Introduction to the Proceedings of the Workshop “Natural Organisms, Artificial Organisms, and Their Brains” at the Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung (ZiF) der Universität Bielefeld, March 8-12,1998 Hennig Stieve Institut für Biologie II, RWTH Aachen, D-52074 Aachen, Germany Z. Naturforsch. 53c, 439-444 (1998); received May 18, 1998 There have been many meetings in recent years bingen, Hans Flohr, Bremen, Hans-Joachim on “Brain and Computer” topics under a number Freund, Düsseldorf, Karl Georg Götz, Tübingen, of different aspects. Although it is not my own Klaus Hausen, Köln, Wolfgang Prinz, München, field of experimental work, I have been discussing Helge Ritter, Bielefeld, Jürgen Schnakenberg, this subject with brain- and computer scientists, ro­ Aachen, Werner von Seelen, Bochum, Jan-Dieter boticists, psychologists, and scholars of the human­ Spalink, Durham, Gerhard Vollmer, Braun­ ities for several years (Stieve, 1995). The confer­ schweig and Reto Weiler, Osnabrück. ences about mind and brain which I attended or At first I tried to organize a one year research read about were often characterized by a lack of group at the Zentrum für interdisziplinäre true discussion, i.e. disputation of differing argu­ Forschung (ZiF) in Bielefeld. But this seemed not ments, and did not seem to have an impact on on­ to work. Later I became convinced that an intense going research. People presented their data, find­ workshop would be a better frame for such a dis­ ings and opinions in monologues without seriously cussion. discussing their grounding and the reasons for the For such a workshop it seemed necessary to disagreements with others. This was especially so • Select topics which need and deserve interdisci­ in the those fields in which consciousness and feel­ plinary discussion and where such discussion ings are involved, e.g. the question whether a com­ promises to yield results, because there are puter can have feelings. In many cases convictions many very interesting topics in this field where were mixed with confirmed facts, and plausibility discussion does not promise results now. or wide acceptance was taken as proof. Compared • Choose a framework which ensures a successful to conferences in biophysics and biochemistry this discussion. I chose the Dahlem Workshop Con­ is quite a contrast. cept with which I already had some positive ex­ Therefore I felt there is now - after the first perience. wave of these “Brain and Computer” confer­ A conference of the Dahlem type had never ences - even more need for interdisciplinary dis­ been held at the ZiF in Bielefeld. This appeared cussion in certain parts of this field. I tried to as­ to be quite a challenging opportunity to demon­ semble a group of people from neurobiology, strate at the same time the efficiency of this con­ computer science, robotics and philosophy for a cept. On the other hand, the directors of the ZiF serious discussion. With this aim I pursued the were not easily convinced that this concept would following strategy: work. For scholars of humanities a conference I contacted more than 50 people from the vari­ which is so different from a sequence of mono­ ous fields concerned and received very useful ad­ logues and from the standard workshops of the vice. I only want to mention a few of them who ZiF may be difficult to accept. All the more, we were especially helpful. Peter Bieri, Berlin, Tobias wish to thank the ZiF which after some hesitation Bonhoeffer, München, Valentin Braitenberg, Tü- decided to house and support for the first time a Dahlem-type conference, our workshop. We also wish to thank the staff of the ZiF, especially Ma­ Reprint requests to Prof. H. Stieve. Fax: (0241) 8888133. rina Hoffmann, Andreas Lueking, and Daniela E-mail: [email protected] Mietz, and its managing director Dr. Gerhard 0939-5075/98/0700-0439 $ 06.00 © 1998 Verlag der Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, Tübingen • www.znaturforsch.com. D 440 H. Stieve ■ Introduction to the Proceedings of the Workshop Sprenger, and last, but not least Bettina Halbe, a following seven: Niels Birbaumer, Tübingen student of the RWTH Aachen, for their sensitive, (clinical and physiological psychology); Tobias effective and friendly help in preparing and con­ Bonhoeffer, München (neurobiology, brain physi­ ducting our workshop. ology); Yadin Dudai, Rehovot (neurobiology, memory); Rolf Pfeifer, Zürich (computer science; The Concept of the Workshop artificial intelligence and simulations); Jan-Dieter Spalink, Durham, NC (electrical engineering, The concept of the Dahlem Conferences is a communication networks); Hennig Stieve, Aachen concept for an unusual - but to my mind very (neurobiology, photoreception); Gerhard Vollmer, efficient - type of workshop. This Concept has its Braunschweig (philosophy, epistemology). Three emphasis on the discussion of the meaning of new of them already had positive experience with Dah­ and old observations, models, and theories and lem conferences in Berlin. aims to encourage