https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4154
Autonomous Control of Creation
Autonomous Control and "Mother Nature"
Engineers
regularly work with control systems. Autonomous control is a step
beyond remote control. Remote control applications allow manual issuing
of commands through some sort of transmission device (i.e., a remote
controller) that controls something else (e.g., a robot or television)
located some distance away from the controller. Autonomous control, on
the other hand, uses a computer program to issue the commands. The
computer becomes the controller, instead of a human being. It is common
knowledge in the engineering community that autonomous control is a
subject that is of particular interest today. From autonomous control of
ground vehicles (Naranjo, et al., 2006), to autonomous missile guidance
systems (Lin, et al., 2004) and aerial vehicles (Oosterom and Babuska,
2006), to autonomous aquatic vehicles (Loebis, et al., 2004) and
satellites (Cheng, et al., 2009), and even to autonomous farming
equipment (Omid, et al., 2010), notable success is being made in this
area of technology.
The amazing thing from a Christian perspective, however, is that many
engineers—the designers of the scientific community—are becoming aware
of the fact that the world around us is already replete with fully
functional,
superior designs in
comparison to what the engineering community has been able to develop to
date. Biomimicry (i.e., engineering design using something from nature
as the blueprint) is becoming a prevalent engineering pursuit. However,
some engineers are not interested in copying creation in their designs
since they simply
cannot replicate
many of the features that the natural world has to offer. They are
realizing that the created order oftentimes comes equipped with natural
“sensor suites” whose designs surpass the capability of engineering
knowledge to date. Animals possess amazing detection, tracking, and
maneuvering capabilities which are far beyond the knowledge of today’s
engineering minds, and likely will be for many decades, if not forever.
An insect neurobiologist, John Hildebrand, from the University of
Arizona in Tucson, admitted, “There’s a long history of trying to
develop microrobots that could be sent out as autonomous devices, but I
think many engineers have realised [sic] that they can’t improve on
Mother Nature” (Marshall, 2008, p. 41). Of course, “Mother Nature” is
not capable of designing anything, since “she” is mindless. The Chief
Engineer, the God of the Bible, on the other hand, can be counted on to
have the best possible engineering designs. Who, after all, could
out-design the Grand Designer? In spite of the deterioration of the
world and the entrance of disease and mutations into the created order,
after some six millennia, His designs still stand out as the
best—unsurpassed by human wisdom.
Controlling the Living
Recognizing the superiority of the natural world, the scientific
community has become interested in learning how to remotely control
living creatures
instead of developing robotic versions. This line of thinking certainly
adds new meaning to God’s command to mankind to “subdue” and “have
dominion” over the created order (Genesis 1:28). One of the ways in
which animal remote control is being done is by implanting electronics
in animal bodies that are subsequently used to manipulate the movements
and behaviors of the creature. Hybrid creatures such as these are known
as bio-robots or cyborgs. Cyborg research has been conducted since the
1950s, when Jose Delgado of Yale University implanted electrodes into
the brains of bulls to stimulate the hypothalamus for control purposes
(Marshall, 2008). Since then, the list of remotely controlled animals
using electrode implantation has grown to include:
-
sharks (i.e., spiny dogfish; Gomes, et al., 2006; Brown, 2006)
-
rats (Talwar, et al., 2002; Li and Panwar, 2006; Song, et al., 2006)
-
monkeys (Brown, 2006; Horgon, 2005)
-
mice (“SDUST Created…,” 2007)
-
chimpanzees (Horgon, 2005)
-
frogs (Song, et al., 2006)
-
pigeons (“SDUST Created…,” 2007)
-
cats (Horgon, 2005)
-
gibbons (Horgon, 2005)
-
cockroaches (Holzer, et al., 1997; “Researchers Develop ‘Robo-roach,’” 2001)
Cornell University, the University of California at Berkeley, the
University of Michigan, and Arizona State University at Tempe are
working on developing flying insect cyborgs, including hawkmoths and
green June beetles (Ray, 2010; Sato, et al., 2008; Sato, et al., 2009;
Bozkurt, et al., 2008). The University of Florida in Gainesville used
electrodes to remotely control rats specifically for detection of humans
(for search and rescue scenarios) and explosives (Marshall, 2008).
Non-invasive remote creature control projects are underway as well.
M.I.T. used virtual fencing coupled with Global Positioning System (GPS)
for tracking and autonomously herding cows by implementing auditory
cues and shock reinforcement to keep cows within a desirable area
(Correll, et al., 2008; Schwager, et al., 2008).
