Topic: Exaptation/Cooptation
Login to Post a Reply.
|
|
Hello!
Good morning! Try to make a simplification, perhaps excessive, for the sake of utility. The Exaptation (reuse) is a different process, namely to generate a wide range of solutions. Given that we find very creative uses for a tool body or object (or combination of them). It allows you to search for alternative uses (reuses) to something you already have (what I can do more things with this cladding (facade)?) As the environment affects the re-use in my work with interdisciplinary teams, once we have a use, development or description of process optimization, change the environment to see how we can reuse, ie the use of Bioestrategy find a use for Exaptation original. (Our facade is just the surface of a road, with minor changes) How to facilitate this sort work? An idea (for discussion) would have a listing in the form of: Strategy and use original-> a transition strategy and later use understood. Another idea is to add a description of use (known expatacion possible). To solve a problem usually look for similar problems and solutions appear. Exaptacion with a solution and you should look for problems ... :) |
|
|
In a way, biomimicry itself is an example of exaptation - using something that functions for one purpose to fulfill the functions of another purpose. Mimicking a strategy in nature to create a design that provides a function.
Example: hydrophobic surface of lotus leaf is mimicked onto the surface of a window which provides a self-cleaning property. Would this example fulfill your "listing?" Original strategy found on lotus leaf surface > biomimicked onto surface of window glass Hmm. Still, exaptation is taking a particular trait from an evolutionary ancestor and using it for another purpose by the later evolved organism. For example, plant hormones can be found in humans. Homo sapien exapted those chemicals used for defense in plants and used them for their neuroendocrine system. For example, nitric oxide is used by plants for defense as a signaling hormone. In humans, nitric oxide relaxes blood vessels (this is just one action in human body). Another example: GABA in plants is used for defense; in humans is a neurotransmitter. Another example: phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase is used in plants to fix CO2; in humans this same chemical is involved with a tumor-suppressing gene. The point is, humans borrowed these chemicals from ancestors but are applying them for a different function. To say that plants contain human hormones and enzymes is backwards. They were in the plants first. |
|
|
Correct. Biomimetics is itself a "reuse".
An ingenious example of human creativity based on the observation of processes in various settings, their description and reuse of these descriptions in various other settings that we have some features in common (or not). Reusing objects, ideas and processes in different environments or ways we can find new uses. Once found, we can optimize them. This is a way to obtain diversity of solutions and ideas :) Human creativity itself is a process that works similar to other processes to obtain diversity in Nature. The ideas are not a thing in our brain is a biochemical process in our brains. All living things are complex biochemical processes, I do not think it is ridiculous to think (or establish) an analogy between the way in which Nature gets diversity and how the brain generates new ideas. A creative act (and biomimetics is) would then be the ability to alter (mutate), combined (sex), exaptar (reuse), associate (symbiosis), etc. descriptions we make of these processes and ideas. Given this analogy might seek to interweave as representing new ideas (and knowledge) drawing the network of knowledge and their interrelationships, drawing the process and its applications (I think the end result looks much like a microbial macroclado). We then propose the following idea: "classify" the ideas (descriptions of the processes observed) as if they were treated for bacterial strains, each different use of the same process is a different branch. Each combination will also generate diversity. A network where each route, would be a new use of the same information, or an alteration of that description or a combination, and so on. I do not know if I can explain properly (and my English is very bad) but it would be possible to build bridges and get new ideas. What do you think? |
|
|
First, I suggest that the words "biomimicry," "bioinspired" and "biomimetic" are not necessarily interchangeable. See "About" and "What is biomimicry?" I am perhaps too strict. Sorry. It is a problem of science geeks. Always wanting to be clear. And this is a discussion for elsewhere. But definitions matter nonetheless. Let me get back to your original suggestion, that exaptation be added to the biomimicry taxonomy of AskNature.
