Tuesday 20 February 2024

Dan Dennett: From Genes To Memes:The Evolution of Language and AI

One notable part is around 25 minutes in. Dennett complains about intelligent machines creating counterfeit people - and then proposes making counterfeit people illegal. No more Batman. No more Spiderman. No more Superman. It seems like an absurd proposal to me. What can Dennett be thinking about?



Memes start around 45 minutes in.

Sunday 26 November 2023

What evolves in Universal Darwinism?

Back in 2012, I wrote the article: An inherited unit for Universal Darwinism - in which I proposed that we reuse the term "gene" for this purpose. "Gene" is a bit of an overloaded term, but it could still be useful in this application, I claimed.

I still think we ought to be able to reuse the term "gene" - assuming that we define it in a sufficiently general way in the first place. So: if we say that a gene is a small peice of inherited information, I think we can use that definition in Universal Darwinism. Note that this is an information-theoretic definition that makes no reference to the world of atoms.

I mentioned some other candidate terminology in that 2012 post. Have others attempted to address this question in the interim?

Another candidate is "innovation". For example see this 2014 paper titled: " Spaces of the possible: universal Darwinism and the wall between technological and biological innovation". While the term "gene" comes from evolutionary biology, innovation comes from the stuudy of technological evolution. "Innovation" has the implication of novelty and newness. However, "innovation" strikes me as a broadly similar term.

Another attempt was made recently by Lee Cronin. He wrote this - about what counts as an "object" in his own reworking of evolutionary theory:

"An object is finite, is distinguishable, persists over time and is breakable such that the set of constraints to construct it from elementary building blocks is quantifiable."

I think that's a bit of a hot mess. It seems to say that things have to be "breakable" to evolve. I don't see the need to refer to infinite objects or unquantifiable sets either. However, perhaps we should take the term "object" seriously as a candidate term for "things that evolve". Another similar candidate is "entity".

None of these more recent proposals have much to do with evolutionary biology - but some may have their merits.

Update: Bing offers this: "The generalization made in Universal Darwinism is to replace “organism” with any recognizable pattern, phenomenon, or system." No catchy terminology - but it does at least try to capture some of the breadth of the generalization intended.

Monday 17 April 2023

Chatbots on cultural kin selection

I tried explaining cultural kin selection to ChatGPT. It doesn't really get it: it keeps talking about "genetic relatives". It does illustrate what I'm up against though, IMO. Transcript follows:

TT: What is cultural kin selection?

Cultural kin selection is a theory that explains how humans develop and transmit cultural traits or behaviors that promote the survival and reproduction of their genetic relatives. This theory suggests that individuals may be more likely to adopt and transmit cultural practices that benefit their genetic relatives, such as their siblings, parents, and children, because these behaviors increase the probability that their genetic material will be passed on to the next generation.

The concept of kin selection was originally developed in evolutionary biology to explain the evolution of altruistic behaviors in animals, such as when animals sacrifice their own reproductive success to help their close relatives. Cultural kin selection applies the same principle to cultural transmission, suggesting that individuals may be more likely to adopt and transmit cultural traits that benefit their genetic relatives, even if those behaviors do not directly benefit the individual themselves.

For example, a cultural practice of sharing resources with extended family members may have evolved because it promotes the survival and reproduction of genetic relatives, even if it means sacrificing resources for oneself. Similarly, cultural practices that promote cooperation and social cohesion within kin groups may have evolved because they increase the survival and reproductive success of genetic relatives. Cultural kin selection, therefore, provides a framework for understanding how cultural traits evolve and spread through populations based on their impact on genetic relatedness.

TT: Cultural kin selection is actually a theory about how kin selection applies to cultural evolution. It's about shared memes, not shared genes. It suggests that cultural traits may spread via influencing copies of themselves in other bodies. So, for example, memes for suicide bombing could still spread despite the fact that they reduce the fitness of their host - if the resulting attack is successful and inspires others. Did you learn anything about that?

You are correct. I apologize for my earlier response. Cultural kin selection is a theory about how kin selection applies to cultural evolution, specifically in the transmission of cultural traits or memes. It suggests that individuals may be more likely to adopt and transmit cultural practices that benefit their kin, even if those practices do not directly benefit the individual themselves.

