俞孔堅：從“鬼屎”到Meta

▼肯尼亞馬賽馬拉國家保護區（2016年8月6日攝）? 俞孔堅

如果說人類起源于同一個來自非洲大草原的母親，那么在人類進化過程中經歷最漫長的時間并起決定作用的非洲草原景觀（savannah），必深藏著人類關于景觀和空間認知的秘密。

根據以人類的進化為出發點研究人與環境感知的學說，照片上近景的均質草地，會讓人聯想到安全的處境，因而會給人以安詳和寧靜之感；遠處奔跑的角馬是肥美的獵物，因而喚起人類追捕的欲望，令人亢奮；遠方的兩顆扇形孤樹，是安全和家的符號，使茫茫的草原有了避難之所；中景有幾處濃密的灌叢，往往是獅子等捕食者埋伏之地，因而是危險的景觀符號。從眼前的安寧處境，人類必須穿越危機四伏的危險地帶，方能到達遠方豐美的食物和安全的家，這樣的景觀因此變得激越、生動，空間既有可探索的刺激，同時又有清晰的結構，因而能喚起內心深處的美感。

從“鬼屎”到Meta

俞孔堅

北京大學建筑與景觀設計學院教授；

美國藝術與科學院院士

原文刊發時間：2021年10月

最近的兩則新聞讓我腦洞大開，一則來自《哈佛大學校刊》（Harvard Magazine）關于黏菌（Slime Mold）的空間認知和決策智慧的最新研究報道^[1]，另一則是臉書創始人馬克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）親自發布的將Facebook改名為Meta的短視頻。這兩件風馬牛不相及的事情卻挑戰了我們關于人類的空間認知、評價和設計的許多固有認識。

黏菌在中國古代文獻中被描述成“鬼屎”，其最早記載出自唐代陳藏器所撰的《本草拾遺》^[2]，是一種無腦無神經系統的單細胞生物，連動物都算不上。21世紀初，被日本科學家發現具有超乎人類的空間認知能力，能夠迅速設計最短取食路線，走出迷宮^[3]~[5]。其設計過程是先伸展自己的細胞質并覆蓋住整個迷宮平面，直至發現食物，然后縮回多余的部分只留下最短路徑。通過這種方法，它能繪制出類似東京地鐵般復雜的最優聯系網絡。如果這可以理解為最原始的刺激－反應（stimulus–response）的化學過程，那么《哈佛大學校刊》報道的這則實驗發現則完全令人匪夷所思了：黏菌居然能隔空遙感遠方物體的質量，并決定菌體延展的方向，表現出這種低等生物的空間感知、評價和決策能力，也就是盡量在避免無效消耗菌體物質與能量的條件下，提前設計實現目標的行動路線。同時，在這一過程中，黏菌能夠產生異常優美的群體形態：從任何人類關于藝術的審美標準，諸如色彩、形體的對比、平衡關系來講都是美不勝收的。這讓我產生了多個聯想：

第一個聯想是前不久媒體曝光某快遞公司用了類似的刺激－反應方法，通過獎勵發現更短路線的快遞員，制造“內卷”，不斷壓縮投遞時間，優化投遞線路，結果通過犧牲每位投遞員的利益而換取公司整體收益最大化。這是一種試錯方法，聽起來有些殘酷。時髦地講，這是一種大數據的方法，在這方面，黏菌一點不比人類差。

第二個聯想是黏菌的空間感知和決策過程正如中國圍棋的空間游戲。2016年的圍棋人機大戰證明，人類在游戲空間的認知方面完全輸給了機器。所以，人類在空間認知方面似乎既不如最低等的單細胞生物，也不如沒有生命的、只能識別0或1的機器。

第三個聯想是從進化論的角度來看——這也是認知心理學和景觀認知學派的基本出發點——人類的空間認知能力及其審美與動物一樣，源于基本的生存需求：或者是尋求食物或者是繁殖本能。所以，正如黏菌用美麗的菌體分布來注解生存和食物的欲望及本能反應，人類通過其空間運動的軌跡和美的環境的設計，將其生存的欲望和本能暴露無遺。從這意義上，“鬼屎”和人類本質上并無區別。

第四個聯想是基于食物和生存欲望的空間認知，最終由于其物理上的高效性和均衡關系，而產生美的反應，這似乎為空間和景觀審美找到了客觀的依據，這也就可以理解，為什么圍棋的空間布局也同樣有美的邏輯。

