
Ants swarm like brains think - dang
http://nautil.us/issue/12/feedback/ants-swarm-like-brains-think
======
netcan
There's an appealing idea that the core of human intelligence is one general
purpose algorithm. I like thinking that there is something fundamental, simple
and elegant waiting to be discovered like evolution by natural selection or
Newtons laws (of mechanics).

A beautiful thing about Evolution by Natural Selection is that the principle
itself is metaphysical, not physical. It exists in the same realm as math or
logic. The principle is embodied in biology just like the concept of a square
can be embodied as a planet. Even if we didn't have any physical squares our
metaphysical ideas about metaphysical squares would still valid, hence
n-dimensional geometry.

Another cool thing about Evolution by Natural Selection is that it is nicely
self contained. It's the bottom of a finite rabbit hole. Understanding what
evolution is made of will help us understand a particular instance of
evolution, but not the principle. So, knowing about DNA and genetic mutations
helps us understand evolution in biology but it doesn't tell us more about
evolution in abstract. IE, it doesn't get us to a more fundamental
understanding. Even if Darwin had been wrong about the origin of species he
would still have discovered something awesome.

Newtons principles have a different kind of elegance. They are extremely
fundamental and a pleasingly small number of them are needed. The difference
is that they are very much _physical_ laws. They are fundamental enough to be
treated as fundamental rules of the universe. Almost. Newtonic physics still
leaves open the idea of more fundamental questions and answers. Learning what
gravity is _made of_ does get us closer to the fundamental.

Darwin's evolution is fundamental in the way that math is. Newton's mechanics
is fundamental in the way that atoms are. The way I have these defined in my
own mind is _Philosophical_ and _Scientific._ It's a sort of fuzzy distinction
and it breaks down a lot. But it seems useful to me sometimes. "Anthropic,"
for example, is something you need to get your philosophical mind familiar
with.

Back to AI. The single algorithm idea hints, I think a "philosophical"
explanation. We're looking for some metaphysical property of the universe that
intelligence is an instance of.

~~~
gradys
We have come to a lot of the same conclusions, particularly w.r.t. evolution
being a metaphysical phenomenon and its being deeply interwoven with (or
perhaps analogous to) intelligence.

Do you have any favorite authors or texts in this area?

~~~
netcan
Not really. Richard Dawkins turned me on to the idea.

Interestingly, the whole "intelligent design" debate is a good proxy for
'evolution as intelligence' arguments. One side offers example of how
biology/nature is 'designed' and the other finds explanations for how it is
evolved. Evolution _does_ seem intelligently designed. It exhibits problem
solving.

The similarity between the way an intelligent human thinks and the way nature
"thinks" is striking. It's striking to the point that simply defining nature
as _an_ intelligence (or even going further as defining it as an intelligent
creator) doesn't seem out of the question. We know a lot about the mechanics
of evolution. Less about the mechanics of human intelligence. In the absence
of a better understanding of the latter, it's more or less just a semantic
choice.

But, there could very well be a stronger connection. Maybe something similar
to evolutionary intelligence powers human intelligence. Maybe both are
instances of a more fundamental thing. I'm using 'emergence' as the
placeholder in my brain for that fundamental principle/algorithm or collection
of these. 'Emergence' also covers concepts from economics, culture and
ecologies and finds logical solutions for things without the intervention of
an intelligent human.

But no, I don't have good reading recommendations. If anyone does, I would
love to hear them. Fiction, non-fiction. I would love to hear about these
ideas from different perspectives.

~~~
Geee
I've been thinking about this a bit lately. I came to the conclusion that
brain could basically be a process to simulate evolution (not computational,
but analogous mimicry). If something seemingly 'intelligent' can exist because
of evolutive process ('emergence'), brain should mimic the process to arrive
at the same solution, faster. For example, when I'm thinking about this
comment I'm unknowingly eliminating all the pathways that lead to bad comments
and this is the only one that survives ('emerges').

~~~
netcan
Why 'mimic?' IE, if this is correct then biological evolutions mimics
intelligence just as much as intelligence mimics biology.

