite
impressed with the amount of work on the subject. These studies
are closely allied with studies on artificial intelligence. My
surfing of the Web turned up a truly startling proposal attributing
our human self-awareness and our other human attributes to
swarming characteristics and behavior.

But first let’s consider the nature of a swarm. A typical swarm
consists of a number of mobile species, insects being a typical
example. In an earlier column, we talked about how ants
communicate the location of a food source, leading to a directed
swarming of the ants to harvest the food. Communication among
the members of a swarm is another feature of a swarm. At times,
the behavior of a swarm is such that one is tempted to attribute a
considerable degree of intelligence to the insects composing the
swarm. Yet, the brain capacity of the individual insect is
miniscule.

Scientists using computer models and simulations have shown
that complex behavior can result in swarms in which the
individual members are programmed to follow only one or less
than a handful of simple rules. This following of simple rules by
the individual members is another characteristic of a swarm. By
obeying these simple rules, the swarm becomes a problem-
solving group that, without any superior intelligence, can solve
surprisingly complex problems. No single member of the group
has anywhere near the intellect to solve the problem.

Suppose you wanted to construct a skyscraper. How would you
solve the problem of how to build it? I may have discussed the
African termite earlier but, if so, it’s worth repeating here. The
African termite has just this problem - constructing mounds
several feet high that tower over the termite. Some mounds may
even be connected by arch-like structures. Sounds like you need
a pretty smart termite. However, back in 1959, a French
biologist showed that the achievement was the result of obeying
a few simple rules. First, hundreds of termites mill around in a
random fashion, depositing regurgitated pellets of masticated
earth on spots that are slightly elevated from the ground. With
hundreds of termites, just by chance, little mounds of these
pellets are formed. So, Rule 1 - chew up dirt and spit it out!

Once these mounds are formed, Rule 2 kicks in – if you’re a
termite and come across a mound, start working hard to build up
pellets of dirt on top of it. With a bunch of hard-working
termites carrying out Rule 2, you soon have a pretty tall column.
Depending on what kind of termite you are, when the column
gets to a certain height, it’s time to quit, at least if there’s no
other column nearby. However, if you do spot a column that’s
close enough, Rule 3 kicks in – start piling up dirt on the slopes
of the adjacent columns. Keep obeying Rule 3 until you have an
inverted arch connecting the columns.

The termite swarm solves a major construction problem with
only a few simple rules that have evolved over the course of time
and been programmed into the individual termite. With today’s
powerful computers, scientists can create swarms of virtual
objects. By programming simple rules (e.g., if the next square is
occupied, move away two squares), swarms of these virtual
entities can be set loose to evolve on their own to achieve an
objective. The programmer may have no idea what the final
solution will look like. The swarm is set free to optimize itself in
its own way. This is where someone like Michael Crichton can
come in and frighten us to death by suggesting that harmful
results can result if a swarm of real, not virtual objects is released
to optimize itself and ends up going down the wrong path.

The dire result becomes even more frightening if the swarm has
the capability to reproduce. We already have virtual swarms of
viruses that reproduce. I got an e-ticket for our flight to Florida
on Continental. When I changed the flight several days before
departure, the Continental agent said she would send an e-mail
confirmation that would arrive in 15 minutes. I never received
the e-mail. The reason was a successful viral attack on the
Continental computer system. Crichton may not be too far off
the track!

How do all the millions or billions of cells that make up our
bodies manage to cooperate to allow us to function? And how
do we manage to think and act without some kind of chief
honcho in our brain to keep things running smoothly? Could the
answer be swarming? A fellow named Jesper Hoffmeyer thinks
so. Hoffmeyer proposes that in our body the cells are the units
that make up swarms. These swarms of cells of the same type
are in turn members of higher order swarms. Our amazing
capabilities of mind and physical function are the result of swarm
interactions, in Hoffmeyer’s view.

Hoffmeyer emphasizes that these swarms of cells differ from
insect swarms. The cells aren’t mobile but are stuck together. In
a swarm the members communicate. The communication among
the cells and among the swarms is not simple. Each cell has a
multitude of receptors and the response of a given cell depends
strongly on its surrounding cells and the particular chemical or
electrical stimulus or signal. The rules are vastly more complex
than with the termites, to say the least.