正是基于這幾點聯想，第二則新聞就變得意味深長了。臉書所構建的元宇宙（Metaverse）是一個虛擬時空集合^[6]，由一系列的增強現實（AR），虛擬現實（VR）和互聯網技術所組成，當然還要借助智慧眼鏡來體驗^[7]。元宇宙將處在不同時空的人聯系在一起，實現社交、工作和娛樂等活動，而不可回避的是它源于娛樂和游戲。元宇宙讓空間和環境變得唾手可得，使人類的活動第一次擺脫了地理空間的約束。空間和環境不再是人類活動的預設場景，場景可以成為唯美的設計，諸如在熱帶雨林里或月球上約會、在海底或火山口聚餐、在云上開董事會等等。作為城市空間認知的鼻祖，凱文·林奇在20世紀60年代探討了城市意象：即如何讓城市可辨識，幫助人們認路，形成空間認知地圖^[8]。這一研究對城市空間的設計產生巨大影響 。而在元宇宙里面，城市意象似乎已經失去了意義，人們也無需憑借腦中的認知地圖去找車站、餐廳、約會的酒吧和造訪的名勝景點，一切的空間營造和景觀盡在手指之間和智慧眼鏡之中。所以城市和景觀設計的原則將面臨新的挑戰，就連小學語文課關于故事開篇的寫作范式都需要改變。

接下來的問題是，隨著元宇宙——更確切地說是后宇宙、超宇宙——時代的到來，失去時間和地域感的人類活動是否具有意義？失去以地域、空間和時間為載體的人類文化后，人與黏菌還有什么區別！地理和景觀認知學強調空間的可辨識性、可探索性及可參與性，地理認知和現象學所強調的場所性和場所感取決于地域特色和認同感，以及空間的定位和方向感^[9]。場所精神（Genius Loci）作為建筑與景觀設計的一個核心概念，取決于給定的天時地理條件，即天地之間的立錐之地（The Given）^[10]。沒有了地域性和場所性，元宇宙里的人類活動是否具有意義？或者，如何讓沒有地域限制的元宇宙里的人類活動具有意味？這似乎是一個新的設計問題。

以下為文章英文版本，引用格式及所在主題刊詳細信息見文末 。

From Slime Mold to Meta

YU Kongjian

Professor of College of Architecture and Landscape, Peking University; 

Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Published in October 2021

Recently, I am inspired by two pieces of news: one is the latest findings about the spatial sense and decision-making machinery of slime molds reported by Harvard Magazine^[1]; and the other is Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that Facebook is renaming to Meta. Although the two pieces of news seem share nothing in common, they both challenge the public’s awareness about human’s ability of spatial cognition, decision, and design.

Slime mold, a single-cell organism without brain or nervous system, was described as “鬼屎” (Demon’s droppings) in ancient Chinese literature and earliest recorded in Materia Medica Supplements by Chen Zangqi in the Tang Dynasty^[2]. In the early 21st Century, Japanese scientists found that slime molds have an extraordinary ability of spatial sense, even better than humans’: they can quickly work out the minimum-length solutions to food and maze solving. After changing their shapes to cover the entire maze, slime molds can retract other cytoplasm except that on the shortest path to the food.^[3]~[5] In this way, slime molds can come up with optimal connections as sophisticated as the Tokyo subway network. If we take slime molds’ behavior as a primal stimulus–response process, the discovery reported in the Harvard Magazine is stunning: slime molds can perceive the mass of distant objects across space, and then decide the direction for extension. All these behaviors demonstrate this unicellular eukaryote’s ability to spatially perceive, decide, and design—in other words, slime molds are able to design an optimal route in advance without extra consumption of material or energy. Meanwhile, during the process, the colony shapes are exceptionally beautiful, in respect of any aesthetic standards of human art (e.g., the contrast and balance of colors and forms).

This news arouses my profound reflections. First, a similar stimulus–response approach was employed in a Chinese express company which encourages expressmen to shorten delivery times by rewarding the ones who discovered shorter delivery routes. This might increase the company’s profits, but would lead to unhealthy competition and compromise expressmen’s benefits. This seemingly cruel trial-and-error technique, however, is a big data method. Accordingly, slime molds are not inferior to humans in ability of decision making.

Second, slime molds’ spatial sense and decision-making process is similar to the playing of Chinese Go. The 2016 match between AlphaGo and Lee Sedol evidenced that machines surpass humans in the cognition of game spaces. One might argue that, in terms of spatial cognition, human beings’ ability seems to be inferior to both single-cell organisms and inanimate machines that are programed with 0 and 1.

