On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 6:46 AM Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.net> wrote:
*> Of course they could have evolved some more sophisticated strategies, * Yes but the other agents could've evolved more sophisticated strategies too, and the behavior of the other agents must be considered because they are a very important part of the environment, if not the most important part. *> but since the vision range was a genetic parameter, it was simply easier > for evolution to provide global coordination by limiting the vision range, > and then it got stuck at this local optimum. * Your agents could've gotten stuck in an ESS, a Evolutionarily Stable Strategy. Once the majority of a population are using a ESS a mutant who follows a different strategy will soon die out even though if everybody followed that strategy everybody would be better off. It is one of the many flaws in Darwinian Evolution and why it took over 3 billion years for it to invent brains. Just a century ago humans had no idea how to make a brain but today we're very close. *> I still think about this to this day, and wonder if such a phenomenon > has biological plausibility.* It certainly does! Richard Dawkins talks about this extensively in his wonderful books "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype", two of the best books I've ever read and I read a lot. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> sse > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0UNbzyVW5DhPQ1k5hK%3DPBigxhZgjg39_gN8NpBL1Nq4Q%40mail.gmail.com.
