EXOMORPHIC BEHAVIORAL DESIGN IN HUMANS AND MACHINES

The role of human agent in autonomous robotic exoskeletons, serves as basic platform for research resulting in logically justified assumptions and speculations. A broader use of the term exoskeleton is to be used to define in general immersive machinistic environments that suggest, through their characteristics and behaviors, degrees of autonomy and intelligence.
Can the importance and function of the human agent in a man/machine entity, diverse the evolutionary scope and role of humans altogether in “nature”?
Definition of the term “nature”, suggests a detailed design of the conditional functions of an organized (man made in these cases) complex system/environment that defines the nature of the machine, the nature of man and their behavioral tactics in this environment. Can two autonomous, intelligent agents (man and machine) work as a controllable functional system maintaining their individuality and their ‘separate’ nature? Physics tells us that there are no separate entities in the universe; investigate how that applies to the evolutionary course and advancement of humans. Refer to timothy Leary and his theories concerning the difference between generations growing up with and without technology.
Can the design and behavioral tactics of the autonomous machine agent affect/alter through a symbiotic relationship the ‘metabolism’ of the human agent and as a consequence its nature altogether and vice versa?
If so what is the nature of these metahuman and metamachine agents? Are cyborgs a different species altogether? How much human and how much machine can an entity like that be and what are the elements defining it? Does the machine become more humane when affected, in its functionality (from mimetic to abstract), from the feelings and emotions of the human agent for instance? Do the human characteristics lose their humanity when given a more machinistic scope and purpose? And what ‘social’ systems can be formed from interactions as such? (Reference to mother-child symbiotic relations and analyze their characteristics. Sharing integral, functional for both agents parts, affects and intensifies that relation)
Immersion is one of the main design elements of systems as such. Formalistic to chaotic systemic behaviors can also affect the notion that systems as such suggest. Integration of such entities in everyday set-ups leads human race to a specific evolutionary course. How archetypical are these advancements and what is the relation to myth and cosmological gossip (meaning myths of cosmogenesis etc)? An example is the installation self-space where integrates in its design an everyday functionality, that of a corridor or passage or even cave like characteristics, but exhibits attributes (artistic or aesthetic for instance, or even the intelligence, if any, of the structure), that are far from these functional attributes/characteristics. Another example, if a system analyzing atmospheric pollution is connected on a human, causing some short of discomfort when that human is in a heavily polluted environment can effectively make the human alter its behavior that as a result has the environmental and atmospheric pollution? Is it possible ‘improving’ our cosmic behavior by using, for example scientific analysis instruments, that can conceptualize the universe in a more objective appearance and mapping these tools to the more subjective human cognitive 3d notion of the cosmos? In other words building more concrete/graphical relations, between perception and information, can effectively change the perception itself?
These beings are called by the author exomorphic, stating how external adjustments alterations in creatures/’entities’ ‘design’, can affect their internal metabolisms, functions and behavior.