In designing AskNature, we struggled with how to design a language which both biologists and non-biologists would understand. We decided to focus on the biology. Nature offers its genius. Human creativity builds upon this genius. This is how AskNature is designed. Thus, our strategy entries are written from the biological point of view. We have classified the strategies of living organisms, not ideas. Human ideas come from nature's examples. And those human ideas are endless; inspired by a strategy some living organism in nature. You suggest classifying these strategies (ideas) "as if they were treated for bacterial strains..." I think I understand what you are saying. I remember that during our designing of this database we thought the same. Nature is, after all, incredibly complex. But then we realized how complicated our database would become. We decided to keep it as trim as possible. Thus, we resisted the path that you now suggest, because the database would have become unusable to many, especially to non-biologists. Instead, we suggest that the user be inspired by a living organism and design their human idea based upon the principles followed by the organism: multi-functional design, benign manufacturing, resilient, integrating cyclic processes. That is, not just mimic the idea, but follow the principles which create conditions conducive to life. Make those ideas sustainable, healthy and resilient as much as possible. |
|
|
Hello!
Good Morning! Sorry! Spanish is a language rich in nuance, but alas, perhaps I am unable to translate into English all these shades of meaning. Okay, you have classified the strategies of living organisms, not ideas. I work to coordinate interdisciplinary teams (where I try to always have a biologist). When the alert "as" may get a solution to a problem or description "and" make an ingenious idea trying to reuse, remix, alter and combine in addition to changing environment. In describing a strategy, we describe a process that allows a specific one (or several things). It is possible to perceive a certain structure on the results of this creative process. Perhaps because these ideas are applied to generate lines for solutions and ideas. I think (perhaps naively) that as the diversity exhibited by Nature is also obtained by similar processes that have some structure. Of course, identify common parts in the description of two processes are not necessarily the same thing, but what they have in common, might serve for something. What I am trying to explain is that it is sometimes possible to obtain new knowledge (or new solutions) if we look at things they have in common descriptions of the strategies. Knowing that it is possible to apply these creative processes with descriptions of the different strategies can be useful for anyone (biological or non-biological). |
|
|
Fco.Javier, I agree. The English language is not rich and it is difficult to translate ideas completely. I am grateful I did not have to learn English as a second language!
I think this is what you are saying (and I agree): It is possible to obtain new ideas by searching for similar descriptions in the taxonomy. Moving or Attaching is very similar to Distributing or Expelling. Thus, one might find an idea by expanding one’s search to similar descriptions. The AskNature Taxonomy is arranged by FUNCTION. These are verbs. Moving; Attaching; Capturing/Absorbing?Filtering… We wanted these words (verbs) to describe BOTH the function of the living organism AND the function which an architect or engineer or chemist is searching for. Example: How can I design a tool that FILTERS? Answer: Look at the many ways nature filters. But look also at the way nature Chemically Assembles or Senses Environmental Cues. These also might be a form of Filtering. |
|
|
Hello!
As I say in my profile, I speak Spanish, French and Swedish, not to speak English, I think I am being able to explain at least decently. Or perhaps your patience and willingness to understanding (in this case I'm very grateful). Okay, I understand that one of the utilities of the database is to provide a AskNature or more people seeking solutions to one or more solutions to a problem or specific roles (this is something practical and convergent). But I think it is possible to use the same taxonomy to generate and establish new ideas and useful to find similarities in the descriptions. This is like a "Exaptación" of the database and use it to generate new knowledge. How? Question: What else can I do with this filter? o: This filter What other things and processes can make or facilitate? Answer: Look for similarities between the description of your filter and the descriptions of other different things and you'll know that parts could be reused. Some structures may provide part of filters other uses: The internal structure of marine sponges, for example, could be useful in certain types of buildings, roofs, furniture, etc.. In this way not only consult the database for a possible solution. It also could consult to find solutions that other processes may have or provide a certain value. |
|
|
Ah. I think I understand.
