Though the existence of swarm intelligence and the emergence of complex intelligent systems is supported through research at many scales, certain questions arise when thinking about implementation at the scale of our cities. Does a knowledge of the existence of emergence as a social phenomenon play into our societal structure? If so, who are the actors in implementing this knowledge? How is it implemented? How do we overcome the paradox of implementing strategies which will strengthen the phenomenologics of swarm intelligence within our societal structure while curbing the development of a top-down state where knowledge of the systems overall operations are reserved only for those who are in the know?

There is a veritable line in the sand between the opposing approaches of top-down organization and bottom-up hive intelligence, but either strategy in isolation does not produce tangible results. Effectively, the bottom is too dumb to produce due to the simplicity of its operations relative to scale of the system. The bottom essentially is composed of components which perform, in the Darwinian sense, simple yes/no computations to accumulate local knowledge that is fed into the database of the system. The system, on the other hand, is far too complex for the derivation of universally applicable rules, and its collective conscience too impatient to wait for the bottom to self-organize. Thus, we see an shift in scale not only in terms of the breadth of the collective knowledge, but also in the understanding of time. The growth of the system results in deeper and deeper clustering of information and the intensive organization of form, differing fundamentally to the invention and application of derived form. We can then begin to redefine the notion of formal design or organization to coincide not with the behavior of the system, but to the behavior of the agent of the system and its local interactions.

The methodology of behavioral design is discussed by Kokkugia in ‘Behavioral Matter’, as it relates to swarm urbanism and the shift from the notion of a ‘master plan’ to that of a ‘master-algorithm’ at the urban scale. Through this re-appropriation, we can see the beginnings of a response to the posited question of implementation, and that the fundamental hierarchies of urbanism such as scalar time and intensity of agents acting in the system are platforms for the development of this logic. For the Melbourne Docklands, Kokkugia proposed urban structures by firstly using the self-organizing design agents of the system to reform the matter in the creation of circulatory and infrastructural networks, and by secondly programming urban elements and topologies with embedded behavioral traits. In this experiment, all elements in the system are conceived as agents which conceptualize and form complex environments through behavioral operations.

The embedding of behavioral design methodologies within urbanism offers a step forward in bridging the gap between top-down intervention and the slow-burning power  of the hive mind. It also manifests the ‘editor’ within the agents themselves, based on an extrapolation of their behavior rather than an derivation from the overall composition of the system. As Kevin Kelly identifies in ‘The Bottom is Not Enough’, editors are a means by which to maximize the efficiency of the collective through moderate top-down intervention, while not hindering its operations. Although he is talking about the world of digital publication, the same basic principles apply at the urban scale as they do to omnipresent information systems such as Wikipedia. Though they operate in principal through bottom-up formation, the need for expertise on a particular subject requires a the existence of an ‘expert’ which can provide a clustered wealth of knowledge. Clustering which occurs in Wikipedia can then be identified as an agent-based algorithm which is embedded from the top-down into the system itself, taking cues from the behavior of the source rather than the overall behavior.

Thompson himself identifies that most websites possess more collective wisdom than any given city, but lack the ability to effectively cluster and process the received information in the same way. As the breadth of digital knowledge continues to widen, the process of editing through embedded behavioral algorithms becomes for complex (Kelly imagines in one day to include controlled edits, peer review, verification and authentication certificates to name a few). If the Wikipedia of 2056 will better represent the idea of a complete encyclopedia due to the ever-increasing complexity of its ‘designed’ editing process, perhaps the same level of complexity embedded into our urban environments can similarly streamline our world.

references:

Kokkugia. “Behavioral Matter”. Swarm Intelligence: Architecture of Multi-Agent Systems. Ed. Neil Leach and Roland Snooks.

Kelly, Kevin. “The Bottom is Not Enough”. Swarm Intelligence: Architecture of Multi-Agent Systems. Ed. Neil Leach and Roland Snooks.

Thompson, Steven. Emergence: the connected lives of ants, brains, cities and software. New York: Scribner; 1 edition (Sept. 10 2002)

Thompson, Steven. Only Connect. thegaurdian. 15 October 2001. Accessed 20 November 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/oct/15/society

More is different; ignorance is useful; look for patterns in the signs; pay attention to your neighbors; encourage random encounters. These five critical components of emergence are evidenced by Johnson in the article as they relate to different operating conditions of complex systems. In the ant world, individuals are imprinted with a basic DNA structure, but have no impression of the emergent societal structure, nor are they aware of how to contextualize themselves within it. Without this knowledge, it is crucial for the self-organizing ant to interact with ants whom they have not yet met in order to further optimize their function. Through paying attention to their neighbors and identifying patterns in their environment, ants exhibit the extraordinary ability to change their operating behavior relative to their context. To further this, Johnson identifies the differences in the behaviors of ants from young colonies and those from older colonies, indicating a discrepancy in the wealth of knowledge collected by each, and a reluctance from older colonies towards performing repeat tasks. In the case of cellular biology, the strength of self-organization results from the number of cells present, and how many are performing which function. On a microscopic level inside our bodies, there is at any one given time, thousands of new cells replacing old dead ones. Just as ants use pheromones to communicate with each other and gather local information, cells register salts, sugars, amino acids, and other minerals to determine where to orient themselves, all the while ignorant of the scale the human life cycle. As such, thinking locally and acting locally based on local knowledge produces local results, but creates a global behavior with a far greater longevity.

