Robots evolve altruism. Just like biology predicted

The main flaw i can find in this study is that if you did the same tests with humans, there would be a fair percentage who would give in to greed and hoard points for themselves. Therefore, perhaps humans really do need the bible to know right and wrong, it's the imperfection which causes us to give into temptation. A robot is without the human imperfection and therefore can calculate the effects of it's own actions without giving in to the emotional aspect which comes from being a human.

reply to post by Myollinir

And where is the source code? So far from this other article you've linked to I can only see formulas and theory. There is a vague explanation as to what the robots are accomplishing and still I do not see the literal code driving these bots to "evolution". Lmao.

It seems to me as though you’re refusing to accept the truth because you don’t want to believe it. Why such violent resistance? What do you fear from this experimental result?

Obviously no scientific paper is going to include the code for the programs used in an experiment, because no scientific publication is going to waste time, money and paper proofreading and printing it. If you want to see the code, I suggest you get in touch with the authors, who are identified in the paper itself. Whether they show it to you or not will depend, I suppose, on how worthy they judge your scientific credentials, as well as a few other things.

It is impossible to generate a random program because random numbers are not literally possible. It is all weighted and still I haven't seen a programmer's argument to come back and prove these experiments as being exactly like biotic life.

Why should anyone want to generate a random program? Do you think evolution is a random process?

Anyway, the experimental setup exhibits real-word stochastics; it takes place in a lab, not inside a computer.

reply to post by Astyanax


You are accepting this article the same way faith strong people accept the fact that there is a creator. (this line is meant to be rhetorical)

And you don't understand why random numbers are important - they are the base for how this program is supposed to develop. It gives any chance for a non creator universe to exist. You enforce my point even more by stating evolution is not random, in which case it was pre-programmed and meant to go a certain way. Formulas plugged in for an exact outcome prove predetermined notions, whether we are talking about robots or human beings. So perhaps we should start looking at this programming of robots proving the fact that there is indeed an intelligent designer for the ultimate universe instead of how altruism came to be.

I am arguing this way, because I have been a programmer for almost a decade and I understand how programming works, and how it cannot work. The truth is that the altruism is pre-programmed, and that is all the truth you need to accept. Programs are not like physical / biological experiments as they have constants and the variable inputs are defined within the code. I don't need to see the code because I already know what is running behind the scenes, and you don't seem to understand how programming works behind the scenes for anything involving computing.

And to say that robots take place in the real world is rather comical, you fail to remember there is a chipset with programming running these robots

I'm just trying to shed light on this article for people who may not understand programming languages or behind scenes actions with computers/chipsets. A circuit board is really just a complex string of ones and zeros, defined by what gates you are stringing together for output.

reply to post by Myollinir

You are accepting this article the same way faith strong people accept the fact that there is a creator. (this line is meant to be rhetorical).

Not at all. I have my own reservations about the experimental setup. These are also related, like yours, to how closely the experimental setup models the real world, but they do not necessarily call the result into question. That will depend mainly on future replication of the experiment. You seem to have missed the caveats in my first post.

And you don't understand why random numbers are important - they are the base for how this program is supposed to develop.

They are not. You didn’t read the paper, did you?

These six sensory inputs were scaled to a range of [−1; 1]. In addition to the sensory inputs the neural network also comprised a bias input set to a constant value of −1, which was used to encode the neuron firing threshold. These seven inputs were connected to three neurons in a hidden layer, which in turn connected to three output neurons. The strength of these 33 connections was determined by 33 genes, whose values ranged from 0 to 255 (i.e., 8 bit resolution per gene). The activation of each of the six hidden and three output neurons was calculated by multiplying each of its input values by its associated connection weight, summing over all inputs, and passing the sum through the continuous tanh(x) function to obtain the neuron's activation value in the range of [−1; 1]. The activation value of the first output neuron controlled the left motor speed, the second the right motor speed, and the third whether or not the successfully pushed food items were shared with other group members.

...

The foraging efficiency of each group was evaluated 10 times for 60 seconds and the inclusive fitness of each individual was estimated according to the number of food items collected and not shared + the number of food items that other group members collected and shared (these values being multiplied by c and b/7, respectively). The probability of the genome of a given robot to contribute to the next generation was directly proportional to the robot's inclusive fitness (roulette wheel selection with replacement [43]). Selected genomes were paired to conduct a crossing over with a probability of 0.005. The resulting genomes were subjected to mutation (probability of 0.005 per bit; i.e., 0.04 per gene). This process of selection, recombination, and mutation was repeated until there were enough genomes for the 1,600 individuals (200 groups) of the next generation. The level of altruism was calculated for each group as the proportion of collected food items that was shared within a group: A = n(a)/(n(a) + n(s)), where n(a) was the number of collected food items individuals shared and n(s) the number of items individuals did not share. Source

Randomness is not called for. All that is necessary is for the robots to be programmed with a range of different gene values, which will result in different operating strategies and levels of fitness.

