
The Computer Maverick Who Modeled the Evolution of Life (2014) - wheresvic3
http://m.nautil.us/issue/74/networks/the-computer-maverick-who-modeled-the-evolution-of-life
======
9214
I urge anyone who's interested in that kind of stuff to read "Allure of
machinic life" by John Johnston [1]. A fascinating read that touches upon all
strands of natural computing (soft / hard ALife, wetware, AI, evolutionary
computation, swarm intelligence, behavior-based robotics, 1st and 2nd order
cybernetics, theory of self-reproducing automata and whatnot) with a pondering
touch of Deleuzian philosophy.

There's no mention of Barricelli though, but another equally interesting book
[2] recognizes his pioneering work on artifical symbiogenesis (and that was
back in 1953!), and speculates on its importance in the genealogy of computer
worms and viruses.

[1]: [https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/allure-machinic-
life](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/allure-machinic-life)

[2]:
[https://www.peterlang.com/view/title/58766](https://www.peterlang.com/view/title/58766)

------
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7919850](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7919850)

A bit from a month ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20439790](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20439790)

~~~
bklaasen
Steven Levy's 1992 book "Artificial Life" is well worth a read.

------
anderspitman
If you find this interesting, I recommend also looking into genetic
algorithms, artificial life (alife), cellular automata, Conway's game of Life,
falling sand games, and Karl Sims virtual creatures.

~~~
AllegedAlec
Advanced reading search terms:

\- Cellular Potts Models

\- Evolution of evolvability

\- Replicators and the Error treshold

------
Scaevolus
Nanopond more closely matches what you might envision an artificial petri dish
looks like:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5yE8Si8rMM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5yE8Si8rMM)

------
yters
As a counter perspective check out "Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics"

[https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Evolutionary-
Informatics...](https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Evolutionary-Informatics-
Robert-Marks/dp/9813142146)

~~~
jdkee
Intelligent design is neither.

~~~
yters
The book is very readable, and has quite a lot of artificial life simulation
analysis and mathematical proof. While it is written by well known members of
the ID crowd, the book does not advance any claims about intelligent design.
The book analyzes why these simulations work, and clearly presents all its
claims, so it is quite accessible for the reader to pick apart and check their
validity.

~~~
gridlockd
Ah, so _that 's_ the other part of your misconceptions.

As far as I can see, the point made in the (first part of) the book is that
informed algorithms (on average) always outperform random searches and that
genetic algorithms are akin to random searches.

The first part is true, the second part isn't. Evolution isn't random,
_mutation_ is random. Selection is very much not random, it is informed by the
environment. This drastically reduces the size so-called "search space".

Using the term "search" for the outcomes of evolution is a curious choice
anyway. Evolution doesn't search for anything in particular, it produces
adaptation to an environment. It's a process without end.

As for computer simulations, check out the simulated biped that evolved
hopping like a kangaroo:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ2bqz3HPJE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ2bqz3HPJE)

~~~
yters
The book is not about biological evolution. They are analyzing artificial life
simulations like Avida and Terra. Different topic than what we are discussing
in the other thread.

The fundamental point is that information is conserved, so if artificial life
sims produce information, it must have been inserted into the code at some
point, and it is possible to track down these particular insertion points,
which the authors do. In information theory the conservation of information
theorem goes by various names, such as the data processing inequality and
independence conservation.

Anyways, I highly recommend the book. Everything is clearly laid out for your
own analysis and application.

~~~
gridlockd
> The fundamental point is that information is conserved, so if artificial
> life sims produce information, it must have been inserted into the code at
> some point, and it is possible to track down these particular insertion
> points, which the authors do.

Fair enough. Let's apply this to the video I linked. The authors certainly
didn't add "information" about what walking or hopping looks like into the
code explicitly. It just emerged. Following your logic, the hopping behavior
can't be _new_ information, it must've been contained in the rules of the
simulation.

The simulation itself is made up mostly of an off-the-shelf physics library, a
couple of muscle-skeleton arrangements (authored by hand), and a fitness
function measuring the distance traveled by activating those muscles through
weights (the learning variables). Given this environment, walking, hopping and
running behaviors invariably emerge. Fascinating!

Adapting this to our world, the laws of physics and the initial arrangement of
matter contain all the "information" required for life to eventually emerge in
the universe. This leaves you with a "god of the gaps" opportunity: An
intelligent designer must've designed _those laws_ and made _that_ arrangement
of matter so that it all works out. This is however entirely compatible with
Darwinian models.

I don't have an issue with that kind of hypothesis, except that it is unclear
what the existence of such a god/designer would imply for our particular lives
here on earth.