There is beginning to be more interest in the prospect of remotely
controlling canines as well (“Grand Challenge…,” 2010). Engineers
realize that dogs can traverse a variety of terrains more efficiently
than humans or robots and are effective at guarding territories,
carrying out search and rescue missions, as well as providing guidance
for the visually impaired. They also have an amazing sense of smell that
makes them capable of detecting explosives, narcotics, tobacco,
pipeline leaks, retail contraband, and even cell phones and bed bugs
(“Detection Services,” 2010). Since engineers have not developed a
device that can compare with a canine’s ability to detect odors, the use
of canines for these applications is attractive. Although other
creatures, such as rats (Marshall, 2008), have a keen sense of smell,
canines are more appealing, especially due to their innate ability to
interact with humans. Thus, using canines for these purposes is
attractive to engineers, and the ability to remotely control a canine
for many of these purposes is an even
more attractive
goal. Many scenarios could be envisioned to illustrate cases where the
presence of a dog handler alongside a canine could be an impossibility
(e.g., tight areas in search and rescue operations) or undesirable
(e.g., scenarios where the handler should not be visible or in harm’s
way). In a recent event in Afghanistan, a bomb detection canine detected
an explosive a moment too late. The canine handler lost his left leg
and received other serious injuries (“Grand Challenge…,” 2010). Remote
control capability or autonomous guidance likely would have
significantly altered the outcome of this unfortunate event, as well as
many others.
Since engineers cannot yet develop an adequate robotic solution to this
problem, the Office of Naval Research funded a research project to
develop such a solution—a research project I was heavily involved in at
Auburn University while engaged in doctoral studies. The Canine
Detection and Research Institute (CDRI) at Auburn University
demonstrated that detection canines can be remotely controlled using a
canine vest we developed that was equipped with a tone and vibration
generator (Britt, et al., 2010). However, many cases could easily be
envisioned where the canine would be out of sight from the handler
(e.g., moving behind a distant building), at which time remote control
capability becomes useless. Therefore, the next natural step was to
automate that remote control capacity (i.e., autonomous control of the
canine).
Since
canines can traverse a variety of terrains more efficiently than
humans, and possess a natural array of “sensors” used to detect and
locate items of interest that robots are not readily equipped with, many
aspects that pose problems to unmanned ground vehicles are inherently
removed with the canine. Canines can execute the low-level decision
making that is necessary for rerouting their local path to avoid
obstacles or unfavorable terrain. We proved with notable success that
canines can be tracked using GPS, inertial sensors, and magnetometers
(Miller and Bevly, 2007; Miller and Bevly, 2009a; Miller and Bevly,
2009b), as well as be autonomously guided along desired paths to distant
end points (Miller, 2010; Britt, 2009). More important, this system was
designed without having to develop the technology that would be
required for a complete robotic solution. Instead, a pre-designed
creature, already developed by the Chief Engineer, was utilized. In the
interest of not plagiarizing Him, I happily reference His
incomprehensible work, although, unfortunately I cannot speak for all of
my doctoral colleagues.
CONCLUSION
How ironic that those who are designed, design based on the Designer’s
designs, while simultaneously claiming that those designs are not
designed. How could mindless rocks, dirt, gas, or slime bring about the
amazingly complex designs we see in the World? Personifying inanimate
materials such as these with names like “Mother Nature” does nothing but
tacitly admit that some Being is in control of the natural order. The
frontlines of the engineering community today—bringing about
unparalleled technology, more advanced than any society in the history
of mankind—cannot come close to replicating the designs around us.
Engineers are forced to borrow from God’s design portfolio (oftentimes
plagiarizing Him—not giving Him due credit for His designs). What a
testament to the greatness of the Chief Engineer’s created order! We may
be able to try to fix some of the damage that has been done to the
created order due to sin and entropy, but in the words of John
Hildebrand, quoted earlier, we certainly “can’t improve on” God’s
design. Rather than plagiarizing Him, let all engineers know, “He who
built all things
is God” (Hebrews 3:4, emp. added).
REFERENCES
Bozkurt, A., R. Gilmour, D. Stern, and A. Lal (2008), “MEMS Based
Bioelectronic Neuromuscular Interfaces for Insect Cyborg Flight
Control,”
IEEEMEMS2008 Conference, pp. 160-163.
Britt, W. (2009), “A Software and Hardware System for the Autonomous Control and Navigation of a Trained Canine,”
Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Summer.
Britt, W.R., J. Miller, P. Waggoner, D.M. Bevly, and J.A. Hamilton
(2010), “An Embedded System for Real-time Navigation and Remote Command
of a Trained Canine,” DOI 10.1007/s00779-010-0298-4.
Brown, S. (2006), “Stealth Sharks to Patrol the High Seas,”
New Scientist, 2541:30-31, March 4.
Cheng, C., S. Shu, and P. Cheng (2009), “Attitude Control of a Satellite Using Fuzzy Controllers,”
Expert Systems with Applications, 36:6613-6620.
Correll, N., M. Schwager, and D. Rus (2008), “Social Control of Herd
Animals by Integration of Artificially Controlled Congeners,”
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pp. 437-447.
“Detection Services” (2010),
Amdetech: Protection Through Detection, http://www.amdetech.com.
