This is a submission I have written for the Journal of
Love and Robotics
Feedback is welcome as I have not yet submitted. Questions will help me refine it further? Thank and
Lovotics – Love and Robotics
Mechanisms of attachment
There has been over a century of development in evolutionary theory since Darwin first produced his “On the origin of species”. This is not to say that he pre-dated the study of Nature of course and other theories pre-dated his. One of the attempts at organising Nature used the old method of cladistics from the Greek, a descriptor for the study of structures. It may be thought in the light of modern evolutionary theory that these methods have fallen into disrepute but they still have use as Nicklaus et al  observes in his descriptions using the term “evolutionary sieve” and the survival of structures. We are presented with situation where indeed structures are seen to survive, change or disappear with a species’ evolution. Thus we have the inductive presence of a cladistics measuring stick although it is not straight and does not penetrate the mutative effects of the DNA changes. In other words structures do not reflect all the aspects of a species’ mutation and are considered an insufficient measure for completeness in a mathematical sense.
It is taken as understood that in humans there is a close relationship between brain signals described as emotions and the physical reactions that occur at the reproductory structures. These “reactions” to an emotion (not necessarily love, to acknowledge the title of this journal, but some brain signal of a form known as an emotion) is assumed by writers even to the current day, to give rise to a physical response leading to the spam that is known as ejaculation.
If one reflects, one is forced to admit that this is unfortunate and the understanding that the search for love is the search for service and another to contribute to a heightened level of energy expenditure and an overall reduction in entropy from a basic thermodynamic perspective leading to mutual psychological well-being.
Robotics must evolve from the design map of all known things including the Natural World and biomimetics looks at these with the eyes of a child with a massive new microscope for Christmas. We are looking at the Natural world with senses now augmented by robotics themselves to seek best practise solutions to problems so that they are ecologically sound.
An emotional system must be studied and developed that accedes lessons learned Nature but which does not interfere with or reduce the design space through over-parameterisation. God inventions come from Man. Nature does not serve Man’s purpose.
By what physical processes or actions do humans observe the ritual of love? How are these rituals positioned on the map for all species? Where does a collective approach and co-operation fall in the emotional spectrum and what is their relationship to love? Does love require communication? Can a human fall in love with a robot and vice versa and does it require “artificial intelligence”? Can one robot love another? These are all interesting questions but let’s cut to the chase:
Is the sex organ of the future a USB port? Is the love organ or connection between two organisms the heart of the matter or is it a hook that misleads us into mistaking a multi-use frictional device for a monogamistic, permanent, heterosexual, frictional, fixed joint?
Is there a direct connection between the actions of a permutation and those of survival of that species. At an ecological level one would think so but how do the molecular changes reflected in physical structural changes reflect upon the emotions of a species?
If we remove a mosquito’s ability to have sex will we cause them enormous mental anguish such that they go insane through a lack of emotional contact?
This is, of course, anthropomorphism but the seemingly infinite time available to us in this pause in the evolutionary clock we call history means we have begun exploring fields such as behavioural theory that probably indicate the necessity of love in some organisms. I am an engineer. I know about love. I have read Wilbur Smith.
Linguistic mistakes and irregularities steeped in the traditional English Anglo-Saxon language in no way express adequately the transfer of effect of one atom upon another for instance. If one knows the funny bone, one touch can produce irrational behaviour, or on-linear exertions of kinetic behaviour in seemingly static structures, for example buckling.
I’m sick of this A-level English.
Did love come through the evolutionary sieve like some physical structure with an organ like a brain, or is it present? As you dance down the halls of Robots and Love and Consciousness you hear the music of the Doors and the words of Alan Ginsberg. Language reflects a well-trodden path.
According to Bec Crew [http://www.sciencealert.com/a-bug-in-fmri-software-could-invalidate-decades-of-brain-research-scientists-discover] fifteen years of fMRi date has been lost due to a bug in a statistics program along with an estimated 40 000 papers. fMRi scanners are robotic and highly computational. Renew studies in birds and stop experimenting upon humans that basically need the touch and warmth of human/earthly/robotic capacity.
The point is: Whose head are you fucking with?
And in the end, who knows? I haven’t considered an answer. But some statistical analysis will provide some focus with some great over-computation…and our design space will shrink not giving us the flexibility to peer around the next corner to see where the direction takes us.
NB – For my personal notes
The REAL Introduction.
TITLE: “The application of early evolutionary theory and design laws to the reverse engineering of a 100 micron-radius by 20 micron thick long-shafted modular-hooked Universal Foot for frictional probabilistic attachment from Natural biological attachment mechanisms using scanning electro-deposition electron microscopy and Biomimetic principles.”
