Michael Levin

And so that's what I can pull from.

These are the options I have.

Yeah, except that I don't see how it would be separate because I'm not just talking about an anatomical shape and transcriptional profile.

I'm also talking about behavioral competencies.

So when we make something and we find out that, okay, it does habituation sensitization, it does not do Pavlovian conditioning, and it does do delayed gratification, and it doesn't have language,

That is a very specific cognitive profile.

That's a region of that space.

And there's another region that looks different because I don't make a sharp distinction between biology and cognition.

If you want to explain behaviors, they are drawn from some distribution as well.

So I think in 20 years or however long it's going to take, one of two things will happen.

either we and other people who are working on this are going to actually produce a map of that space and say, here's why you've gotten systems that work like this and like this and like this, but you've never seen any that work like that, right?

Or we're going to find out that I'm wrong

And that basically it's not worth calling it a space because it is so random and so jumbled up that we've been able to make zero progress in linking the embodiments that we make to the patterns that come through.

Well, it includes specific patterns that we have given names to.

Some of those patterns we've named mathematical objects.

Some of those patterns we've named anatomical outcomes.

Some of those patterns we've made psychological types.

There is a set of things that I feel very strongly about because the research is telling us that's what's going on.

And then there's a bunch of other stuff that I see as hypotheses for next steps that guide experiment.

So what I'm about to tell you, I don't, you know, these are things I don't actually know.