Diversity of function through numbers is also exhibited in cities, where neighborhoods are developed through local interaction, and the streets and sidewalks are the medium in which this exchange occurs. As the basis for self-identification is a comparison to others, an increase in numbers leads to a difference in the function and performance of each individual element, and random encounters can provide new information and insight into the global state of things. Thus, cities possess an ability to cluster information based on a number of criteria such as the input source, frequency and similarity of information, and can adapt through the processing of this information. Interestingly, Johnson draws further parallels between emergence in these complex systems and the logic of SimCity, which suggests what his intentions are in forming these comparisons. Fundamentally, development in the game is based on the input from a single source, implying a top-down approach to the structure of that organism which would be in contrast to the essentials of swarm logic. However, SimCity is a game which is played, and never won. The product is the result of thousands of local relationships between adjacent cells; an organizational structure which is based on responding to neighbors and remaining useful in an ignorance of the global order. When considered this way, the logic of emergent intelligence still stands, but the removal of scalar differences clarifies it as a definition and a pattern of information processing.

Johnson has identified emergence as a nature of complex systems, but has merely provided  definition to a process which already occurs rather than imply future action. In fact, the suggestion that an awareness of emergence as a presence in complex systems should imply action is contradictory to the notion of useful ignorance, which he identifies as a fundamental constituent of ‘bottom-up’ emergent intelligence. Once an individual within swarm logic becomes sentient, it has jumped scale and is no longer making contributions to the local. To say that one should ‘learn’ through an understanding of swarm logic is not necessarily correct, but his article introduces a number of questions about the development of our socio-economic structures.

So emergent intelligence is a thing… now what?

In an increasingly digital world where information systems are operating at a much higher level of transparency and where knowledge is uploaded and downloaded readily regardless of geographic location, it is critical for architects to push the redefinition of tools which are at their disposal in a way that is relative to the environments in which they are being deployed. Somewhat ironically, this phenomenon tends to imply a lack of, or deconstruction of definition rather than a clarity of architectural methods and practices. To further this confusion, just as the technologies in our world are continually changing, we ourselves are on an evolutionary path in terms of our perception of space, sound and scale. The disconnection lies in the conflicting identities of the ‘people’ and the ‘city’. Technology plays an important role in these identities, but is defined in an additive fashion, as opposed to one which is integral. This idea of the position of technology within the dual identities of the people and the masses is touched on by Toyo Ito in “Tarzans in the Media Forest”, where he explains shifts in his ideology through the use of personal experience.

In the text, he identifies the parallels between ecological networks in wilderness, and socio-political networks in capitalist societies, claiming that they operate in similarly competitive and sensitive ways, but produce far different results based on their process. In the ecological example, Ito writes that thriving ecosystems are identified not by the peaceful coexistence of trees and shrubs, but rather by the perpetual competition and reciprocal battles between different species. Challenge leads to adaptation, an innate potential which is built into trees and plants, and exemplified by their fractal shape. He goes on to explain that although the ‘image’ of the ideal tree is imprinted within the DNA, growth remains open to environmental changes and relationships with other species. As such, the tree deploys a simple algorithm for expansion and growth which is developed through innumerable empirical tests in its immediate environment. On the contrast, he implies that due to the persistent presence of an architectural ‘image’ or ideology related to the finished product, built environments in the capitalist society are unable to form a similarly relational logic with their environment. In this comparison, he places technology as the intermediate which can promote the complexity that is inherent in our interactive environments, through adhering to simple geometric rules that are reflective to those of trees. He uses a back-to-basics principle in order to position himself in a place where he can ask certain fundamental questions about architecture in order to deconstruct and rebuild his own ideology for practice.

The deconstruction of ideology and the redefinition of technology are two points which drive most of his article, and the delivery of his personal experience as the basis for his understanding brings into light the role and responsibility of the architect in the technologically integrated world. He implies that architecture in the post-modern era is suffering from a lack of identity, which is illustrated by difference in the needs of the individual and the needs of the city. While we, as humans, require the flexibility and changeability similar to that of plant biology, the cities need archetypal solutions which can be contextualized at a far more macro level. During the construction of the Sendai Mediatheque, he develops an idea of architecture without archetype  through the distillation and consideration of what constitutes a ‘Mediatheque’. What he delivers is a space which he defines as ‘under construction’, and open to the engagement of its users who will continue to redefine it.  This is a pivotal moment in his career in which he can view his architecture as a presence in society, and connect the processes of designing, building and inhabiting all within the lifespan of a building.

Just as architecture is under construction, the ideology of the architect must also be changeable in a way that will afford the development of relational logics between technology and its users. Implementation of technology in architecture must go beyond the critical approach of radicalists like Archigram and Superstudio, and be understood as something that is equally as changeable as we are. In the redevelopment of his  ideology, Ito concludes that to achieve a harmony of environment, technology and architecture, it is critical to return to a metaphysical space without the notion of archetype in order to reach solutions that are derived out of an understanding of the entire spectrum of conditions in which we live. Only in this way can unlock the potential to synergize the tool of technology to the point where it is indistinguishable both nature and the built environment.

Work cited: Toyo Ito. “Learning from a Tree”, “Instead of an afterword”. Tarzans in the Media Forest. London: AA Publications, 2011, pp. 172-176. and pp. 178-187.