Moreover, from the perspective of Evolutionism—also the basis of Cognitive Psychology and Landscape Cognition—human’s spatial cognition and aesthetics come from their instinct for food or reproduction, as other animals. As slime molds’ behaviors for survival by changing colony shapes, humans’ desires for survival are projected in their spatial trajectories of movement and designs of beautiful environment. In this sense, there is no essential difference between human beings and slime molds.

Lastly, in previous experiment, the spatial sense of slime molds, for food and survival, also represents their physical efficiency and balance, whose beauty is further appreciated by humans. This could serve as a basis for human aesthetics on spatial layout and landscapes, which also explains the beauty logic of Go board layouts.

The reflections above expand my thoughts on the second piece of news. Facebook’s Metaverse is a virtual set of space–time^[6], supported by artificial reality, virtual reality, and Internet, via the smart glasses^[7]. Developed from entertainment and game applications though, Metaverse connects people by breaking down temporal and physical constraints on human accessibility. The space–time scenarios for human activities can be extremely romantic, for example, dating in the rainforest or on the moon, dining together with an undersea or volcanic scenery, having a board meeting over the clouds, etc. Kevin Lynch, the founder of urban spatial cognition, discussed city image in the 1960s: how to enhance the imageability of cities so as to facilitate people in way-finding and form spatial cognitive maps^[8]. This theory has significantly influenced contemporary urban spatial design. Unfortunately, in the Metaverse, the city image would become meaningless: stations, restaurants, bars or scenic spots would be erased from people’s cognitive maps. All spatial and landscape planning can be realized by fingers and with smart tools. Against this backdrop, urban and landscape design is facing new challenges. The rules of urban and landscape designs will face new challenges, and perhaps even elementary school students’ writing paradigm may change.

In the age of Metaverse—the post-universe or super-universe—will human activities be as meaningful as before when the sense of time and place is lost? There will be no difference between human beings and slime molds if human culture that roots in place, space, and time disappear! Both Geography and Landscape Cognition value making sense, explorability, and involvement of space. The placeness and the sense of place emphasized in Geography Cognition are defined by regional characteristics and identification, as well as spatial orientation^[9]. As a core concept in Architecture and Landscape Design, Genius Loci relies on THE GIVEN temporal and geographical conditions^[10]. Thus, a new questions for design is that when locality and placeness no longer matter in the Metaverse, how to make human activities still meaningful.

^參考文獻

^{[1] Walecki, N. K. (2021). Can Slime Molds Cogitate? Harvard Magazine, 124(2). Retrieved from https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2021/11/right-now-can-slime-molds-think}

^{[2] Li, Y. (2002). Jilin Textual Research of “Kwei shi”. Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 24(2), 1-4.}

^{[3] Nakagaki, T., Yamada, H., & Toth, A. (2000). Intelligence: Maze-solving by an amoeboid organism. Nature, 407(6803), 470. doi:10.1038/35035159}

^{[4] Nakagaki, T., Yamada, H., & Toth, A. (2001). Path finding by tube morphogenesis in an amoeboid organism. Biophysical Chemistry, 92(1), 47-52. doi:10.1016/S0301-4622(01)00179-X}

^{[5] Nakagaki, T., Lima, M., Ueda, T., Nishiura, Y., Saigusa, T., Atsushi, T., ... Showalter, K. (2007). Minimum-risk path finding by an adaptive amoebal network. Physical Review Letter, 99(6), 068104. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.068104}

^{[6] Bosworth, A., & Clegg, N. (2021, September 27). Building the mataverse responsibly. Meta. Retrieved from https://about.fb.com/news/2021/09/building-the-metaverse-responsibly/}

^{[7] TechFacebook. (2021, October 28). Connect 2021: Our vision for the metaverse. TechFacebook. Retrieved from https://tech.fb.com/connect-2021-our-vision-for-the-metaverse/}

^{[8] Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.}

^{[9] Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placeless. London, England: Pion Limited.}

^{[10] Norberg-Shulz, C. (1979). Genius Loci: Toward A Phenomenology of Architecture. New York, NY: Rizzoli.}

^{翻譯 丨 田樂、張晨希、肖杰}

^{制作 丨 閆露}

_{版權聲明：本文版權歸原作者所有，請勿以景觀中國編輯版本轉載。如有侵犯您的權益請及時聯系，我們將第一時間刪除。}

_{投稿郵箱：info@landscape.cn}

_{項目咨詢：18510568018（微信同號）}