In this article, we propose some fundamental requirements for the appearance of adaptivity. We argue that a basic metabolic organization, taken in its minimal sense, may provide the conceptual framework for naturalizing the origin of teleology and normative functionality as it appears in living systems. However, adaptivity also requires the emergence of a regulatory subsystem, which implies a certain form of dynamic decoupling within a globally integrated, autonomous system. Thus, we analyze several forms of minimal adaptivity, including the special case of motility. We go on to explain how an open-ended complexity growth of motility-based adaptive agency, namely, behavior, requires the appearance of the nervous system. Finally, we discuss some implications of these ideas for embodied robotics.
Ashby, W.R. (1952). Design for a brain. The origin of adaptive behavior . London: Chapman & Hall.
2.
Barandiaran, X. (2004). Behavioral adaptive autonomy. A milestone in the Alife route to AI? In J. Pollack, M. Bedau, P. Husbands , T. Ikegami, & R. Watson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 514-521). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
3.
Barandiaran, X. (2007). Mental life: Conceptual models and synthetic methodologies for a post-cognitivist psychology. In B. Wallace , A. Ross, J. Davies, & T. Anderson (Eds.), The world, the mind and the body: Psychology after cognitivism (pp. 49-90). London: Imprint Academic.
4.
Barandiaran, X., & Moreno, A. (2006). On what makes certain dynamical systems cognitive . Journal of Adaptive Behavior, 14(2), 171-185.
5.
Bickhard, M.H. (1993). Representational content in humans and machines . Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence , 5, 285-333.
6.
Brooks, R.A. (1990). Elephants don't play chess. In P. Maes (Ed.), Designing autonomous agents (pp. 3-15). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Christensen, W.D., & Bickhard, M.H. (2002). The process dynamics of normative function. Monist, 85(1), 3-28.
9.
Clark, A. (1997). Being there. Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
10.
Cliff, D., Husbands, P., & Harvey, I. (1993). Evolving visually guided robots. In J.-A. Meyer, H. Roitblat , & S. Wilson (Eds.), From Animals to Animats 2: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (SAB92) (pp. 374-383). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books .
11.
Collier, J. (1999). Autonomy and process closure as the basis for functionality. In J. L. R. Chandler & G. van der Vijver (Eds.), Closure: Emergent organizations and their dynamics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901(1), 280-290.
12.
Di Paolo, E. (2003). Organismically inspired robotics. In K. Murase & T. Asakura (Eds.), Dynamical systems approach to embodiment and sociality (pp. 19-42). Adelaide, Australia: Advanced Knowledge International .
13.
Di Paolo, E. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 429-452.
14.
Edelman, G.M. (1987). Neural Darwinism: The theory of group neuronal selection. New York: Basic Books .
15.
Izquierdo-Torres, E., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2005). Is an embodied system ever purely reactive? In M. S. Capcarrere, A. A. Freitas, B. J. Bentley , C. G. Johnson, & J. Timmis (Eds.), Advances in Artificial Life . Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference (ECAL 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science series (pp. 252-261). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
16.
Jen, E. (2002). Stable or robust? What is the difference? Retrieved 22 April 2008, from http://www.santafe.edu/~erica/stable.pdf
17.
Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
Llinás, R.R. (2001). The I of the vortex. From neuron to self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Maes, P. (Ed.). (1990). Designing autonomous agents. Theory and practice from biology to engineering and back. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
20.
Mataric, M.J. (2002). Situated robotics. In Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (Vol. 4, pp. 25-30). London: Nature Publishing Group, Macmillan Reference Limited.
21.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel.
22.
McGeer, T. (1990). Passive dynamic walking. International Journal of Robotics Research, 9(2), 62-82.
23.
Millikan, R.G. (1984). Language, thought and other biological categories . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
Moreno, A., & Barandiaran, X. (2005). A naturalized account of the inside-outside dichotomy. Philosophica, 73, 11-26.
25.
Moreno, A., & Etxeberria, A. (2005). Agency in natural and artificial systems. Artificial Life, 11(1-2), 161-176.
26.
Moreno, A., Etxeberria, A., & Umerez, J. (2008). The autonomy of biological individuals and artificial models. BioSystems, 91(2), 309-319.
27.
Moreno, A., & Lasa, A. (2003). From basic adaptivity to early mind. Evolution and Cognition, 9(1), 12-30.
28.
Moya, A., Peretó, J., Gil, R., & Latorre, A. (2008). Learning how to live together: Genomic insights into prokaryote- animal symbiosis. Nature Reviews Genetics , 9, 218- 229.
29.
Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, Y. (1977). Self-organization in non-equilibrium systems. New York: Wiley.
30.
Pattee, H.H. (1972). Laws and constraints, symbols and languages. In C. H. Waddington (Ed.), Towards a theoretical biology 4, Essays (pp. 248-258). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
31.
Pfeifer, R., & Scheier, C. (1999). Understanding intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
Ruiz-Mirazo, K. (2001). Physical conditions for the appearance of autonomous systems with open-ended evolutionary capacities. Ph.D. dissertation, University of the Basque Country (complete version only available in Spanish at http://www.sc.ehu.es/PhBioGroup).
33.
Ruiz-Mirazo, K., & Moreno, A. (2004). Basic autonomy as a fundamental step in the synthesis of life. Artificial Life, 10, 235-259.
34.
Ruiz-Mirazo, K., Peretó, J., & Moreno, A. (2004). A universal definition of life: Autonomy and open-ended evolution. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere , 34, 323- 346.
35.
Seth, A.K., & Edelman, G.M. (2004). Environment and behavior influence the complexity of evolved neural networks. Adaptive Behavior, 12(1), 5-21.
36.
Shigenobu, S., Watanabe, H., Hattori, M., Sakaki, Y., & Ishikawa, H. (2000). Genome sequence of the endocellular bacterial symbiont of pahids Buchenera sp. APS. Nature, 407, 81-86.
37.
Simons, P.J. (1981). The role of electricity in plant movements. New Phytologist, 87, 11-37.
38.
Steels, L. (1991). Towards a theory of emergent functionality. In J. Meyer & R. Wilson (Eds.), Simulation of adaptive behavior (pp. 451-461). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
Tononi, G., Edelman, G.M., & Sporns, O. (1998). Complexity and coherency: Integrating information in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2(12), 474-484.
40.
Trewavas, A. (2003). Aspects of plant intelligence. Annals of Botany, 92, 1-20.
41.
van Duijn, M., Keijzer, F.A., & Franken, D. (2006). Principles of minimal cognition. Journal of Adaptive Behavior, 14(2), 157-170.
42.
Weber, A., & Varela, F.J. (2002). Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 97-125.
43.
Ziemke, T. (2003). Embodied AI as science: Models of embodied cognition, embodied models of cognition, or both? In F. Iida, R. Pfeifer, L. Steels, & Y. Kuniyoshi (Eds.), Embodied artificial intelligence (pp. 27-36). Heidelberg : Springer-Verlag.
