Re: Temporal Learning


Curt Welch wrote:
> Traveler <traveler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 11 Oct 2005 18:50:31 GMT, curt@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch) wrote:
>
> > >Population size doesn't really prevent [evolution] from working, it just
> > >limits the speed of adapation to a changing envrionment.
> >
> > It prevents it from working the way we've been told. In order for new
> > species to emerge, there must be a lot of opportunities for mutations.
> > The problem with the mutation hypothesis is that, the more complex the
> > organism, the less chance any mutation has to be successful. The
> > mutation process discourages complexity. Big time.
>
Actually, evolution promotes complexity quite naturally. This is
because any local differentiation has a tendency to produce surrounding
differentiation through its interactions. So when you get a number of
even very simple organisms acting on the same environment, that
environment is consequently subject to quite dramatic non-linear
changes. These changes are compounded in subsequent generations of the
organisms and so on cyclically. People consistently make the mistake of
talking about evolution as though it only acted on so-called 'life',
forcing it to adapt to some imposed and independent environment. The
fact is that the environment and what lives in it are the same system,
and that changes to one incur changes to the other. So when you get
multiple types of organisms interacting with the same environment,
there is a sense in which the genes are interacting cross-species as
well as within species. Breeding is a much stronger and more linear
association, but even cohabitation has a correlational effect, as
mediated by shared context.

> It discorages the type of complexity humans like to build into their
> machines. It encourages the type of complexity created by indepdendence
> instead of the type created by codependence.
>
> In a computer, you can break any single transitor, or any single wire in
> the CPU, and the thing will crash and burn in very short order. That's the
> type of complexity evolution can't work with. In the human body, you can
> distroy any single cell, and nothing bad happens. There's not a single
> cell in the entire body that is so important you can't just kill it and
> have they body keep functioning. Everything is redudant to some degree.
>
> Likewise, in the specification for the design (DNA etc), there's no doubt a
> huge amount of redundant flexibility so that small mutations make small
> changes. To start with, DNA is redundant. We have two copies most all
> genes (except the ones on that retarded little Y chromosome). So if one
> gets mutated, the other has a chance to carry on the old role. This allows
> the DNA to carry around mutations that are currently harmless but which one
> day, might prove useful when combined with other new mutations.
>
> There's probably a lot more independence in the genes than we understand as
> well, because we know so little about what all the genes do and how they
> work totgether.
>
The fun part about DNA (and another consistent misinterpretation of
evolution) is that it doesn't specify a design for anything at all.
What DNA does is to encode a set of heavily context-sensitive
interactions. The fact that these interactions tend to produce big
complex shapes is incidental, and occurs only (and necessarily) because
those big complex shapes are pretty good at making more of the same
DNA. So the moral of this digression is that the same DNA will do
different things in different contexts (cell differentiation provides a
solid example). So when the environment changes, the same DNA will
respond differently - it doesn't have to completely redesign itself
because it was never a design in the first place. It's just a molecule
that interacts with other molecules. It's particular configuration
exists because that configuration is good at replicating in its
prefered environment. Different environments are likely to reduce that
efficiency and to promote the efficiency of other configurations. DNA
in and of itself has no impetus whatsoever to do anything. It has no
goal or desire or even purpose to preserve and replicate itself. The
fact that it *does* replicate itself is its *only* raison-d'etre.
Things that make more of themselves are likely to be plentiful. Go
figure.

> > >> We should be seeing a lot more new human species emerging
> > >> now (we have billions of mating specimens) than in the distant past
> > >> when populations were sparse.
> > >
> > >No we shouldn't be. Evolution is not a processes of creating new
> > >species.
> >
> > You're mistaken. Darwinian evolution is precisely about the origin of
> > species.
>
> Well, what I wrote wasn't very clear, but what I meant was - "Evolution is
> not JUST a processes of creating new species". It's far more than that.
> It's the processes which creates all structure in the universe. I've not
> read Darwin's work so I don't know for sure what his main points were.
> However, just because the title of his most famous work was about the orgin
> of the species, I doub't it's only point was about the origin of the
> species. It was no doubt about how life changes on it's own through
> natural selection without the need of some external force like GOD to make
> it happen. Darwin didn't know about DNA, but that's not important. DNA is
> not evolution. Evolution is change through natrual selection. It explains
> how the planets and stars and rocks got to be here just as well as it
> explains how man came to be.

