Technomimicry as analogous to biomimicry

Engendering a Psychopter through Biomimicry and Technomimicry (Part #5)

Biomimicry (variously defined to include biomimetics and bionics) is understood as learning from nature, notably applying the insights to development of technology. The artefacts so developed may be recognized generically as analogous to the species recognized in nature -- emerging as a result of mutation in a knowledge-based society. This point has been made by Kenneth Boulding (Ecodynamics: a new theory of societal evolution, 1978).

Expressed differently, societal learning can be inspired and catalyzed by technological innovation. The process might be described as "technomimicry" -- a neologism whose interpretation and scope are currently under discussion. Use is already made of "technomimetics" in molecular nanotechnology to refer to molecular systems that can be made to mimic man-made devices as the essential components of molecular machines. The issue here is whether cognitive systems can be usefully devised to mimic -- in systemic terms -- the structures and processes of certain technologies. This would follow from the principles of isomorphism associated with general systems research (M. Joseph Sirgy, Strategies for developing general systems theories, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33, 1988, 1, pp. 25-37).

A useful example is provided by Elizabeth Finkel (The Genome Generation, 2012). In explaining radical rethinking regarding the previous inadequacies of understanding of the process of genetic inheritiance, she explores how this may now be framed by the new familiarity with information technology:

Scientists have always understood biology in terms of the technology of the day. The brain, for instance, was considered by the Ancient Greeks and Romans to be an aqueduct for pumping blood; inhabitants of the 19th century likened it to a telephone exchange; those of the 20th century likened it a personal computer. Now scientists compare the brain to chaos and distributed functions of the Internet.

It is appropriate to note the implications of biomimicry and technomimicry, as understood here, for "memetics". This is a theory of mental content based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution -- an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer. A meme, analogous to a gene, is essentially a "unit of culture"-an idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc. which is "hosted" in one or more individual minds, and which can reproduce itself from mind to mind. Reference is already made to "biomemetics" when "biomimetics" may have been intended. The same could be said of "technomemetics" (The Techno-Memetic Evolution of the Biosphere, 2006; The Evolution of the Techno-meme, 2009).

As might be expected. there are already traces of a related recognition of mnemonics, as memory aids, in the form of "biomnemonics" and "technomnemonics" -- aids to remembering. The terms mimetics, memetics and mnemonics are then natural complements with respect to the following argument. The issue here, however, is can a pattern of organization, recognized in existing technology, be applied to psychosocial organization in some way, just as organization in nature is applied to the development of a product ?

The question goes to the root of the debate regarding the influence of technology on cognitive processes -- as currently explored from a range of perspectives (Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: what the Internet is doing to our brains, 2010; William Powers, Hamlet's BlackBerry: building a good life in the Digital Age, 2011; Erik Davis, Technognosis: myth, magic and mysticism in the age of information, 1998; Robert D. Romanyshyn, Technology as Symptom and Dream, 1989; R. Kanai, et al. Online social network size is reflected in human brain structure, Proceedings of the Royal Society, October 2011). Especially noteworthy is the work of Sherry Turkle (Life on the Screen: identity in the Age of the Internet, 1997; Evocative Objects: things we think with, 2007; Falling for Science: objects in mind, 2008).

A striking example is provided by the study of the unsuspected formative influences on the development of the frame of reference of Ludwig Wittgenstein, as explored by Susan G. Sterrett (Wittgenstein Flies a Kite: a story of models of wings and models of the world, 2005). The argument has been speculatively applied to the frames of reference of Albert Einstein (Einstein's Implicit Theory of Relativity -- of Cognitive Property? Unexamined influence of patenting procedures, 2007).

Unexpected relevance to the potential implications of technomimicry, but yet to be fully explored, follows from the elaboration of quantum theory. As recently noted in a lead article by Mark Buchanan (Quantum Minds: why we think like quarks, New Scientist, 5 September 2011, pp. 34-37):

It may sound preposterous to imagine that the mathematics of quantum theory has something to say about the nature of human thinking. This is not to say that there is anything quantum going on in the brain, only that "quantum" mathematics really isn't owned by physics at all, and turns out to be better than classical mathematics in capturing the fuzzy and flexible ways that humans use ideas, than the one dictated by classical logic... It's a finding that has kicked off a burgeoning field known as "quantum interaction", which explores how quantum theory can be useful in areas having nothing to do with physics, ranging from human language and cognition to biology and economics....

Yet one big question remains: why should quantum logic fit human behaviour? ... The reason is to do with our finite brain being overwhelmed by the complexity of the environment yet having to take action long before it can calculate its way to the certaintiy demanded by classical logic. Quantum logic may be more suitable to making decisions that work well enough, even if they are not logically faultless... much of our thinking operates on a largely unconscious level, where thoguht follows a less restrictive logic and forms loose associations between concepts.... This is not to say that the human brain or consciousness have anything to do with quantum physics, only that the mathematical language of quantum theory happens to match the description of human decision-making.

The essentially constructivist nature of the belief in the "existence" of th entities to which quantum logic applies, increases the relevance of the argument from the perspective of cognitive psychology (George Lakoff and Rafael Núñez, Where Mathematics Comes From: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being, 2000). With respect to "quantum interaction", Diederik Aerts, Marek Czachor and Sandro Sozzo (Quantum Interaction Approach in Cognition, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, April 2011) indicate:

We point out that these results provide interesting insights toward the development of a unified theory for meaning and knowledge formalization and representation.

Just as it has been recognized that considerable benefits can be derived from biomimicry (as noted above), there is every reason that analogous benefits could be derived from technomimicry -- especially given the very heavy investment in the learning and innovation process associated with any given development.

The issue is how can that learning be applied in other domains. A preliminary scoping of possibilities is presented separately (Principles of Re-reading and Rapplication, 2001). In the focus here on the "psychopter", the domains in question are psychosocial and necessarily intangible -- rather than deriving principles of relevance in other tangible domains typical of technical research and development.

Main menu

Directions

You are here

Main menu

Search form

Directions

You are here

Technomimicry as analogous to biomimicry