Hoffmeyer doesn’t presume to understand the complexities of
the swarm interactions he proposes. However, he stresses that
the swarms of immune system cells and the swarms of nerve
center cells interact closely. A consequence of his thesis is that
the brain, with its swarms, is connected closely with the rest of
the body. With the swarms and swarms of swarms all doing their
individual problem-solving tasks, the individual not-too-bright
cells end up in combination with their colleagues and swarms of
other cells to make us the brilliant creatures we are. At least
that’s my impression of Hoffmeyer’s proposal.

Hoffmeyer concludes a 1995 paper with the statement that
“thoughts and feelings are not localized entities. They swarm out
of our body collective.” If the swarm idea is true it seems to me
this is indeed a profound suggestion that would solve,
conceptually at least, a lot of problems relating to our human
nature and capabilities. I have no idea if Hoffmeyer’s ideas are
on target but to my simple mind they have a distinct appeal,
much like black holes. That is, I can convince myself that I
understand the broad concepts, but my simple mind can only
handle so much! I’ll try to follow up on swarms and see if I can
find critiques of Hoffmeyer’s ideas. Meanwhile, if you’re up to a
somewhat disturbing read, try “Prey” and you’ll get a better and
much more exciting feeling for the nature of swarms.

Allen F. Bortrum



AddThis Feed Button

 

-02/13/2003-      
Web Epoch NJ Web Design  |  (c) Copyright 2016 StocksandNews.com, LLC.

Dr. Bortrum

02/13/2003

Hanging Out Together

In what has become our annual February ritual, my wife and I
have fled New Jersey’s cold for the warmth of Marco Island in
Florida. Followers of this column will know that for me a
highlight of Marco is the early predawn walk on the beach. In
the past, I’ve found topics for my column based on such things as
the effects of red tide on the beach environment, black water off
the coast of Florida, etc. So far this year the beach has been
devoid of any striking features. Especially interesting is a
virtually complete lack of any shells larger than an inch in size.
This is most unusual but I haven’t found an explanation yet.
Fortunately, there are still the birds.

The past couple of mornings, I have walked through gatherings
of about a hundred birds, a mix of common seagulls and my
favorites, birds with longer beaks and peaked heads. When I
walk through this crowd of birds, virtually all the seagulls just
walk a few feet out of my way. The other birds, however, will
fly off together in a swarm, typically circling in formation back
to land again in the same area after I’ve passed through. It’s as
though one member of the group gives a signal and they all
follow that bird’s lead. Actually, this “swarming” behavior is a
subject of great interest and generally the swarming group
appears to behave in a more intelligent manner than is the case.

Swarming is the theme of a rather scary book I received for
Christmas and just finished reading here on Marco. The book is
“Prey” by Michael Crichton, author of “Jurassic Park” and
creator of the TV show ER. “Prey” examines what might happen
if nano-, bio- and computer technologies were combined to
create a swarm of nanoparticles. Crichton’s miniscule
nanoparticles aren’t simply bits of dust but are imbued with
sensors and other capabilities. The swarms turn out to reproduce
and quickly evolve into a menace that threatens mankind. I
won’t go into details so as not to spoil the plot for potential
readers of the book.

Normally, I would dismiss the possibility of such a scenario as
just a clever sci-fi story. However, a marriage of computer and
nanotechnologies with a biological component gives me pause.
We’ve already seen HIV, drug-resistant TB and other diseases
evolve with great speed in a matter of years. Adding swarming
behavior could indeed be frightening. Spurred by the Crichton
novel, I went online to find out more about swarms and was quite
impressed with the amount of work on the subject. These studies
are closely allied with studies on artificial intelligence. My
surfing of the Web turned up a truly startling proposal attributing
our human self-awareness and our other human attributes to
swarming characteristics and behavior.

But first let’s consider the nature of a swarm. A typical swarm
consists of a number of mobile species, insects being a typical
example. In an earlier column, we talked about how ants
communicate the location of a food source, leading to a directed
swarming of the ants to harvest the food. Communication among
the members of a swarm is another feature of a swarm. At times,
the behavior of a swarm is such that one is tempted to attribute a
considerable degree of intelligence to the insects composing the
swarm. Yet, the brain capacity of the individual insect is
miniscule.

Scientists using computer models and simulations have shown
that complex behavior can result in swarms in which the
individual members are programmed to follow only one or less
than a handful of simple rules. This following of simple rules by
the individual members is another characteristic of a swarm. By
obeying these simple rules, the swarm becomes a problem-
solving group that, without any superior intelligence, can solve
surprisingly complex problems. No single member of the group
has anywhere near the intellect to solve the problem.