I’m sorry, my friend. You have not correctly grasped either the purpose of this experiment or its methodology, so you are unable to interpret the result correctly.

*

Evolution isn’t random. It is a directed process, and the director is the external environment, which rewards certain kinds of behaviour and punishes others. Mutation is the random process that provides the raw material on which evolution works, but evolution will work just as successfully on nonrandomly chosen material, as it has in this case. All possible initial conditions are present at the beginning of the experiment – a menu far wider, generally speaking, than random mutation would provide under natural conditions.

You’re hung up on ‘randomness’ because you read on some creationist web site, or perhaps were told by some incompetent high-school teacher, that evolution is a random process. It is not. You did not evolve by chance.

I have been a programmer for almost a decade and I understand how programming works, and how it cannot work.

I’m afraid this has very little to do with programming. The programming used on these robots is very simple, and clearly explained in the section of the paper from which the paragraphs quoted above are extracted. Read it again, please. If you lay aside your preconceptions about evolution first, you should find it quite easy to understand. If you have any trouble doing so, I should be delighted to help.

reply to post by Astyanax


You are still proving the point, that these robots did not get this ability naturally, but it was consciously designed. And this was the whole point of my posting from the start, that these robots showing altruism was an effect from the way they were consciously designed, not by chance. This is like calling the kettle black. My argument completely exists to show that this was not random, and you are enforcing that by showing more and more behind the scenes work.

Random numbers would be important to demonstrate a chance factor at the actual randomness of altruism being developed with natural biology. (Albeit that random numbers are not completely possible anyways... as for randomness of life, but who is to say the deviation is any different than computers' random numbers...) But these are all predetermined constants; they use -1 and 1 and only use 255 outcomes from those 2 inputs. This PROVES that they did not evolve it by chance, and the article is just like saying "THIS JUST IN, HUMANS DISCOVERED OXYGEN NECESSARY FOR BREATHING."

I am completely on your side, but you don't even know it haha... just read into what I've stated before. I'm just shedding some light on the article, because it is TOTALLY rigged for altruism to develop itself.

Thank you

reply to post by Myollinir

You are still proving the point, that these robots did not get this ability naturally, but it was consciously designed.

A tendency to share food was ‘coded for’ in the original ‘genome’ in some of the robots, that is correct. The experiment was to see whether such a tendency increased or decreased the robots’ fitness – that is, their ability to survive and ‘reproduce’.

This was tested by noting whether robots with that programmed tendency did better or worse than robots that didn’t have it, or had it less strongly emphasized. They did better – more survived to reproduce in future generations – showing that altruistic behaviour can increase fitness so long as it follows Hamilton’s rule. Altruism is an evolutionarily successful trait, one that spreads through a population automatically given certain basic conditions. That is all the experiment is trying to prove.

This says nothing about where altruism came from originally. If you want to believe God reached down from on high and personally placed this quality in the breast of every animal that possesses it, you are free to do so. But many of us believe the trait must have originated, like all others, in a random mutation.

Yes, a random mutation. Mutation is random, meaning that it occurs unpredictably. But that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is what happens afterwards. Natural selection is a diner in a fancy restaurant, assembling a five-course meal from the dishes available on the menu. The diner doesn’t know or care whether the menu was carefully drawn up (‘programmed’) by the chef at the beginning of the month or whether it was drawn up this morning based on whatever good stuff he found at the produce market (‘random’). The diner knows what he likes, and he picks it from the available choices. If his favourite dish isn’t on it, or if some of the dishes are poisonous, tough luck; either way, he’s got to choose from what’s available.

In this experiment, nonrandom natural-type selection picks robot traits from a ready-assembled menu. The menu, too, was nonrandomly assembled, but that doesn’t affect the experiment. If the menu had been randomly assembled and contained the same traits, the result would have been the same.

Now, if you could prove that altruism cannot originate in a random mutation, you may have a case. Are you saying that physical and behavioural traits don’t result from random mutation?

reply to post by Astyanax


I'm not saying that altruism cannot result from random mutation, I am saying that THIS experiment is not random mutation. This experiment is completely rigged up with Hamilton's rule and a few oddball numbers. This does not prove anything. It proves you can put a formula in code and it will develop how it is said, not that random mutation exists. It is like writing a book in English and saying 'this book is written in English.'

Now I do believe if the numbers placed in the code were truly random that there would be a chance that altruism would come to life.

I am not against anything, whether it is God or the random chance of conciousness in this thread, I am just here to say this experiment means nothing.

But many of us believe the trait must have originated, like all others, in a random mutation.

Which your belief stays sound, but this experiment does not support that.