------
hermanschaaf
Douglas Hofstadter used this analogy in his 1979 book, Gödel, Escher, Bach.
GEB presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain
coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the
social organization displayed in a colony of ants. It's a fascinating book,
and well worth the read for the inquiring mind.

~~~
rectangletangle
This reminds me of how some biologists consider a colony to actually be a
single organism, and each individual ant an organ system. The queen could be
thought of as the reproductive organs, workers the limbs, scouts sensory
organs. It's especially interesting considering that all of the workers are
sterile, so fitness is shared, and dependent on the queen.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> It's especially interesting considering that all of the workers are sterile,
> so fitness is shared, and dependent on the queen.

That's _why_ it makes sense to think of the colony as a single organism. In
the same way, your hands can only reproduce when the rest of you does, in an
orderly manner, and we think of you as a unified organism. If hands could bud
off independent mini-hands, you might see less cooperation from them over the
course of your life.

~~~
anentropic
nightmares!

------
praptak
The 2004 ICFP contest was based around this theme. The contestants had to
program an ant state machine in a very simple and resource-restricted
language. Still it allowed for pretty complex strategies like ambushing
opponent's ants trying to steal your food.

Here's the link to the results which also contains links to some summaries by
contestants: [https://alliance.seas.upenn.edu/~plclub/cgi-
bin/contest/resu...](https://alliance.seas.upenn.edu/~plclub/cgi-
bin/contest/results.php)

------
wolfhumble
_The foraging response to food is an example of a positive feedback loop, and
familiar to anyone who has had a picnic ruined by a line of ants marching in
single file toward their meal._

Seeing how hundreds of ants in a long line harvest a package of cereal high
upon the shelf is an impressive sight, despite the food casualty . . . :-)

Reading the article makes me want to heed the thousands of years old advise:

 _Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no
commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and
gathers its food at harvest._ (Proverbs 6:6-8, NIV)

IANAAE (I Am Not An Ants Expert), but even though colonies have queens, there
is no central control from what I understand:

 _There are about 10,000 species of ants. They all live in colonies consisting
of one or a few queens, and then all the ants you see walking around are
sterile female workers. And all ant colonies have in common that there 's no
central control. Nobody tells anybody what to do. The queen just lays the
eggs. There's no management. No ant directs the behavior of any other ant. And
I try to figure out how that works. And I've been working for the past 20
years on a population of seed-eating ants in southeastern Arizona._
[http://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants/transcript...](http://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants/transcript#t-30000)

~~~
orthecreedence
> even though colonies have queens, there is no central control

This is important. A lot of times I describe to people how ants are a perfect
example of a cooperative anarchical society, and they say "Well what about the
queen!!"

"Queen" is a misnomer. She is really just another ant whos job it is to lay
eggs. This job tends to be less expendable than others, so the queen is more
protected (from what I know), but she's still "equal" in the sense that nobody
gives orders, everything is self-organizing.

------
peterwwillis
All sorts of things can be modeled on ants, like distributed message passing
and congestion control algorithms, as well as routing in general. There's a
list of ant colony-inspired algorithms here
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization_algori...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization_algorithms)
And Google Scholar has a wealth of papers found here
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ant+colony](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ant+colony)

------
Geee
Even rivers are intelligent, they find a way from the lake to the sea and
carve a comfortable path for themselves. :)

~~~
sitkack
Evolution and gravity are consequences of the natural computation of the
universe.

------
V-2
"The Invincible" by Stanisław Lem comes to mind.

Spoilers inside! ->
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible)

~~~
camino020
They actually are. Depends on what you consider the river. If it is just the
molecules of water, probably not. But if you look at the whole ecosystem of a
river, you will be amazed. And in this situation with beavers building dams
and changing the course, and everything doing its bit, yes, the river will do
amazing things and will show to have a life of its own, just like the ant
colony.

------
bayesianhorse
I just finished reading the paper about a model of ant foraging rates.

Observing that ant nest size should be a stochastic exponential process,
depending on how many ants bring back food and how many die trying, is this
model detailed enough to show that ants are performing portfolio optimization?

~~~
sitkack
I want to know how ants got into a sealed bag of brown sugar when I can't.

~~~
bayesianhorse
These little investment bankers sure are sneaky!

