One cannot resist some fascination when observing the miracle of the creation of new life. The fertilised egg (zygote) divides itself into two new cells, then four, eight, sixteen, and eventually a cluster of cells called a morula is created. Just after that the cells start to differentiate. Throughout the next month this new life undergoes dramatic changes and by the middle of third week it already measures around 3 millimetres.
Toward the end of that week the disk elongates and becomes slipper-shaped in outline; a slight constriction demarcates it from the attached yolk sac. Growth has lengthened the region ahead of the now receding primitive streak. Here, in the midline, the ectoderm bears a definite gutter-like formation called the neural groove; it is the first indication of the future central nervous system.
We stop at the moment when the embryo develops this foundation for its neuronal system. The cells themselves do not show any special interest in this new organ – they perceive the creation of the neuronal system in exactly the same way as the creation of any other specialised organ. Previously to this stage the cells developed by some miraculous co-ordination methodology, and the creation of a specialised tool for information transmission and processing doesn't change this fact. Cells will continue to react to the stimulation they get from their neighbours and thus don't need this new luxury tool to harmonise their mutual activities. Consequently, the nervous system is not intended for their benefit.
Cells themselves cannot "see" the purpose of this tool for one clear reason. From the perspective of their point of view this new tool does not make any sense. Its function shows up only in the next higher layer, in the multicellular organism. In the same way, cells do not know and do not understand their own intracellular processes, hidden in their insides, they also cannot see beyond their horizons. They cannot understand the purpose they serve in the context of the larger organism. Thus they cannot judge why a brand new species of specialised cells is just being created, tissue intended just for the relaying and processing of information, or what role this new species - neurones - should play in the final organism. But the cells are not expected to know, certain later mechanisms will ensure that the cells will do exactly what is valuable for the larger organism.
We are now coming to one of the fundamental paradoxes of the human exploration of Nature. For hundred of years man has striven to develop more mature tools which could help him to better observe and understand the world in which he lives. This world, which has to be investigated by a trial-and-error methodology, is a world in which we must, in a very complicated way and in very small steps, uncover its particular rules in order to discover at least a fraction of its mysteries.
Man has completed just a very small step along this untidy way. During the time of this endeavour he has succeeded in developing tools just a little bit more complex than trivial ones. Even this level unfortunately proves enough to allow these tools to get out of his control. Instead of being able to rely on his own tools, he incidentally finds out that these products of his own work start to behave in similarly unpredictable ways to that of Nature itself. They behave in equivalent ways to the objects which they were originally created to observe and exploit.
These days nobody knows exactly how even the most typical personal computer performs its activities. The complexity of an ordinary PC greatly exceeds a level which anyone is able to clearly comprehend and analyse. To find a typical solution for any problem with these tools we have to try trial-and-error methods, a methodology to which we have now become absolutely resigned. Let us say, for example, that one of the applications on our PC begins to "hang". Would any of us ask himself in such a situation the pragmatic question of "what is actually wrong in the code of the operating system ?" Would anyone attempt to solve this problem in an analytical way ?
Well, this is a rhetorical question. We all know very well that such a situation cannot ever be resolved in such an analytical way. We do not have the source code, we do not have the appropriate development tools – and, last but not least, the problem might be virtually anywhere! Eventually we must make do with various – more or less successful – re-settings of the particular components of the system, or alternatively we reinstall the system in its entirety. At the end of this painful process we are happy with a situation when it at least "hangs less frequently".
The last illustration was just an example of a simple disconnected PC. We didn't even mention the level of predictability of behaviour within large industrial and banking systems, which connect large number of computers into one system. We can test these systems, maybe we can even simulate the various situations which could possibly occur one day – but we can never proclaim that our system has been completely mapped and that we hold the situation firmly in our hands. From time to time it just happens that, for a few long lasting minutes, the screens of air traffic control systems dim even at the busiest airport (and almost certainly at the critical moment of Friday afternoon's rush hour traffic, when several dozen – now very threatened planes – are in the air). From time to time even the most advanced on-line transaction banking system freezes; a system which was believed to give a prestigious competitive advantage to the bank, based upon its special expertise. And occasionally even the system of one of the biggest dot.com companies stops working. Thus the information systems of a technological company come to a standstill, systems of a company which built its whole business, name, customer contacts and investor's trust on its supposed technological abilities.
In such a moment nothing less happens that a company of eBay size (a major US internet shop) and importance disappears from the world for the entire several hours downtime . Of course, it disappears just from the virtual world of Internet, but the problem is that this is the only world in which it operates. Fortunately the company is, during all this time, still present at least in the world of financial operations. Really, we are alright: the information systems of the stock market undoubtedly inform us that the company still exists, and even show us the current value of its shares. What do you think, which way will they then move !?
Now we are beginning to discuss the future development direction of the most important technologies of human civilisation. Which applications will populate the 21st Century Internet ? Isn't this a nice paradox ? We even directly and without any ambiguity speak about our "strive to forecast technological developments". By doing this we are degrading our position just to the position of an observer. Then we find ourselves in the same spot as when we observe the creation of new human life. Nothing more than - maybe - maintaining suitable external conditions remains in our hands.
Well, it doesn't sound too high-minded, does it ? One could argue: isn't the object of our observation just a development of technologies created by people, thus it should be – logically – also firmly in their hands ? Who else but people controls this development ?
Well, maybe people do. But no one person is particularly responsible. The way forward into the future of our civilisation is shaped by a lot of hard fights – on the market and on the real battlefields – on a lot of battlefields simultaneously. No one of us can understand the whole; thus we cannot understand the full potential of, say, the Internet, and we cannot thus forecast which future applications will be created for this medium.
We stop at the very moment when our civilisation gets the foundation of its neuronal system. The majority of people clearly do not show any special interest in this new organ – they perceive the Internet exactly in the same way as they perceive the creation of any other specialised technology. Up until now people have developed in some miraculous co-ordinated way within the framework of their civilisation, and the creation of a special tool for information transmission and processing cannot change this fact.
People cannot see the future purpose of this organ for an understandable reason. From their current viewpoint this new organ doesn't have any clear function. It gets its purpose only in the context of a higher level, within a framework of turning civilisation into a global organism. Equally, people doesn't know and comprehend their own internal processes, which happen within the bounds of their multicellular organisms, they also cannot see beyond their horizons: they cannot understand the purpose they are themselves serve in the framework of the larger organism. But people are not expected to know. Certain later mechanisms will ensure that people will do exactly what is valuable for the larger organism. And so the ratchet of life notches one step higher...Artificial Life.