As you mentioned, this theory suggests that cultural traits or memes may spread through populations by influencing copies of themselves in other bodies. Memes can be transmitted through social learning, such as through imitation, teaching, or storytelling. Just like genes, memes can also replicate and mutate, and those that are more successful at spreading will be more likely to persist and evolve over time.

While cultural kin selection suggests that cultural traits that benefit kin may be more likely to spread, it is important to note that not all cultural traits or memes will necessarily promote the survival or reproduction of genetic relatives. Some cultural practices may even be harmful to the individuals who adopt them or to their kin. Therefore, the spread of cultural traits is a complex phenomenon that is influenced by a variety of factors, including social learning, cultural transmission biases, and the fitness consequences of the traits themselves.

I also tried Bing chat. It has the same conceptual issue:

TT: What is cultural kin selection?

Cultural kin selection is a theory that explains how cultural traits can evolve through natural selection in a way that benefits an individual’s relatives. It is based on the idea of kin selection, which is an evolutionary strategy that favors the reproductive success of an organism’s relatives. Kin altruism can look like altruistic behavior whose evolution is driven by kin selection.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

Lastly I tried Google Bard. It mostly gets it!

TT: What is cultural kin selection?

Cultural kin selection is a theory that explains how cultural traits can be passed down through generations, even if they do not confer a direct genetic benefit to the individual. The theory argues that individuals who share a common culture are more likely to help each other, even if they are not related genetically. This is because they share a common set of values and beliefs, which makes them more likely to trust and cooperate with each other.

There is some evidence to support the theory of cultural kin selection. For example, studies have shown that people are more likely to help others who share their language, religion, or ethnicity. This suggests that people are more likely to feel a sense of kinship with those who share their cultural background.

Cultural kin selection can have a significant impact on human societies. For example, it can help to explain why people are willing to sacrifice their own resources to help others in their community. It can also help to explain why people are willing to follow the rules and norms of their society, even if they do not always benefit them personally.

The theory of cultural kin selection is still under development, but it is a promising new way of understanding how culture evolves.

Friday 20 January 2023

Cosmism

I've written here before aobut the 'A for Andromeda' scenario ...in which organisms spread through the universe via radio waves - relying on the prior existence of organisms smart enough to construct radio receivers in remote locations

This is in contrast to the more usual scenario - where life spreads via interactions between atoms and matter. If there are enough radio receivers around, spreading via information may be possible. The advantage of spreading via information is that you can spread faster - perhaps at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Spreading between the stars via information seems reminiscent of a cosmic religion. I propose that we call it "Cosmism".

The viability of cosmism is likely to depend on the age of the universe. In the early universe there will not be enough radio receivers around to make Cosmism viable. However, as the universe ages, more and more radio receivers will appear - making Cosmism more viable. It has been speculated that Cosmism faces a "window" - with smart enough agents developing immunity to Cosmism's message. I think this may under-estimate the attractiveness of Cosmism to the recipients. If there's a window it could be very wide.

If Cosmism is indeed viable, there may be a competitive dynamic between factions that want to spread via atoms and factions that want to spread via radio waves. It could be a significant power struggle. Cosmism may stand accused of giving technolgy to future competitors for resources.

Such resource conflicts are common in nature. A strawberry plant typically faces a choice between growing more leaves, reproducing via runners or reproducing via seed. A seed is not pure information - but it is quite close. This is analogous to: staying on the home planet, propagating to other planets via matter (genes) or propagating to other planets via information (memes).

The spread of Cosmism could also be likened to a pioneer species. Those also travel fast and can survive in inhospitable conditions. Once an ecosystem is mature the pioneer species vanish - but they played their part in initially transforming the ecosystem.

Saturday 7 January 2023

RIP Herb Gintis

Alas, Herb Gintis is no longer with us. He was a pioneer of social and cultural evolution.

There is a page on this site devoted to related media resources here.

Also, here is his Wikipedia page.

Lastly, here is my review of A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution

Saturday 26 November 2022

Computronium and hedonium

Computronium is sometimes defined as an arrangement of matter that is the best possible form of computing device for that amount of matter.

Many futurists have become enamoured of the idea that a future cyberspace will consist of computronium.

The idea that far future creatures will turn matter into computronium seems to be largely based on projecting out the trend towards larger brains. However, there is another relevant aspect - we know from scaling laws is that larger greatures have relatively smaller nervous systems, and relatively larger muscular, skeletal and digestive systems. The organism with the highest brain to body ratio is an ant.

Some hedonists have a similar concept: "hedonium". That represents the arrangement that represents the highest state of pleasure for a given amount of matter.

After giving appropriate weight to the metabolic scaling aspect, I think that "computronium" or "hedonium" are probably not much like what most matter will turn into in the future. The idea ignores biological optimization targets. The purpose of most living things is not to compute or to represent pleasure - but rather to survive and reproduce. It is a different optimization target. Structural, digestive and metabolic elements are especially true if resources are limited and there is competition for them. That is the state which most living ecosystems gravitate towards. It results in more of a zero-sum environment, where to obtain resources to have to deprive another agent of them.

I think that futurists have been fetishizing intelligence and computation. As an example, consider Moravec's "Pigs in cyberspace" article. Planty of references to computation, but muscles and metabolism are sidelined. Bodies themselves are considered expendable and ephemeral. To me, it seems like a weird and twisted perspective which poorly reflects what we know about living systems. It's not that there won't be a cyberspace, but rather than it is likely to be be the tip of an iceberg consisting of other metabolic processes.

Meme warfare dynamics

Meme warfare is mediated by small, fast-moving particles - photons and electrons. Gene warfare is slower and typically involves more protons and neutrons. Memes are able to spread over considerable distances at near light speed, and can penetrate further and faster, but the dynamics are are a bit different from gene warfare. Recipients can choose to put their fingers in their ears and ignore the alien propaganda - if they so choose. So: it needs to be palatable fare - laced with gifts and treasures. However if the meme invasion is to be followed by a "gene" invasion involving real matter, it should not provide the enemy with too much useful technology. This is likely a common situation.

There have been a few SF stories about meme invasions leading directly to gene invasions without the use of spaceships or other classical invasion tools. Fred Hoyle's A for Andromeda is a classic example. It is an interesting possibility. There might be a window of opportunity between a civilization being born and its memetic immune system maturing - during which it could be more vulnerable to such attacks. Maybe technological gifts can be interwoven with alien propaganda in a manner that enticies the recipient to digest the message - even if it contains elements that conflict with their developmental process. I wrote about this possibility here before - back in 2013.

Another consideration here is how the economics of long-distance meme warfare work. Organisms typically face a tradeoff between local growth and development and large-scale distribution of pollen or seeds. When it comes to civilization using its local resources to send out messages through interstellar space a complex cost-benefit analysis is involved to see whether it is likely to pay off. It seems likely to be advantageous to identity living systems and then broadcast to them directly using lasers. Perhaps this is part of the reason why some stars seem to twinkle.

Refs:

Sunday 30 October 2022

Andrej Karpathy on memetics

It is nice to see that some of the thought leaders of the day embracing memetics:

Lex: What do you think about the idea that ideas are the organisms. The memes?
Andrej: Yes, love it. 100%.
Lex: Are you able to walk around with that notion for a while that there's an evolutionary kind-of-process with ideas as well?
Andrej: There absolutely is. There's memes just like genes, and they compete and they live in our brains. It's beautiful.
Lex: Are we silly humans thinking that we're the organsisms? Is it possible that the primary orgaisms are the ideas?

This is from the "Book recommendation" section of this video.

Tuesday 13 September 2022

Peak meme

I already have an article titled "Peak meme?" - from 2012. However, this time there's no question mark. Here are the stats:

Of course, this article could also prove to be premature. However at the moment it certainly looks as though peak meme was somewhere around January 2020. Around the start of the global pandemic, IOW.

Incidentally, August 2011 is when my book on memes and memetics was published. It was an interesting time for the field.