The AskNature database was designed to solve a human problem by mimicking the underlying principles of a function illustrated in nature. What you suggest is that the database can do more. People can take an idea; for example: using the cross-hatching of feather design to make a surface hydrophobic and take the cross-hatching design further and use it for a filter or a sun shade or a chair that flexes. Exapt the idea. (yes?) I smile because I believe that everything changes and nothing stays the same forever. What is intended by one person can shift and alter into something else later on in time. It is like watching our children grow up and become something we didn't expect. This is a gift that humans show over and over again. It is much like evolution in nature. I hope I have reflected your intention correctly. |
|
|
Correct!
The database can do so much more! In this way the database is a tool much more useful! ;) I also smiled. I made a research and outreach on the evolutionary origins of laughter in humans, learn to laugh and smile and find that it is possible to follow certain sequences or that our brains did not know or had discarded. And laughter is a social event, such as science and knowledge (which are done in groups). I like your analogy, is like seeing our children grow and become things that are not expected. Is to let our ideas and knowledge flow and see what they can imagine other people with them. As I say in my profile, the human species has the fantastic ability to imagine ... another thing is that we do so often. Going to practice this is another idea: I will send to your email an article (in Spanish) with an example of reuse and dlo that I think we can do to imagine what nobody has thought before. Besides showing a small part of my work here in Spain. It is a supplement published by the Science and Technology "Third Millennium" the newspaper Heraldo de Aragon. I think this is a very kind and nice to see. In an interdisciplinary team, party ideas for children, 3 to 4 years (but could be from real problems). First it is described as "one would get to make the ideas of children, but then leave inoculating ideas, new processes and environments that feed, mutate and change the description (which is a solution), to generate not a single invention but a race of inventions. From a shoe brush-up with a submarine Bioprocesses able to clean the bottom of pollutants or perform mining of manganese nodules with thermophilic bacteria extremophiles. In the article published not get out (for lack of space!) The latest contribution, the biologist Maria Gonzalez (AskNature: mglezm2002) and working in Spain with me on these teams. The idea is (once you see it as work) to try to do something similar in AskNature forums (if this is possible) where to start, we would not know where to go but we know that the results would be the description of a or more inventions that would have various utilities. Hope you like it and can serve to suggest one way in which to work creatively in this askNature. What do you think? |
|
|
Ah! Children have many answers to design challenges. Their imagination is not trapped or shut down. Their imagination is expansive. They laugh a lot. Children act silly because it is fun.
I think what is so magical about Janine Benyus is that she has retained this childlike wonder and imagination. She is the core of biomimicry as we apply it here on AskNature. Her playfulness was very important in how we ended up designing this site and a biomimicry methodology. This idea of imagining related uses and suggesting a creative way to use AskNature is like a TED video I watched today. The presenter said: "...an aesthetic feeling for the experience revolving around a design idea." Niels Diffrient. Scientists are too serious sometimes. But many scientists love to play and when they do, they often make new, unexpected discoveries. So I think this is good. But one way to test whether the idea is sound (stable and appropriate) is to test the idea against the Life's Principles which Janine and Dayna designed. Because any idea might be fine. But does the idea contribute to solving life's problems? We have had many discussions about the value of beauty. Does beauty contribute to solving our problems. I usually hear people agree that it does. Wonder and beauty make us human. Without it, we are dry and listless. Beauty stimulates movement. And movement is life. My wisdom for the day. |
|
|
If we consider the process of generating diversity of ideas thrives on a process similar to that Nature uses to obtain various forms we find that this generates a large amount but the quality of the ideas they are is a question of environment is, what is appropriate to use it at first intended to give or can be used in other ways.
Knowledge can be represented in networks similar to a suburban subway map (a topology of knowledge) the ideas and processes have categories and qualities, properties, etc.. which are points in common. It is possible to generate new knowledge or processes by establishing connections between nodes. I understand that this sounds very abstract but it is easy to visualize. Imagine a fork. A fork is not a comb or a plow, but we found that all three share one thing in common. And so a fork might be used as a comb (or, if it is huge) and a plow. Is that we use is that the holder will later find an optimum. The problem is the unpredictability of what you discover. But I like that ... |
|
|
This might be a subject for a separate forum but the recent work on microbial symbiosis in the human body suggests that we have a bad habit of studying living organisms in a reductive manner. Meaning that we pull the organism out of its habitat and think we understand it...in the petri dish, for example.