Suppose you wanted to construct a skyscraper. How would you
solve the problem of how to build it? I may have discussed the
African termite earlier but, if so, it’s worth repeating here. The
African termite has just this problem - constructing mounds
several feet high that tower over the termite. Some mounds may
even be connected by arch-like structures. Sounds like you need
a pretty smart termite. However, back in 1959, a French
biologist showed that the achievement was the result of obeying
a few simple rules. First, hundreds of termites mill around in a
random fashion, depositing regurgitated pellets of masticated
earth on spots that are slightly elevated from the ground. With
hundreds of termites, just by chance, little mounds of these
pellets are formed. So, Rule 1 - chew up dirt and spit it out!

Once these mounds are formed, Rule 2 kicks in – if you’re a
termite and come across a mound, start working hard to build up
pellets of dirt on top of it. With a bunch of hard-working
termites carrying out Rule 2, you soon have a pretty tall column.
Depending on what kind of termite you are, when the column
gets to a certain height, it’s time to quit, at least if there’s no
other column nearby. However, if you do spot a column that’s
close enough, Rule 3 kicks in – start piling up dirt on the slopes
of the adjacent columns. Keep obeying Rule 3 until you have an
inverted arch connecting the columns.

The termite swarm solves a major construction problem with
only a few simple rules that have evolved over the course of time
and been programmed into the individual termite. With today’s
powerful computers, scientists can create swarms of virtual
objects. By programming simple rules (e.g., if the next square is
occupied, move away two squares), swarms of these virtual
entities can be set loose to evolve on their own to achieve an
objective. The programmer may have no idea what the final
solution will look like. The swarm is set free to optimize itself in
its own way. This is where someone like Michael Crichton can
come in and frighten us to death by suggesting that harmful
results can result if a swarm of real, not virtual objects is released
to optimize itself and ends up going down the wrong path.

The dire result becomes even more frightening if the swarm has
the capability to reproduce. We already have virtual swarms of
viruses that reproduce. I got an e-ticket for our flight to Florida
on Continental. When I changed the flight several days before
departure, the Continental agent said she would send an e-mail
confirmation that would arrive in 15 minutes. I never received
the e-mail. The reason was a successful viral attack on the
Continental computer system. Crichton may not be too far off
the track!

How do all the millions or billions of cells that make up our
bodies manage to cooperate to allow us to function? And how
do we manage to think and act without some kind of chief
honcho in our brain to keep things running smoothly? Could the
answer be swarming? A fellow named Jesper Hoffmeyer thinks
so. Hoffmeyer proposes that in our body the cells are the units
that make up swarms. These swarms of cells of the same type
are in turn members of higher order swarms. Our amazing
capabilities of mind and physical function are the result of swarm
interactions, in Hoffmeyer’s view.

Hoffmeyer emphasizes that these swarms of cells differ from
insect swarms. The cells aren’t mobile but are stuck together. In
a swarm the members communicate. The communication among
the cells and among the swarms is not simple. Each cell has a
multitude of receptors and the response of a given cell depends
strongly on its surrounding cells and the particular chemical or
electrical stimulus or signal. The rules are vastly more complex
than with the termites, to say the least.

Hoffmeyer doesn’t presume to understand the complexities of
the swarm interactions he proposes. However, he stresses that
the swarms of immune system cells and the swarms of nerve
center cells interact closely. A consequence of his thesis is that
the brain, with its swarms, is connected closely with the rest of
the body. With the swarms and swarms of swarms all doing their
individual problem-solving tasks, the individual not-too-bright
cells end up in combination with their colleagues and swarms of
other cells to make us the brilliant creatures we are. At least
that’s my impression of Hoffmeyer’s proposal.

Hoffmeyer concludes a 1995 paper with the statement that
“thoughts and feelings are not localized entities. They swarm out
of our body collective.” If the swarm idea is true it seems to me
this is indeed a profound suggestion that would solve,
conceptually at least, a lot of problems relating to our human
nature and capabilities. I have no idea if Hoffmeyer’s ideas are
on target but to my simple mind they have a distinct appeal,
much like black holes. That is, I can convince myself that I
understand the broad concepts, but my simple mind can only
handle so much! I’ll try to follow up on swarms and see if I can
find critiques of Hoffmeyer’s ideas. Meanwhile, if you’re up to a
somewhat disturbing read, try “Prey” and you’ll get a better and
much more exciting feeling for the nature of swarms.

Allen F. Bortrum