Daniel Dennett - Is Evolution an Algorithmic Process? Part 5

Produced by:
University of Washington
November 19, 1998
From the Series:
Danz Lecture Series

Description:
Daniel Dennett discusses his research into Darwin's evolutionary theory of natural selection and describes its suggestion of evolution as an algorithmic process.

Speaker(s):
Daniel C. Dennett, Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy; director, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Daniel
• Dennett
• Atheism
• Philosophy
• Algorithm
• Evolution

[werecow2003]

I love Sims' creatures. I'm an AI student, and a dream project of mine has been to create a genetic algorithm simulation like that one, except that I would like to make the simulation more realistic (i.e. selection based on reproductive success, like in nature, with no explicitly defined fitness function). These models are among the most unpredictable, interesting AI experiments that I know of.

[82abhilash]

As computer become more and more like the real world, you might as well start using real world direct. Instead of taking the extra effort to create a model of it. Have you heard of Rodney Brooks? He is into robotics and insists on using the real world as a model of itself.

[werecow2003]

Obviously, yes... I study this stuff, and Brooks is sort of a legend. There are many problems with using the real world with evolution, though: you have to have equipment, which is expensive and has to be maintained, and it is generally far slower than a simulation. Furthermore, you are constrained by the technology you have available to you; you can't make your robot sprout new limbs out of the blue, and your resources for modifying it will be far more limited than anything you might simulate.

[82abhilash]

Ah, I guess, the combination of high processing power with low prices has made it cheaper to recreate the world inside a computer than to do real world evolution. How interesting.

[abid1995]

i think someone had taken those pages from him so that he would have problems

[82abhilash]

Conspiracy theories?

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

Amazing lecture, I love Daniel Dennett

[MrBlamemeforit]

Dennett is a hero!

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

@SeeProfileForDetails "fanboy types don't belong in science and critical thought"

Dude, you're an idiot if the think that enjoying a person means you can't be involved in a critical thought community. I like the guy on both a professional level, and a personal level. Does my liking him on a personal level negate my appreciation of his lectures?

Rethink your knee-jerk reaction.

[SeeProfileForDetails]

computers ARE the real world. They contain REAL WORLD computers made from the real world. He doesn't realize how ironic and false his statement is about just using the real world, when computers are in fact the real world too, just a subset of it.

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@TheReasonWhyGuy go away fanboys, fanboy types don't belong in science and critical thought

[SeeProfileForDetails]

@MrBlamemeforit annoying fanboy, science is about not having fanboys

[LeopardFrogPilboxhat]

There's a free program called swimbots that specifically has a fitness function where the fitness has to do with how well they move around, find mates and get energy.

There's a bunch of lovely phenomenon that happen there. Genetic drift and founder effects happen all the time and you even get things like your dish gets filled with an ecosystem of swimbots with different anatomies suited for their niches.

Unfortunately there's no predation or toxin function but hey the program is free

[werecow2003]

i.e., you don't have to explicitly program in "if: more children, then: better fitness", so you can cut out the evaluation step.

[werecow2003]

You can actually scratch "survive".... it's only relevant insofar as it influences successful reproduction. What I meant by "no explicit fitness function", though, is that there is no specification of what influences evolutionary success. In Sims creatures, for instance, you have to give an explicit criterion for selection, like "distance to red dot after 5 secs". In more realistic models, there's only an implicit fitness function that simply results from he behavior of the system itself.

[Dvnoid]

there is a good fitness function : survive/replicate

[werecow2003]

Actually, it's Orgel's rule. But it should be the first law of evolution. }|:op