Instead, we should remember that organisms live in habitats. Complex, yes. But I think your suggestion is similar to this idea of going beyond what is presented and stretching it. Hope I'm making sense. Here is a paper describing the symbiosis of microbes in our bodies and what it all might mean. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_body_politic/P1/ |
|
|
For many years now teaches or conveys the idea of tagging things that we see that the function performed in a particular environment.
This is an extreme simplification that can condition to see (and ented) the world with an address (or use) a priority. It's great to challenge the concepts that we take the obvious way. For example, the individual. When scientific work schedules to try to break my audience (or the businessmen to sell my work) capturing ideas of biology. The idea of ant - all ants is often a good example. Where the ant and the all ants can be considered two different individuals. This fracture pattern can be transferred to ourselves and our close relationship with the bacteria in our intestines. Or that our cells have with the mitochondria :) If we represent knowledge with "qualities" or "features" (for example) you can combine two ideas to share some characteristic in common. Compare two different things that have a common description does not mean they are the same, but they have in common something you can help!. In the example of the item you've sent, there is a time in the race descriptions Broom-shoe that allows bacteria (such as Bio-processor), you can then link this description to all the possibilities with "bacteria", for see what happens. If you also change the environment where we have assumed that operates our description, we can discover new uses and reuses. Thus the descriptions of the ideas turn into something very "plastic". And weave a vast network of knowledge to different nodes (when both share a similarity), which made ingenious bridges evidence that knowledge (and creativity) have a certain structure. It is easy to establish analogies between this and the social networks of Stanley Milgram, the biosphere, ecosystems, the brain and many other things can respond to this description. In the sense that events are diverse and multiple interconnected elements. But back to the idea you propose: I think it is then possible to use the databases to obtain knowledge "new", perhaps not clearly perceived because they are new solutions to problems that we have not yet imagined or answers to questions that have not been made (Sorprendente. .. huh?) We do look for ways to make connections where before there were none. What do you think? |
1 to 14 of 14 Posts
over 3 years ago
On the Life Principle’s Butterfly, one of the operating conditions is that nature is in a state of dynamic non-equilibrium. Life Adapts and Evolves. Thus, exaptation and cooptation are mechanisms by which life can tinker or modify until it finds a design that fits a particular need or function. Nature is never static or not for very long. Nature is always moving, shifting, tinkering and trying new things. Nature innovates (teleologically).
What is exaptation? See the Wikipedia definition of Exaptation and papers and discussions that can be found in Google Scholar. Note that cooptation is a closely related term.
Exaptation refers to a shift in the function of a trait that has evolved to serve another function.
Examples:
feathers evolved for temperature regulation but later were used for flight
melatonin was used to defend against pathogenic bacteria but later used for regulation of time periods
fins evolved for locomotion in water but later used for locomotion on land
I suggest this simple definition: Shifting the function of one trait to serve another function. Or shorter: coopting traits.
In nature, exaptation/cooptation occurs in at least:
anatomy (Life’s Principle: fits form to function);
behavior (LP: optimizes rather than maximizes, and is locally attuned and responsive)
biochemistry (LP: benign manufacturing and integrates cyclic processes)
I digress here, but it would help to see how to create a new strategy for the AskNature taxonomy:
http://staging.asknature.org/strategy/new
See the existing main strategy: Modify, Adapt/optimize
Adapt behaviors (29)
Adapt genotype (0)
Adapt phenotype (3)
Coevolve (4)
Optimize space/materials (61)
So the question is, does exaptation, cooptation and/or evolutionary tinkering/modifying fit under this Strategy of Adapting/Optimizing?