Page 158 - Biomimetics : Biologically Inspired Technologies
P. 158

Bar-Cohen : Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies DK3163_c004 Final Proof page 144 21.9.2005 9:37am




                    144                                     Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired Technologies
































                    Figure 4.7 (See color insert following page 302)  Artificial ontogeny: Growing machines using gene regulatory
                    networks. (a) An example of cells that can differentiate into structural, passive cells (dark), or active cells (bright)
                    which contains neurons responsible for sensing (T ¼ touch, A ¼ angle) and motor actuation (M). The connectivity
                    of the neurons is determined by propagation of ‘‘chemicals’’ expressed by genes and sensors, who are themselves
                    expressed in response to chemicals in a regulatory network. (b) Three machines evolved to be able to push a block.
                    (c) The distribution of genes responsible for neurogenesis (red) and morphogenesis (blue) shows a clear separ-
                    ation that suggests an emergence of a ‘‘body’’ and a ‘‘brain.’’ (From Bongard, J. C., Pfeifer, R. (2003) Evolving
                    complete agents using artificial ontogeny. In: Hara, F., Pfeifer, R. (eds), Morpho-Functional Machines: the New
                    Species (Designing Embodied Intelligence), Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. With permission.)


                    cells (colored blue) are relatively separated, suggesting an initial emergence of what we call
                    ‘‘body’’ and ‘‘brain.’’


                                   4.5  EVOLVING MACHINES IN PHYSICAL REALITY

                    Though many robotic experiments are carried out in simulation, a robot must ultimately reside in
                    physical reality. Applying evolutionary processes to physical machines is difficult for two reasons.
                    First, even if we are only evolving controllers for a fixed machine, each evaluation of a candidate
                    controller involves trying it out in reality. This is a slow and costly process that also wears out
                    the target system. Performing thousand of evaluations is usually impractical. Second, if we are
                    evolving morphology as well, then how would these morphological changes take place in reality?
                    Changes to the controller can be done simply by reprogramming, but changes to the morphology
                    require more sophisticated processes. Nature has some interesting solutions to this problem, such
                    as growing materials, or self-assembling and self-replicating basic building blocks like cells. Let
                    us examine these two approaches.

                    4.5.1 Evolving Controllers for Physical Morphologies

                    One approach to evolving controllers for fixed morphologies is to make a simulator that is so
                    perfect, that whatever works in simulation will work in reality equally well. Unfortunately, such a
   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163