This is a review article of the three papers published in the Springer-Open journal, “The Journal of Robotics and Biomimetics” in a special issue on nano-/micro-robotics under the following titles:
- A biomimetic study of natural attachment mechanisms— Arctium minus part 1 
- A biomimetic study of natural attachment mechanisms: imaging cellulose and chitin part 2 
- Micro-design using frictional, hooked, attachment mechanisms: a biomimetic study of natural attachment mechanisms—Part 3 
This research/design has been entered into the current Buckminster-Fuller Competition 2016 The title of part 3 above displays the underlying theory behind the exploration of the detail of papers 1 and 2. It accepts the viability of using cladistic methods to arrive at a scenario where a structure that has survived the “evolutionary sieve” is selected, to quote Nicklaus et al , over the use of Linnaeus or other classification methods which can be seen as insignificantly better when it comes to evolutionary manifestations of properties and/or structures. In other words all evolutionary models are all imperfect and so it is that the solution must indeed be imperfect too if it is to reflect the true nature of the Natural World i.e. testing is necessary before any firm conclusions can be reached. The use of the hook is a not very interesting thing, relatively. But it is also the ideal way to start with the designing of micro-sized (~100micron) objects because of the over-hang of the hook which is of the minimal complexity to test the programmer [see ] can be assembled into machine-like components for manufacture. Their origins are a little too old for one to understand their development since the designs are based in evolutionary theory, which is utilised in order to identify which structures are viable and of suitable length and strength to be of use in the manufacture of computer components to attach to PCB’s (printed circuit boards).
THE THESIS PROPOSAL
This work derives from a thesis proposal: “The Functional Ecology and Mechanical Properties of Biological Hooks in Nature” which led to a dispelling of the myth that an engineer cannot do a biological subject in that the researcher was the first person to use a confocal microscope by virtue of his imaging knowledge. It led to the theory that there is a way of being able to measure the proportional forces being used in the attachment of those mechanisms that could be measured and used to manufacture a hook that would indeed be of use, but not as expected. Of course the first view was that it was unsuitable to measure with current technology as it was then and now it has become possible only through the work of Hirt et al , by their work on SEM (scanning electrodeposition electron microscopy). Now a hook can be manufactured at a 1:1 scale to the specimen that is to be reverse engineered and that means that designers are on the brink of being able to make things that are of use, in the micro-realm (of the order of 10-100 microns in size). It all began with the discovery that it was possible to image one of the hooked probabilistic fasteners under laser light, namely the cellulose hook of burdock (Arctium minus). Therefore the work continued with the chitinous growths of the bee and the grasshopper (Apis mellifera and Omocestus viridulus) tarsii . This encounter with luck was able to make true the theory that the use of the microscope could be for the imaging of a specimen and then the transfer of data directly to a layered manufacture device that was suitable, namely the SEM work of Hirt et al . The point of this imaging was to use it to describe the group of probabilistic fasteners as a number, namely one for the hook, two for the attachment mechanism of the grasshopper O. viridulus with two hooks, and three for the double set of hooks, namely A. mellifera with a separating arolium which could make it all seem like they are intended to prove the theory right and not wrong. The chance of being on top of a specimen structure available without travelling is immense, as these were all available at the University of Bath which is set in the countryside of Western England. Particularly the burdock which is used (apparently) as the basis of Velcro but it is concluded this is without fundament and it seemed better to use it than to use the others (see below), as it will be shown, for the production of a new hook, a multi-use flat structure of multiple hooks that could be used without being entirely known, as per its value and knowledge. i.e. if it is to be the one to be imitated then it needs to be studied more now so that it can be manufactured.
INSERT FIGURE 1 AND CAPTION
Referring to the Figure of the burdock “head” or seedpod, the following is asked of the reader: “Do you think that it can be reproduced effectively as per the table below, from where I have shown it to be a better hook than those of the other four, namely the Agrimonia eupatoria, Circaea lutetiana, Galium aparine, and Geum urbanum” ?
INSERT TABLE 1 AND CAPTION
The aim therefore, is to develop a Universal micro-robotic frictional probablistic attachment mechanism with a performance that can be modelled graphically, using Biomimetic principles. This is called a Universal Foot after the fact that a human foot is a frictional probabilistic attachment mechanism and because its performance is to be modelled graphically for design, performance, material, quality and other parameters, its universal qualities.
That it should come to pass, that this should happen in the modern day….that I should have to make do with a modern response when I really want to keel-haul half the University of Bath.
I left, they said.
But, the psychiatrists notes say, I was suffering under a psychosis at the time and therefore it has come to pass that I have been punished for being insane and deprived of my PhD by the University that is supposed to provide support to me during my time as a student researcher.
I had my car burnt out. This is not a psychosis but it supports my reasoning that I was subjected to a form of public harassment such as only Bath can provide with its smallness and tiny streets where you cannot escape the notice of the public, if you live here.
It is the reason I decided to conduct my research online and to put it all on a blog – not over-joyed success, not but struggle for contentment as I carried all this with me on memory stick and other means, through a decade of disastrous depression and repression.
I have been sectioned six times for harassing the University by e-mail. This has led to seclusion and yes, to thought patterns that have regressed to the point of aggression as I have struggled to accept the state of the unique times we live in where the pharmaceutical is the answer to all things.
And all during this time I have merely sought access to a publisher for my work.
That is all. Not too much to ask, is it Breakwell? (The VC of Bath Uni)
I will stand with anyone who rejects the worth of the Union at the University and particularly Steve Wharton.
That means that unlike Ross from Friends
I have had over 350 knowledgeable readers of my PhD thesis.
Which is quite cool.
I am currently awaiting news of a fourth paper. Until then I have been watching my interest figures and their waning with the publication of my three papers so far.
I got kicked of the agenda of the Madness 9 Conference at Oxford but still have the Fluid Dynamic and Aerodynamics Conference lined up for August.