Gomes, W.J., D. Perez, and J.A. Catipovic (2006), “Autonomous Shark Tag
with Neural Reading and Stimulation Capability for Open-ocean
Experiments,”
Eos Trans. AGU, 87(36), Ocean Sci. Meet. Suppl., Abstract OS45Q-05.
“Grand Challenge: Smart Vest for Detector Dogs” (2010),
National Aerospace & Electronics Conference, http://www.naecon.org/challenge.htm.
Holzer, R., I. Shimoyama, and H. Miura (1997), “Locomotion Control of a Bio-Robotic System via Electric Stimulation,”
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Grenoble, France.
Horgon, John (2005), “The Forgotten Era of Brain Chips,”
Scientific American, 293[4]:66-73.
Li, Y. and S. Panwar (2006), “A Wireless Biosensor Network Using Autonomously Controlled Animals,”
IEEENetwork, 20[3]:6-11.
Lin, C., H. Hung, Y. Chen, and B. Chen (2004), “Development of an
Integrated Fuzzy-Logic-Based Missile Guidance Law Against High Speed
Target,”
IEEETransactions on Fuzzy Systems, 12[2]:157-169.
Loebis, D., R. Sutton, J. Chudley, and W. Naeem (2004), “Adaptive
Tuning of a Kalman Filter via Fuzzy Logic for an Intelligent AUV
Navigation System,”
Control Engineering Practice, 12:1531-1539.
Marshall, J. (2008), “The Cyborg Animal Spies Hatching in the Lab,”
New Scientist, 2646:40-43, March 6.
Miller, J. (2010), “A Maximum Effort Control System for the Tracking and Control of a Guided Canine,”
Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Winter.
Miller, J. and D.M. Bevly (2007), “Position and Orientation Determination for a Guided K-9,”
Proceedings of the IONGNSS, Ft. Worth, TX.
Miller, J. and D.M. Bevly (2009a), “Determination of Pitch Effects in Guided K-9 Tracking,”
Proceedings of the JSDE/IONJNC, Orlando, FL.
Miller, J. and D.M. Bevly (2009b), “Guided K-9 Tracking Improvements Using GPS, INS, and Magnetometers,”
Proceedings of the IONITM, Anaheim, CA.
Naranjo, J.E., C. Gonzalez, R. Garcia, and T. Pedro (2006), “ACC+Stop&Go Maneuvers With Throttle and Brake Fuzzy Control,”
IEEETransactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 7[2]:213-225.
Omid, M., M. Lashgari, H. Mobli, R. Alimardani, S. Mohtasebi, and R.
Hesamifard (2010), “Design of Fuzzy Logic Control System Incorporating
Human Expert Knowledge for Combine Harvester,”
Expert Systems with Applications, 37:7080-7085.
Oosterom, M. and R. Babuska (2006), “Design of a Gain-Scheduling Mechanism for Flight Control Laws by Fuzzy Clustering,”
Control Engineering Practice, 14:769-781.
Ray, Neil (2010), “The Cyborg Beetle: Progress or Ethical Deterioration?”
The Triple Heliz, Issue 10.
“Researchers Develop ‘Robo-Roach’” (2001),
VNUnet UK: UNU-MERIT—I&T Weekly,
Issue 7, United Nations University,
http://www.merit.unu.edu/i&tweekly/i&tweekly_previous.php?issue=0107&issue_show=7&year=2001.
Sato, H., C.W. Berry, B.E. Casey, G. Lavella, Y. Yao, J.M.
Vandenbrooks, and M.M. Maharbiz (2008), “A Cyborg Beetle: Insect Flight
Control Through an Implantable, Tetherless Microsystem,”
IEEEMEMS2008 Conference, pp. 164-167.
Sato, H., Y. Peeri, E. Baghoomian, C.W. Berry, and M.M. Maharbiz
(2009), “Radio-Controlled Cyborg Beetles: A Radio-frequency System for
Insect Neural Flight Control,”
IEEEMEMS2009 Conference, pp. 216-219.
Schwager, M., C. Detweiler, I. Vasilescu, D.M. Anderson, and D. Rus
(2008), “Data-Driven Identification of Group Dynamics for Motion
Prediction and Control,”
Journal of Field Service Robotics, 25[6-7]:305-324.
“SDUST Created Remote-Controlled Pigeon” (2007),
Shandong University of Science and Technology, http://www.sdkd.net.cn/en/news_show.php?id=65.
Song, W., J. Chai, T. Han, and K. Yuan (2006), “A Remote Controlled Multimode Microstimulator for Freely Moving Animals,”
Acta Physiologica Sinica, 58[2]:183-188.
Talwar, S., S. Xu, E. Hawley, S. Weiss, K. Moxon, and J. Chapin (2002), “Rat Navigation Guided by Remote Control,”
Nature, 417[6884]:37-38.