I'm so happy to hear someone else say this! The other thing I want to
say is about this whole 'species' issue [two or three quote thingies
above...]. A lot of people have problems with evolution because they
say 'where are the transitional specimens?' Well the things is - when
you find a specimen, you tend to put it into an existing category. So
the transitional forms end up getting split up and put into the species
we've already categorized on either side. So if you're looking for new
'human species' - congratulations. Our jaw is shrinking dramatically,
to the point where (barring sexual selection) we will no longer have
chins in a while, and the lucky among us have already stopped producing
wisdom teeth. The reason there aren't myriad different kinds of humans
is that we've worked diligently towards creating a homogenous
environment across the planet - so the selective pressures are
consistent for all humans.
>
> > >It's a processes of finding the optimal solution to the problems created
> > >by the environment. It's the environment that defines the species, not
> > >the processes of evolution. When the environment changes, the species
> > >change to adapt.
> >
> > But there is no change, genetically speaking. Unless the gene that
> > allows an individual to survive an environmental hardship already
> > existed in the individual, the individual has no chance of surviving.
> > Nothing new is created. Obviously the genes were already present in
> > some individuals. Why? Where do they come from? How did they emerge
> > without previous evolutionary pressure? Pressure from the environment
> > does not create new genes. The genes are already there. Why? That's
> > the chicken and egg problem of Darwinian evolution. It needs
> > environmental pressure to change but it cannot change unless the genes
> > somehow existed before the pressure arrived to cause the change.
> > Mutation alone cannot account for new gene creation because the more
> > complex the organism the less successful the mutations. In the
> > Darwinian scheme of things, complexity is its own worst enemy.
>
> Not at all. Man's lack of understanding about how to create complexity
> without dependency is man's worse enemy in understanding the power of
> natural selection.
>
> > Let me add that natural selection is kind of like reinforcement
> > learning.
>
> It's not kind of like it. It's the same thing.
>
> > It does not create new genes; it only selects pre-existing
> > genes via the mechanism of sexual breeding. Likewise, RL does not
> > created new behaviors; it selects existing behaviors; some other
> > principles create the behaviors. It's a selection process.
>
> That's right.
>
> DNA based life is a special type of "evolution machine" which greatly
> speeds up the processes of natrual selection. The brain is yet another
> type of "evolution machine" which greatly speeds up the processes of
> natural selections effects on behavior.
>
> But evoluton and natural selection are at work on all matter, not just DNA
> machines and not just brains.
>
> The prime system of evolution we see at work transforming animals in front
> of us, is not mutation. It's the DNA hardware operating as a reinforcement
> learning machine. The gene pool of any speces stores the current set of
> genes which specify the design of the individual organisms. Every time an
> organism in the group dies, it's genes are removed from the gene pool, and
> in doing so, reduces the probablity of those genes being used in the
> future. It's an act of punishment to the reinforcement learning machine
> and it does exactly the same thing that punishment does in all
> reinforcement learning machines. It reduces the probablity of the behavior
> being repeated in the future. But in this case, the "behavior" is a
> processes of the DNA building a life form. So the DNA itself has behaviors
> of building life forms, and those behaviors are operantly conditioned
> through the death, and birth, of life forms.
>
> Even a small gene pool has billions of different variations it can create
> without the help of any mutations just by mixing and matching all the
> genetic variations already present in the gene pool. And that processes is
> what produces the quick changes we see happening though cross breading and
> natrual selection.
>
> But beyond that, genes get randomly mutated all the time by forces like
> xrays. These mutations don't always kill the organism because all genes
> are redundant and the backup gene is always there ready to do what needs to
> be done. And in addition, most genes probably don't work alone, and when
> you kill one of the set, the net effect of the group changes slightly, but
> not completly. Because if the group depended on all the genes doing a
> precise job, then we never could have evolved this level of complexity in
> the first place. So once a mutation enters the gene pool, the DNA RL
> system goes to work testing it's usefulness, (in the context of the current
> enviornment).
>
> To create separate species, you must split a gene pool into separate
> breeding groups, and then let them evolove on their own, long enough for
> the designs to drift far enough part to be called separate species. That
> doesn't happen in 100 years. It takes 100's of generations - an it will
> only work if you have created independent breading pools (DNA RL engines).
>
> In today's world, yes, the human DNA RL engine is running faster than it
> ever has in the past because the poplution is larger today. But, because
> the gene pool is becomming more tightly coupled into on large engine,
> there's not hope of it splitting into different species. We will have to
> send a group of to a different set of starts and let them evolve on their
> own for a few hundred thousand years before the DNA RL engine would create
> a new species.
>
> > >The only way to force variation in a species, is to split then into
> > >separate breeding pools and put each pool into a separate environment.
> > >That allows the breeding pool to evolve into a different form optimized
> > >for the needs of their unique environment. This is what happaned to
> > >man, as he spread around the world and became isolated in different
> > >areas with different environmential demands.
> >
> > If other species are any indication, we should witness several species
> > of human-like creatures that are more or less equally intelligent even
> > though they cannot interbreed. This is not observed and, regardless of
> > claims to the contrary, the fossil record does not show evidence of
> > intelligent humanoids who did not interbreed. There are all kinds of
> > bird species who cannot genetically interbreed. Same with lizards,
> > spiders, fish, etc...