If the menu had been randomly assembled and contained the same traits, the result would have been the same.

No it would have not. If you input the same amount of neurons that any biological animals have into circuits it would most definitely have just as many selfish outcomes. You cannot prove how non-selfishness exists by creating a nonrandom program and saying something became from mutation.

Now let's look at mutation - mutation is just the deviation away from the base design of something. Now RANDOM mutation has to be a random piece coming off of the design you are looking at. Now let's say there are only 255 places for this design to be affected, or mutated. Suddenly this looks less and less random. It shows there most definitely is a rhyme and a reason to the mental processes that we are talking about. We can most definitely blow this up to one billion possibilities, and even though we are stating altruism develops from random mutation, we can see there are only a set amount of places to be affected by any "chance" mutation. Even you can agree that this entire existence isn't a bunch of random things coming together, and I think that is the whole point of the existence of science itself. There are many "scientists" on this forum that do not quite grip the structure that exists in reality and how really significant that is. Someone could have most definitely programmed all of this life. The random mutation is defined and the area to be affected is defined.




Also be careful about your arguments... in your post above you've stated that "randomness is not called for" and yet you are stating random mutation is needed. Perhaps I was using the wrong word [evolution] and I apologize. I was speaking about this mutation. This experiment does not support your beliefs and it doesn't really prove anything in general, besides programming exists. Until we can completely create a computer with just as many neurons (transistors) that a biotic entity has, and divulge the programming behind each living design... we will not properly be able to imitate the functions of life and prove anything through programming.

Regards

reply to post by Myollinir

I'm not saying that altruism cannot result from random mutation, I am saying that THIS experiment is not random mutation.

Who said it was? You are the one insisting that it has, or pretends to have, or needs to have an element of randomness.

This experiment is completely rigged up with Hamilton's rule and a few oddball numbers.

No, but I have given up trying to explain it to you. You have missed the entire point.

reply to post by Astyanax


Glad to see you've finally seen it my way.

If you read through my postings carefully, you will understand that my points are right about this article.

Peace

reply to post by Myollinir

Glad to see you've finally seen it my way.

I have not ‘seen it your way’. Please do not shame yourself by telling lies. I have merely given up a futile argument since I can no longer be bothered to correct your insistent misunderstanding.

If you read through my postings carefully, you will understand that my points are right about this article.

I already did that. You are wrong.

reply to post by Myollinir


I hear ya.

There are so many manmade, limited variables before you even reach the conclusion that the term altruism is itself dubious in use here.

And maybe I missed it but I don't seem to recall you referring to God or religion at all.

reply to post by Astyanax


You are living in your own little world and will not listen to anyone else but yourself.

I MYSELF should be the one shutting you out, because you are speaking without knowing what you are talking about. Arbitrary statements not even involving the literal existence of what is going on with programming and robots. You can create whatever you want to believe and keep on living it - this is the beauty of life.

A final peace, and hopefully sound minds will read and understand what is really going on and how computers really work from people with experience.

The "Species" are bio-robotics.....

I've read the arguments between Myollinir and Astyanax with interest.

One thing is brought up... why isn't there any source code?

One of the comments in that site is why the need of robots? Why couldn't it be simulated in computers? (ie MATHLAB).

The "experiment" mean nothing. If you can show it in a program with source code, then it's a different story. They have done this before... like for example Conway's Game of Life.

reply to post by Deaf Alien

One thing is brought up... why isn't there any source code?

Do you mean, why wasn’t it presented in the paper on which the article is reporting? Because it’s not usual to do so. That level of detail isn’t needed. The description of the methodology shows what the programming coded for; that is, what it achieved in terms of the robots’ programmed behaviour (and by the way, these are very simple robots).

May I ask what you propose should be done with the source code if it were available? If you were analysing it, what would you be looking for?

The capability to share food, including the capability to decide to do so, was programmed into the robots along with other types of behaviour. No-one is pretending otherwise. The experiment was to see whether and under what conditions that behaviour promoted genetic survival, and whether it would spread through the population. It did spread, and the conditions under which it spread were in accord with Hamilton’s rule. That is all the experiment was designed to investigate.

One of the comments in that site is why the need of robots? Why couldn't it be simulated in computers? (ie MATHLAB).

Sounds like a good question. I wouldn’t know. What would the advantages of a computer simulation be? Also, how would you simulate random environmental factors in a computer, when our friend Myollinir has been at such pains to remind us that there is no known way to generate random numbers with machine code?

They have done this before... like for example Conway's Game of Life.

Life was the first cellular automaton program, I believe. Its purpose was different, and much more fundamental: to show that evolution would take place in a population of automata if certain conditions were met. In the present case under discussion, what was being investigated is whether altruism (specifically) can improve selective fitness, and if so under what conditions.