new cooperations and the de­ The Committee met in Bielefeld in the Zentrum sign of new critical experiments. für interdisziplinäre Forschung (ZiF) on April 14 This concept includes some “tricks”: and 15, 1996 - almost two years before the work­ • Small discussion groups which design their own shop - selected the topics for the four discussion agendas. This allows effective discussions in groups, chose a name for the workshop, and sug­ which each member of the group can partici­ gested the participants to be invited and their roles pate. The jointly designed agenda allows to find in the workshop. room for the topics which the members find The date of workshop, 8-12 March, 1998 was worth discussing and brings the responsibility to chosen to fit to the possibilities of the Zentrum für the participants. interdisziplinäre Forschung (ZiF) in Bielefeld and • No lectures at the workshop, but background to be outside the teaching periods of German uni­ papers distributed in advance. Lectures tend to versities. However, this is the time of many other be monologoues and could kill the path of the meetings and in addition it is during the teaching discussion. Background papers distributed in periods of universities in some other countries. advance allow the members to prepare them­ Our time window happened to include the 70th selves to the discussion. birthday of the designer and founder of the Dah­ • Joint group reports which are published right lem Conferences, the late Silke Bernhard, to after the workshop with all the members of a whose memory the conference is dedicated. discussion group as the authors. This is an essen­ With our program we closely followed the well- tial requirement because it forces the group to tested time schedule of the Dahlem-workshops, reach conclusions during the limited time avail­ with one exception: we made it one day shorter. It able for discussion, and (since every member is turned out that it probably would have been better a co-author) every member of the group has to not to reduce it. agree on what is written down. The task to finish The participants: As the number of participants a group report implies that everybody tries to of the workshop should not exceed about 40, only stay focused during the group discussion. a small number of the persons interested and com­ • A “Program Advisory Committee” consisting of petent in the concerned fields could be invited. We representatives of the various disciplines rele­ tried to assemble a variety of participants includ­ vant for the theme of the workshop. It proposes ing younger and older, who were prepared to co­ the topics and the participants of the workshop operate, could supply interesting contributions, and their roles as moderators, rapporteurs and were able to listen with an open mind, and would authors of background papers. commit themselves for the entire duration. Not all who were invited could participate, but those who The Preparation of the Workshop did come made up for these losses by working The Program Advisory Committee: For the Pro­ hard, inventively, and cooperatively. gram Advisory Committee I won the cooperation The multidisciplinarity of the workshop partici­ of six persons from different backgrounds. So the pants may be demonstrated by the following. Nor­ Program Advisory Committee consisted of the mally, a participant personally knows about seventy H. Stieve • Introduction to the Proceedings of the Workshop 441 or even eighty percent of the participants already 4. Emergent properties of natural and artificial before coming to a workshop. In ours, most partici­ systems. pants had not met at least two third of the others. The term “emergence” has become fashionable. Our aim, then, was to have an efficient discussion It is used with quite different meanings by brain between workers in neurobiology, robotics, infor­ researchers, mathematicians, and philosophers. matics (computer science), and philosophy (episte- It seemed to be useful to understand the dif­ mology) in comparing certain properties of brains ferent definitions in which the term is used, try and computers of organisms and robots. Whereas to find a definition of emergence which is useful the interdisciplinary exchange of views between for our purposes, describe supposed emergent computer people and brain researchers has already phenomena in brains and computers and to dis­ begun a few years ago, the inclusion of epistemolo- cuss how far we today understand their origin. gists seems an innovation. To make such different Suggested topics were non-linear mechanisms in people talk to each other in an understanding way brains and computers, brains as generators of (patiently listening and exchanging arguments) is emerging faculties, and the so-called binding no easy venture. We hoped that the Dahlem con­ phenomenon, i.e. the adequate handling of dis­ cept would make this possible. tributed brain activities which correspond to dif­ The topics: The suggested topics for the four dis­ ferent properties of the same object.