You're not applying the generalization equally. To generalize accross
anything with wings is at least equivalent to generalizing across apes,
monkeys and humans - in which case there are several members in our
corner of the evolutionary space. The other point worth noting (and
Curt says this in a different way below) is that we've geared much of
the planet's environments towards our own purposes - which constrains
other variations drastically. The species we still observe are the ones
that can more or less cohabitate, or the ones which we've decided to
preserve for our amusement and/or ridiculous sense of morality. Any
species similar enough to us will be in competition for the same
environments, which is essentially a death warrant.
>
> There's just no evidence to support that claim. Why are there not two
> species of horses with black and white vertical stripes? Or two breads of
> horse like abimals with long necks to reach high leaves on the trees? All
> thoughout the tree of life we find species with singular unique features
> not found in any other species. The fact that man has a feature (his
> brain) which is not duplicated in any other species is not at all unusal.
>
> In addition, our brain has only been with us for a few hundred thousand
> years. Geneticaly speaking, it's a brand new feature. Give the rest of
> the life a few million more years and then see how many other species might
> have one. Then you can try to make the argument.
>
> More important however, is that in the recent past, there were several
> species with simlar "strong brains", and they all died off except us. This
> might be explained by the fact that what a stronger brain brings with it,
> is the ability to understand, and deal with, the threat created by
> intelligent competition. No species on the planet goes to war against the
> threat of intelligence like humans do. Our brain is our strongest weapon,
> and we know it. And when our competition gets strong weapons and threaten
> us, we kill them. So, to expect a world filled with "equaly intelligent
> species" at the top of the intelligence ladder would be contrary to what
> natrual selection would predict.
>
> > >Of course it is. We are cross breeding at increasing higher rates.
> > >That means we are forming one large breeding pool for the entire
> > >environment of earth and we are becoming a species which is optimized
> > >for one large single environment - Earth. Do you want to see man evolve
> > >apart, send a million people to Mars and don't let the Martians cross
> > >breed with the Earthlings for the next 100,000 years and then see what
> > >happens.
> >
> > A billion years from now, they would still be human.
>
> Anyone that understands evolution would not agree with that.
>
> > >Man is not an individual. He's part of a large breeding pool which
> > >works as a single large machine designed for the purpose of survial by
> > >adapting to the environment. If you want to see these large machines
> > >take different paths, you have to cut them in half and create two
> > >machines and then left them each go off on their own way.
> > >
> > >The more cross breading that takes place on earth because of the
> > >increased transportation and mobility of people, the more we act as one
> > >machine, instead of 20 separate machines and the more we become one
> > >homogeneous race. This is not a surprise, it's exactly what you would
> > >expect from evolution.
> >
> > I don't think so. According to the Darwinian doctrine, new species
> > arise as a result of mutations in a large population. The larger the
> > population, the more numerous the mutations and the greater the
> > chances for successful ones. We have more people on earth than ever
> > before. Where are the new species of intelligent humans? Sure we have
> > lots of races but a race is just a variety, not a separate species.
>
> You don't understand how evolution works. A single species which exists in
> a single breading pool, forms ONE single reinforcment learning machine
> which evolves not in different directions, but in one single direction.
>
> Do you understand what a species is? It's a gene pool which has split into
> two parts, and then the two parts evolved far enough part, that they can no
> long cross breed. The only way for that to happen, is to split a single
> gene pool into two pools, and let each evolve for a long long time on
> separate paths.
>
> You can't have a single mutation in a single gene pool that manages to
> create a new species. The odds are so astronomically small that it's just
> won't happen. If a single mutation happens that makes enough changes that
> prevents the offspring from breeding with anyone but themself, then who is
> that offspring going to breed with to start a new pool?
>
> As long as the species is interbreeding in a single large gene pool, it
> can't form two species. The gene pool can't drift far enough apart to
> create two species where there is currently only one.
>
> --
> Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
> curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Temporal Learning
    ... > species to emerge, there must be a lot of opportunities for mutations. ... There's probably a lot more independence in the genes than we understand as ... The gene pool of any speces stores the current set of ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A Touch of Thermo
    ... Nemenman's logic makes me wonder about the gene pool, ... I remember this next idea less clearly;I think that different species occupy niches in an environment. ... This makes me wonder about there being an optimal strategy unless there is a very great deal known about the organism and its natural environment. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: (newbie) Basic question
    ... (the entire 'assortment' of impacting environmental selective pressures) ... Does an existing gene pool not possess the potential for considerable ... species could be more poised to respond with a hightened mutation rate to ... is it possible that the environment ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: A Touch of Thermo
    ... about the gene pool, which is not optimized. ... but I don't think it ever reaches optimality. ... the environment changes and there is now another species better ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Propping up the theory of Evolution
    ... lets say 30% of the population within that species, ... Thats adaptation, ... Genes often provide only a range of normality that can be ... but the environment affects how those genes ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading