General > Biology

Selfish Gene

(1/4) > >>

deoxymoron:
Hi,

How many people have read The Selfish Gene by R. Dawkins?

I was wondering this because this is the book that inspired me to look, and discover this program, only a few days ago. I was actually considering learning to program myself just to make a program like this, but seems i was beaten to it.

I think this book could be very influential to the programmer of dawinbots, numsgil? (i don't know as i just discovered Dawinbots a few days ago) If they haven't read it already. If not, I highly recommend it as it would almost definitely lead to a better 'dawinbots', Even though i'm very impressed with it already- It's a lot better than the rest that i've seen.

Anyway, discuss!

Numsgil:
I consider it a rather simplistic view.  I side more with Stephen Jay Gould (see note 53 for the relevant section):

"Gould and Dawkins also disagreed over the importance of gene selection in evolution. Dawkins argued that evolution is best understood as competition among genes (or replicators), while Gould advocated the importance of multi-level competition, including selection amongst genes, cell lineages, organisms, demes, species, and clades."  So Gould's view Sums up my understanding of evolution exactly.  Actually, I had a brilliant epiphany about this multi level selection some years ago, and was rather annoyed to find it was an existing theory already :/

I'm not generally a fan of Dawkins.  And by not generally a fan, I mean rather hostile towards.  He's a strong leader of a modern militant (for lack of a better word) form of Darwinism that's mostly a reaction to the militant Creationists.  There's actually evidence of this elsewhere in science as well.  With climate science, for instance, there's a large consensus (and a great deal of evidence for) human caused global warming, but if you're a scientist and you even suggest other causes (even contributing causes) for it you become something of a scientific pariah, because the assumption is that you're in the pocket of the oil industry or something like that.  Or that's my lay person understanding.

deoxymoron:
Well, that may be true of what Gould says, (i'm unaware of his ideas, positions btw, but will look him up) but isn't this program about creating life from the absolute, or at least, a very low level, then letting it become more complex as the bots evolve. All these higher level competitions could theoretically start occuring naturally? This is what i was hoping to accomplish anyway- not, design all the complex behaviours/essence of the bots, in the hope that it will just continue in the evolutionary spirit so to speak, and become more fit and complex in it's environment- Though i like the ability to design bots of the program in it's own right.

For example, one thing that may be hampering 'evolution', is the way the gene's are effective in dawinbots. for example, in Dawkin's understanding of a gene, gene's overlap and a reason this could not really be implemented into dawinbots is because, the genes instruction consists of words, not four basic chemical acids. i realise it would be impossible/incredibly difficult in trying to mimic gene's exactly in essence as they behave in reality. lol

My original idea for creating a program, was to start from the very very bottom, and just have 3D atoms, floating around in a large simulated (early earth) environment, making sure all atoms behaved as they do in reality. Then, either allow for amino acids to form or design them, or even design basic RNA replicators and go from there.

I realise this idea was very idealistic/naive and was probably not going to happen as it would take a lot of computer space/programing prowess, of which i lack. but interesting idea, right? perhaps with a supercomputer.

Anyway, I'm still trying to create some genuinely interesting bots, without resorting to creating them myself. Do you know where i can find advice on applying the right settings for creating interesting behaviour? maybe it's already been covered somewhere else; i can't find where though. i've managed some group behaviour but i want my bots to start increasing thier dna length, not slowly decrease and simplify (even with all dna cost off)  And is it possible for venom, poison etc to develop in a bot, without me programming it in originally? would love to see that happen.

Btw, i sort of agree with what you say about dawkin's militant group, though this too could be seen in evolutionary terms? The tendancy for humans to form their views based on majority rules, laced with a splash of rational thinking (seemingly never enough) because this is what worked in the past. And when i say in the past, i mean, way back in the stone age. I'd prefer a bunch of dawin advocates running aroun than creationists telling me earth is 4000 years old, and if i think differently, i'm going to hell. it seems more a fight between ignorance and rationalism. while climate debate has bureaucratize into crap, politically, and most people don't really understand it (including me) but are willing to have such concrete positions. :/

sorry about bulk questions

Houshalter:

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---I'm not generally a fan of Dawkins.  And by not generally a fan, I mean rather hostile towards.  He's a strong leader of a modern militant (for lack of a better word) form of Darwinism that's mostly a reaction to the militant Creationists.
--- End quote ---
Isn't that the guy that said that parents that teach their children about God should go to prison? Ya...


--- Quote from: deoxymoron ---Anyway, I'm still trying to create some genuinely interesting bots, without resorting to creating them myself. Do you know where i can find advice on applying the right settings for creating interesting behaviour? maybe it's already been covered somewhere else; i can't find where though. i've managed some group behaviour but i want my bots to start increasing thier dna length, not slowly decrease and simplify (even with all dna cost off)  And is it possible for venom, poison etc to develop in a bot, without me programming it in originally? would love to see that happen.
--- End quote ---
My expirements have been unsuccesful thus far in creating completely new abilities, but I have gotten some really interesting behaviors. One thing thats helpful is change. Once they figure out how to survive, they generally don't change much for a long time. This is a good example of puctuated equilibrium in action. Just figure out the dynamic costs and how the controls work and stuff and you'll be golden. Also, shepard bots might help if you don't mind "cheating". Last, the harder the bots have to fight for food, the better they have to be to get it, so make your sims bigger, your alga stronger, and your bots slightly cannibalistic/territorial. Good luck

Numsgil:

--- Quote from: Houshalter ---
--- Quote from: Numsgil ---I'm not generally a fan of Dawkins.  And by not generally a fan, I mean rather hostile towards.  He's a strong leader of a modern militant (for lack of a better word) form of Darwinism that's mostly a reaction to the militant Creationists.
--- End quote ---
Isn't that the guy that said that parents that teach their children about God should go to prison? Ya...

--- End quote ---

Fuel for the fire.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page