Introduction
Our scientific and technical ways of thinking about and investigating the processes of regulation and control in Biomedical fields and in conventional engineering fields have followed remarkably similar, but non-simultaneous, developments, each in three hierarchically advancing analogous phases with relatively little interaction between the two or even recognition of the equivalencies. For ages we have had the wit to stop pumping when the bucket was full and to close the damper when the room became warm enough, but only about two hundred years ago did this concept of a “set point” and automatic regulator become mathematically formalized and usefully implemented, as for example by James Watt in his flyball steam engine governor.
The biological equivalent of the “set point” governor is epitomized by Walter B. Cannon in his concept of “Homeostasis” as described in his famous publication “Wisdom of the Body” early in this century.
He postulated that the human body had a memorized set of “right” values for each variable such as body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, etc., and had means to correct perceived errors. Sometimes separate mechanisms had to be called into play for opposite direction corrections, as for example sweating and shivering respectively as means to cool and heat the body.
This “Homeostasis”, which considered each variable as independently orthogonal and essentially fixed in pattern, came to be regarded, and is still commonly accepted in medical circles as a fundamental principle.
Only under the pressure of World War II did the next level flare into prominence. Engineers learned about servo-mechanisms and the dynamics of control theory where the “set point” moved about dynamically in a fixed or variable fashion. In effect the “right” valve changed rapidly and purposefully, giving us a wealth of automatic regulation and control useful from robots to aerospace vehicles.
Only now are we beginning to allow the biomedical equivalent of such servo
control theory, now called “homeodynamics”,to become respectable and recognized
as usefully applicable, for example, to breathing and heart beat adapted to
exercise, resting or sleep states, hunger adjusted (or misadjusted) to metabolic
needs, chronobiological changes episodally in almost any body function measured.
Noteably homeodynamic processes are ofthen episodal instead of periodic so that
standard engineering analyses such as Fourier and Laplace transforms become
inappropriate. Now we are discovering in advanced engineering and computer design
that the old concept of the von Neuman programmable computer where “one design
fits all” but must come in various sizes to fit the work load, can now be replaced
with a much more powerful architectural structure concept where many small CPU
units are configured to embody the language and action principles of the problem
at hand, and even more dramatically, can be taught to reconfigure themselves
into different computing entities from moment to moment, according to programmed
rules or even in AI context, reconfigured by internal analysis of the computation
going on and learning by self experience to cope smoothly even with a situation
never before encountered.
The biological counterpart of this moment by moment reorganization for function is only beginning to be discovered and recognized as a scientific, mathematically approachable discipline even though we know very well that a baby must learn a set number of “programs” and practice them diligently to become a functional child and eventually a skilled adult. We all know that we have very elaborate programs in order to walk, run, dance or drive a car, many of which have been specialized to be almost automatic and that some of our programs, like clumsy hunt-and-peck typing, can be relearned as fast, efficient, self-editing processes.
These processes, under the badge of “education” or retraining, are quite acceptable socially, but we have not yet accepted their incorporation into regular retraining of the autonomic processes. We think that our heart beating and our breathing are naturally assigned patterns, and that our hormonal, immune and other basic biological regulating and control processes are innate and not accessible to mentally learned control or reorganization.
Perhaps we have heard of or even tried some biofeedback or meditational procedures or have even experienced changes associated with the “white coat syndrome” or even of “laying on of hands”, but we do not regularly pursue the mechanisms behind these procedures.
It now appears likely that the patterns of human regulation, control, and organization for control are really quite reachable by low-risk procedures which we would like to develop for a wide range of applications ranging from NLP-like training to actual modification of health status, and especially enhanced quality of life in contrast to mere “wellness”, i.e. absence of disease.
It is toward this third arena of research where we begin to understand the
mechanisms and dynamics of interpenetrating domain automatic control and can
devise new and superior algorithms of innate control and regulation that we
would like to direct our theoretical and applied research.