~~~
yters
Have you worked much with evolutionary algorithms? It also seems you think
that evolutionary algorithms are somehow analogous to biological evolution. To
what degree do you think that is true?

~~~
gridlockd
> Have you worked much with evolutionary algorithms?

Not really, like I said, there's usually better algorithms than genetic
algorithms. They're fun to play around with, though.

> It also seems you think that evolutionary algorithms are somehow analogous
> to biological evolution. To what degree do you think that is true?

The general principle - selection and random mutation - is the same.

~~~
yters
What gives you so much confidence in GAs?

Also, I am surprised you've followed this discussion for so long. Most people
fire off some canned phrases and then disappear.

~~~
gridlockd
> What gives you so much confidence in GAs?

Do I sound confident about them? I've said multiple times that they usually
aren't very good and that usually you have a better algorithm. Usually, you
can apply _intelligent design_.

The fundamental difference between us is probably that you'd look at life in
nature and say something like: "This species is so remarkable, it must've been
designed!".

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. It's only remarkable if it emerged
naturally. If it was _designed_ , then I would have to point out all sorts of
obvious flaws in the design.

~~~
yters
I haven't said anything about design. You are making assumptions. I said
Darwinism appears to be completely useless when it comes to practical
application, and has been replaced by other mechanisms that are identified in
the biological data. In this new thread I said there is a conservation of
information law that the book authors apply to artificial life simulations. I
am talking about what we know through mathematics and quantitative empirical
analysis.

Regarding GAs, the conservation of information applies to how much information
we can expect from a single random sample. If we can sample from the entire
space of possible solutions, then there is a chance of sampling the optimal
solution. The conservation of information applies to the necessary input to
the algorithm in order to bring the chance to a certain level.

~~~
gridlockd
> I haven't said anything about design. You are making assumptions.

Of course I am, just like you assume "materialism" on my part. I have trouble
believing that you're not an ID proponent, even though you're not upfront
about it. Otherwise, why bring up books by people with a clear ID agenda?

I'm honestly not sure what your goal is here, anyway. You rarely address any
questions that I ask. Making assumptions is all I can do.

> I said Darwinism appears to be completely useless when it comes to practical
> application, and has been replaced by other mechanisms that are identified
> in the biological data.

You actually called Darwinism "quackery" and said that it is "dead". This is
the least strong version of your position so far.

I don't disagree that Darwinism, in the sense that it describes the origin of
species, has no direct practical applications. Nobody is in the business of
simulating entire ecosystems for thousands or even millions of years. Using
that fact as some sort of criticism of the theory itself seems rather
hamfisted.

> Regarding GAs, the conservation of information applies to how much
> information we can expect from a single random sample. If we can sample from
> the entire space of possible solutions, then there is a chance of sampling
> the optimal solution.

Fair enough, but GAs are awful for finding the _optimal_ solution. However,
nature doesn't require the optimal solution. It just looks for the next best
thing, over and over. GAs tend to converge to some level of fitness and stay
there.

In fact, it's likely that a random algorithm outperforms those GAs that can
get stuck in local maxima. Again, this has no bearing on nature. Nature is
fine with local maxima.

~~~
yters
My goal is to discuss the topic of the thread. In this thread the book I
mentioned, which is just about artificial life simulations, not biological
evolution. I think it will confuse the discussion to try and bring in
biological evolution and intelligent design. I've researched GAs and
information theory to a fair extent, and am happy to answer questions and
discuss on that topic.

~~~
gridlockd
> I think it will confuse the discussion to try and bring in biological
> evolution and intelligent design.

Fair enough, I was looking to continue where we left off in the other thread.

> I think it will confuse the discussion to try and bring in biological
> evolution and intelligent design. I've researched GAs and information theory
> to a fair extent, and am happy to answer questions and discuss on that
> topic.

Again, that's fair enough. However, if we're leaving out biological evolution,
I don't think there's much of an argument to be had.

~~~
yters
I'd be happy to continue discussion over email. I don't like the HN comments
overflowing the side of the screen. My email is eric.holloway at google email
setvice.

