Concepts and paradigms

This manifesto will deal with loosely-defined concepts nested in objective terms such as ‘robot’, ‘machine’, ‘autonomous’, ‘synthetic creature’ and the like to describe heretofore abstractly realized phenomenon that which comes so easily for us to recognize when we see it. It is one of the goals of this document to establish a set of terms suitable and narrowly defined to carry specific and targeted meaning of the abstract concepts that will be introduced and explored herein. The terms used widely throughout this thesis are:

Feature: the prominent part or characteristic embedded in both physical and abstract components.

Entity: a dynamic object that possesses behaviour forming an commonly-identifiable form.

Robot: I will use this term interchangeably with ‘machine’, ‘autonomous entity’, and ‘synthetic creature’ meaning a composite artificial life form who may or may not bear resemblance to a humanoid form. I do not use it in its original context or in its exact translation.

Controller: an entity that insists on particular machine states based on an external criteria or paradigm.

Orchestration: Cooperation between disparate physical or abstract elements resulting in finely-grained coordination.

Autonomy: A system defined by its own behaviour derived from experience.

I employ the terms ’life’ and ’living’ loosely throughout this manifesto. I will use the terms to mean “any system constructed or natural that interacts directly with a human observer generating interest”. Granted the definition is limited and perhaps flawed, it is for the conclusion of the research that this will be rectified. For now, I don’t want to be mired in the metaphysical aspects while just beginning the work, hence the abbreviation here.

The unifying goals to define purpose

  1. To establish a methodological and experimental foundation to understand and construct autonomous synthetic creatures of varying purpose. Directed by the application environment, machine types form an active role of technological development and should be categorized if possible,
  2. To propose a research paradigm to understand artificial life, and perhaps shed some light on what is life in a more general sense, by designing and constructing mimicking forms,
  3. To propose experiments which convey motifs of behavior, to establish a paradigm set of discretionary limits, necessitated by a physical characteristic.

In order to make the topic more familiar, the tone of this document from this point on will be from the first-person. As unorthodox as that may initially appear, I argue that even a dubious intent within the paradigm of a practical engineering point-of-view, will provide unique and useful solutions on how to design and construct autonomous machines possessing ranges of adapted, organically-developed behaviors. This is a keen individual experience which comes to bear on the outcomes.

The method of artificial systems

What is the reasoning here?

This manifesto proposes a solution to deep conundrums within artificial intelligence (AI) and artificial life (AL) by presenting the singular argument that machines which express life cannot be designed by making assumptions; rather, they must be designed as life-forms in their own right, subject to a parametric set of rules analogous to living systems stemming from the environment in which they inhabit. I believe this is an agreeable tenet across the discipline. Foundations of machine life are imperative to establish in order to facilitate evolution from present-day rudimentary forms into those more advanced. Although numerous forms exist, a proper architecture of similitude, laws, modes, and orchestration needs to be authored to establish baselines for generational development of the artificial life form.