Opinions and Outlooks on Morphological Computation

Morphological Computation is based on the observation that biological systems seem to carry out relevant computations with their morphology (physical body) in order to successfully interact with their environments. This can be observed in a whole range of systems and at many different scales. It has been studied in animals – e.g., while running, the functionality of coping with impact and slight unevenness in the ground is "delivered" by the shape of the legs and the damped elasticity of the muscle-tendon system – and plants, but it has also been observed at the cellular and even at the molecular level – as seen, for example, in spontaneous self-assembly. The concept of morphological computation has served as an inspirational resource to build bio-inspired robots, design novel approaches for support systems in health care, implement computation with natural systems, but also in art and architecture. As a consequence, the field is highly interdisciplinary, which is also nicely reflected in the wide range of authors that are featured in this e-book. We have contributions from robotics, mechanical engineering, health, architecture, biology, philosophy, and others

On Neuromechanical Approaches for the Study of Biological Grasp and Manipulation

Biological and robotic grasp and manipulation are undeniably similar at the level of mechanical task performance. However, their underlying fundamental biological vs. engineering mechanisms are, by definition, dramatically different and can even be antithetical. Even our approach to each is diametrically opposite: inductive science for the study of biological systems vs. engineering synthesis for the design and construction of robotic systems. The past 20 years have seen several conceptual advances in both fields and the quest to unify them. Chief among them is the reluctant recognition that their underlying fundamental mechanisms may actually share limited common ground, while exhibiting many fundamental differences. This recognition is particularly liberating because it allows us to resolve and move beyond multiple paradoxes and contradictions that arose from the initial reasonable assumption of a large common ground. Here, we begin by introducing the perspective of neuromechanics, which emphasizes that real-world behavior emerges from the intimate interactions among the physical structure of the system, the mechanical requirements of a task, the feasible neural control actions to produce it, and the ability of the neuromuscular system to adapt through interactions with the environment. This allows us to articulate a succinct overview of a few salient conceptual paradoxes and contradictions regarding under-determined vs. over-determined mechanics, under- vs. over-actuated control, prescribed vs. emergent function, learning vs. implementation vs. adaptation, prescriptive vs. descriptive synergies, and optimal vs. habitual performance. We conclude by presenting open questions and suggesting directions for future research. We hope this frank assessment of the state-of-the-art will encourage and guide these communities to continue to interact and make progress in these important areas

Atlas of sensations - on sensibilities in a computational design practice

The driving force behind the body of work of SPAN is defined by the application of advanced computational design methodologies. This dissertation can be understood as a cartography (in the best tradition of an atlas) of the work of the practice from its founding year 2003 until 2017 - a period profoundly shaped by the progress made in technological advances. These technological means allow SPAN to discuss architectural project through a series of different lenses such as conceptualization, planning, fabrication to the maintenance of the designed objects, through the use of emerging technical opportunities wither this be the interrogation of novel geometries (Blocks, Ore, Barcelona Recursion), computational methods of rationalization (Expo Façade) or advanced methods of fabrication (Robots, as for example in Plato's Columns). In a parallel move between the necessities and desires of the practice and the ambitious studios and seminars in academia, novel toolsets and design concepts are developed to address contemporary architectural problems. These areas can be understood as different territories of interrogation, forming a landscape of opportunities, or as we describe it internally in our office: a design ecology. The interrogation of these distinct territories, and the unique way in which SPAN assembles those various elements to something larger than its parts, is what constitutes part of SPAN's contribution to the discipline. Apart from projects and visual work, SPAN´s contribution to discourse started early with papers to conferences such as IASS (International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures) in 2007, Design Modeling Symposium in 2008, and ACADIA (Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture) in 2008, which included ideas such as the application of tissue engineering in architecture, aspects of artifact and affect, fabrication, and considerations on architectural details in complex curved geometries. Within the Atlas of Sensations, a second ecology is defined by the contribution to the paradigm shift in the discourse from the continuous to the hyper-articulated surface, which contains an additional level of information. A surface, which describes architectural properties through the deep pochés, folds, joints, niches, and arches it generates.  The question is: How does this shift in the conception of architecture affect the qualities of the design, and by extension the context these objects construct? To further investigate this question the work focuses on one part of the practice's design ecology: design sensibilities. In order to interrogate this question, the presented work observes these moments in SPAN's practice through the lens of geometrical properties. Ultimately resulting in thoughts on Postdigital design ecologies that discuss aspects of design agency in our contemporary age

Autopoietic-extended architecture: can buildings think?

To incorporate bioremedial functions into the performance of buildings and to balance generative architecture's dominant focus on computational programming and digital fabrication, this thesis first hybridizes theories of autopoiesis into extended cognition in order to research biological domains that include synthetic biology and biocomputation. Under the rubric of living technology I survey multidisciplinary fields to gather perspective for student design of bioremedial and/or metabolic components in generative architecture where generative not only denotes the use of computation but also includes biochemical, biomechanical, and metabolic functions. I trace computation and digital simulations back to Alan Turing's early 1950s Morphogenetic drawings, reaction-diffusion algorithms, and pioneering artificial intelligence (AI) in order to establish generative architecture's point of origin. I ask provocatively: Can buildings think? as a question echoing Turing's own "Can machines think?" Thereafter, I anticipate not only future bioperformative materials but also theories capable of underpinning strains of metabolic intelligences made possible via AI, synthetic biology, and living technology. I do not imply that metabolic architectural intelligence will be like human cognition. I suggest, rather, that new research and pedagogies involving the intelligence of bacteria, plants, synthetic biology, and algorithms define approaches that generative architecture should take in order to source new forms of autonomous life that will be deployable as corrective environmental interfaces. I call the research protocol autopoietic-extended design, theorizing it as an operating system (OS), a research methodology, and an app schematic for design studios and distance learning that makes use of in-field, e-, and m-learning technologies. A quest of this complexity requires scaffolding for coordinating theory-driven teaching with practice-oriented learning. Accordingly, I fuse Maturana and Varela's biological autopoiesis and its definitions of minimal biological life with Andy Clark's hypothesis of extended cognition and its cognition-to-environment linkages. I articulate a generative design strategy and student research method explained via architectural history interpreted from Louis Sullivan's 1924 pedagogical drawing system, Le Corbusier's Modernist pronouncements, and Greg Lynn's Animate Form. Thus, autopoietic-extended design organizes thinking about the generation of ideas for design prior to computational production and fabrication, necessitating a fresh relationship between nature/science/technology and design cognition. To systematize such a program requires the avoidance of simple binaries (mind/body, mind/nature) as well as the stationing of tool making, technology, and architecture within the ream of nature. Hence, I argue, in relation to extended phenotypes, plant-neurobiology, and recent genetic research: Consequently, autopoietic-extended design advances design protocols grounded in morphology, anatomy, cognition, biology, and technology in order to appropriate metabolic and intelligent properties for sensory/response duty in buildings. At m-learning levels smartphones, social media, and design apps source data from nature for students to mediate on-site research by extending 3D pedagogical reach into new university design programs. I intend the creation of a dialectical investigation of animal/human architecture and computational history augmented by theory relevant to current algorithmic design and fablab production. The autopoietic-extended design dialectic sets out ways to articulate opposition/differences outside the Cartesian either/or philosophy in order to prototype metabolic architecture, while dialectically maintaining: Buildings can think