Biomimetics, Micro-design, Arctium minus et al Hook and Velcro – A PhD and a Virtual Textbook on Biological Attachment Mechanisms and their Mimicking

Home » Bioman » Love and Robotics

Love and Robotics

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

Regards

Bruce

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

11 Comments

  1. #3 says:

    I like how the molecular, structural, and behavioral? aspects of the matter are all turned about, like a human inspecting a peach in the grocery.

    I wanted the mosquito tied in tighter somehow?

    I am curious about the sentence that ends with the idea of space and over-parameterisation because I don’t understand that part.

    I am the spam that is ejaculation.

    • The Bioman says:

      LOL! Round here, no spasms required!

    • The Bioman says:

      Thanks for the comment! Well, design is about need, and first we have to decide whether we want to remember last nothing and the binge we had on peach schnapps and its effects before we select that peach!! Do we want love in our robots? As for the design space question…..picture a 3-D space with x,y,z axes shown as per standard drawing apps. Those are parameters. Now, if we take, say, the mudskipper fish and decide to imitate its movements, do we have to test in water and mud in a flat place like the mudskpiier’s environment to find prefection and our solution which gets ALL parameters right, or can we simplify for the sake of experimentation and observation and still get an accurate solution? A design space, we want to be free to move anywhere as needed for a general solution instead of a precise instantaneous non-repeatable exact one..

      • #3 says:

        Yes, because that would be limiting, and how to evolve from that? Hmm. I am very interested in the ideas of this article and I will ponder it the rest of the day until I get a deeper understanding. Meanwhile, I was distracted by reading of hydrophobic molecules, but back to love of the robot.

        So far, I believe we do want and will design robotic love, and I wonder if it will be constrained to be servile or will we have a lovelorn new species running about, fucking up all the parameters. Idk. Idk.

        But I will think more on the intellectual meat of the journal and not this fun fiction

      • The Bioman says:

        The second point I would like to raise is that I personally have been subjected to the experimentation that is psychiatric treatment and I do not believe what I have been presented with – hypodermic solutions to trauma. So I am very cynical about the “science” of the mind.

  2. Chris White says:

    Interesting ideas, Bruce. Could I fall in love with a robot ?
    Well I suppose I could give it a shot.

  3. Chris White says:

    Also …. Will a human be allowed to marry a robot ?

    • The Bioman says:

      Well the design answer would be that the penis is a multi use frictional attachment device but not probablistic – it doesn’t penetrate everywhere it goes – it requires a specific substrate. I say this because sex of love and do we need it? In which case you can fuck/make love a robot holding a sliced melon because you could still love her.

  4. The Bioman says:

    ANSWER: YOU WOULD HAVE TO MARRY HER IN SOME STATES of the USA 🙂

    I say sex is love. That it goes back to the yearning of the DNA for meiosis.

  5. The Bioman says:

    I’m interested on the “feel” of what might develop and whether it will be detectable to a human without instruments and even then…imitating love may not be so difficult in an algorithm, but the fact is…cos love is a “feeling”…in the absence thereof would it still be love? Or hate?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: