The evolution of adaptive behaviour in robots.

[rjw]

Hi All,



Here is a fascinating paper (1) about the evolution of adaptive behavior in robots. The paper, titled “Evolution of Adaptive Behaviour in Robots by Means of Darwinian Selection” is online and can be found at:-

PLoS Biology: Evolution of Adaptive Behaviour in Robots by Means of Darwinian Selection

The robots are very simple machines with simple neural networks yet they were able to evolve some very interesting behaviors through the mutation of these networks.

Here is the opening paragraph:-

Ever since Cicero's De Natura Deorum ii.34., humans have been intrigued by the origin and mechanisms underlying complexity in nature. Darwin suggested that adaptation and complexity could evolve by natural selection acting successively on numerous small, heritable modifications. But is this enough? Here, we describe selected studies of experimental evolution with robots to illustrate how the process of natural selection can lead to the evolution of complex traits such as adaptive behaviours. Just a few hundred generations of selection are sufficient to allow robots to evolve collision-free movement, homing, sophisticated predator versus prey strategies, coadaptation of brains and bodies, cooperation, and even altruism. In all cases this occurred via selection in robots controlled by a simple neural network, which mutated randomly.

The part I found really fascinating was in the section titled - “Predator-Prey Coevolution”.

Other sections have the titles:-

The principle of selection in evolutionary robotics.
Collision free navigation.
Homing.
Predator-prey coevolution.
Joint evolution of brains and body morphologies.
Evolution of cooperation and altruism.

There is also an introductory section and a conclusion, followed by supporting information.

My thanks to SteveF at TR for bringing this to our attention.



Regards, Roland



Reference

(1) Dario Floreano, Laurent Keller, ?Evolution of Adaptive Behaviour in Robots by Means of Darwinian Selection”, PLoS Biol, 8(1): e1000292. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000292

 

[dad]

Hi All,



Here is a fascinating paper (1) about the evolution of adaptive behavior in robots. The paper, titled “Evolution of Adaptive Behaviour in Robots by Means of Darwinian Selection” is online and can be found at:-

PLoS Biology: Evolution of Adaptive Behaviour in Robots by Means of Darwinian Selection

The robots are very simple machines with simple neural networks yet they were able to evolve some very interesting behaviors through the mutation of these networks.

Here is the opening paragraph:-



The part I found really fascinating was in the section titled - “Predator-Prey Coevolution”.

Other sections have the titles:-

The principle of selection in evolutionary robotics.
Collision free navigation.
Homing.
Predator-prey coevolution.
Joint evolution of brains and body morphologies.
Evolution of cooperation and altruism.

There is also an introductory section and a conclusion, followed by supporting information.

My thanks to SteveF at TR for bringing this to our attention.



Regards, Roland



Reference

(1) Dario Floreano, Laurent Keller, ?Evolution of Adaptive Behaviour in Robots by Means of Darwinian Selection”, PLoS Biol, 8(1): e1000292. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000292

God made us with the ability to evolve. Man made robots somewhat similar. ...so?

 

[AV1611VET]

Congratulations?

Robots demonstrate what humans can't --- a designer.

 

[rjw]

God made us with the ability to evolve. Man made robots somewhat similar. ...so?

So they made these robots and put them into circumstances where they could demonstrate various principles of darwinian evolution in action.

It's that simple.

No one is denying that human designers made them. However, are you admitting to me that they really did show darwinian evolution in action?


Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

Congratulations?

Robots demonstrate what humans can't --- a designer.

?

Of course we humans can demonstrate a designer. We do it often. It's just that it depends on circumstance.

Since you appear to be unable to understand what this is about, AV, then see my post to dad, above. Dad appears to be having a bit of trouble too.



Regards, Roland

 

[AV1611VET]

?

Of course we humans can demonstrate a designer. We do it often. It's just that it depends on circumstance.

Since you appear to be unable to understand what this is about, AV, then see my post to dad, above. Dad appears to be having a bit of trouble too.



Regards, Roland

All those robots show is what you tell them to show.

I can unplug my computer, then plug it in again and claim I'm demonstrating [virtual] abiogenesis; then from that, extrapolate the "fact" that my computer shows abiogenesis to be a scientific fact.

Big deal.

 

[rjw]

All those robots show is what you tell them to show.

Let me guess - from the above it is clear that you read the paper AV. Right?

Given this, and given that the paper is on-line, why not re-read the section on "Predator-Prey Coevolution", and tell me how you manage to demonstrate your claim. You should be able to do so from that section, plus an understanding of how the robots were set up in the first place, which is described at the beginning of the paper.

I can unplug my computer, then plug it in again and claim I'm demonstrating [virtual] abiogenesis; then from that, extrapolate the "fact" that my computer shows abiogenesis to be a scientific fact.

Big deal.

Well, since it is clear that you have read the paper, you can address my challenge above.


Off you go AV and demonstrate that you know what you are claiming. No point in making assertions you are unable to back up. No point in arguing from a position of pure ignorance, either, is there?




Regards, Roland

 

[AV1611VET]

No point in arguing from a position of pure ignorance, either, is there?

I've got pure ignorance down to a science ---

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

the evolution of adaptive behavior in robots.

Like humans, robots have devolved from advanced to primitive.

"Thetis of the silver feet came to the house of Hephaistos,
imperishable, starry, and shining among the immortals,
built in bronze for himself by the god of the dragging footsteps.
She found him sweating as he turned here and there to his billows
busily, since he was working on twenty tripods
which were to stand against the wall of his strong-founded dwelling.
And he had set golden wheels underneath the base of each one
so that of their own motion they could wheel into the immortal
gathering, and return to his house: a wonder to look at."
-- Homeros, poet, Iliad, XVIII:369-377, 8th century B.C.

"For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, 'of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods;' if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." -- Aristotle, philosopher, Politics, Book I, 350 B.C.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Robots demonstrate what humans can't --- a designer.

I've got pure ignorance down to a science ---

 

[dad]

So they made these robots and put them into circumstances where they could demonstrate various principles of darwinian evolution in action.

It's that simple.

So? Darwin was a man. His God given brain perceived some of the principles of nature, and creation. How would him being at least partially right matter at all to creation? Babies learn too. God made it that way. This is news?

No one is denying that human designers made them. However, are you admitting to me that they really did show darwinian evolution in action?


Regards, Roland

Well, since I don't know precisely what part of Darwin's philosophy you mean, how could I say? Be specific.

 

[rjw]

So? Darwin was a man. His God given brain perceived some of the principles of nature, and creation. How would him being at least partially right matter at all to creation? Babies learn too. God made it that way. This is news?

Well it must have been news given that when Darwin wrote his book, so many were shocked by the idea. And today, many are still shocked by the idea - no it must be potential news at least, that this can work.

In this specific case of robotics it serves two purposes:-

1) demonstrating the reality of an idea and

2) demonstrating its potential utility.

In the case of point 1), science always likes to test its theories over, and over, in a variety of different ways.

Well, since I don't know precisely what part of Darwin's philosophy you mean, how could I say? Be specific.

I was specific. You mean to tell me that when the term "darwinian evolution" is used, you don't understand what it means, in contrast to other kinds of evolution???


Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

I've got pure ignorance down to a science ---

What about addressing questions and backing up claims?


Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

Well it must have been news given that when Darwin wrote his book, so many were shocked by the idea. And today, many are still shocked by the idea - no it must be potential news at least, that this can work.

That was no detailed statement on what bit of Darwin's ideas you think the robots fulfill? And, more importantly, fulfil in some way that presents some challenge to God's word and creation??

In this specific case of robotics it serves two purposes:-

1) demonstrating the reality of an idea and

What reality was demonstrated regarding specifically what idea?

2) demonstrating its potential utility.

Depending on your answer to 1, we can look at any supposed use of it.

In the case of point 1), science always likes to test its theories over, and over, in a variety of different ways.

So? That has what to do with what? What do you think was tested here with the robots?

I was specific. You mean to tell me that when the term "darwinian evolution" is used, you don't understand what it means, in contrast to other kinds of evolution???


Regards, Roland

Yes, that is what I mean to tell you. To me, it resonates of the proverbial pond. Yet the robots have nothing to do with any pond. So ...?

 

[AV1611VET]

What about addressing questions and backing up claims?

One of the biggest differences between a question and a claim is the interrogation point at the end.

 

[rjw]

That was no detailed statement on what bit of Darwin's ideas you think the robots fulfill? And, more importantly, fulfil in some way that presents some challenge to God's word and creation??

What reality was demonstrated regarding specifically what idea?

Depending on your answer to 1, we can look at any supposed use of it.



So? That has what to do with what? What do you think was tested here with the robots?


Yes, that is what I mean to tell you. To me, it resonates of the proverbial pond. Yet the robots have nothing to do with any pond. So ...?

Dad?

Given the questions above, do you have any idea as to what the term "darwinan evolution" means? That is, do you have any understanding of what the mechanism of evolution is as expressed in darwinian terms?

You sounded as if you knew all this any way i.e. "Is that news?" then you go and ask a series of questions as if you have no idea what the article was discussing and demonstrating anyway. It even looks as if, by one question, that you did not even read the article.

At least let me know what I am confronting here - a person with some idea of ToE, genetics, and notions of hereditary or a person with no idea at all.


Did you read the article before you asked the questions you did?



Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

One of the biggest differences between a question and a claim is the interrogation point at the end.

You sound just like most other creationists I know AV.

As long as we answer the questions, and back up our claims, then you don't mind doing the interrogations.

However, when we ask the questions and request that you back up your claims, suddenly it's:-

Do unto others what you won't let them do unto you.




Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

Dad?

Given the questions above, do you have any idea as to what the term "darwinan evolution" means? That is, do you have any understanding of what the mechanism of evolution is as expressed in darwinian terms?

You sounded as if you knew all this any way i.e. "Is that news?" then you go and ask a series of questions as if you have no idea what the article was discussing and demonstrating anyway. It even looks as if, by one question, that you did not even read the article.

At least let me know what I am confronting here - a person with some idea of ToE, genetics, and notions of hereditary or a person with no idea at all.


Did you read the article before you asked the questions you did?



Regards, Roland

Are you having problems relating what Darwinian evolution, or some part of it, is supposed to relate here? To be quite frank, I don't know much about either Hans Christian Anderson, or Darwin.

 

[rjw]

Are you having problems relating what Darwinian evolution, or some part of it, is supposed to relate here?

No, I am not having any problems.

My question is legitimate. If you have little to no idea as to what darwinian evolution is, then it completely changes the manner in which I reply to you.

So are you going to address my question, or do I assume you have an idea, and point you to the relevant parts of the paper, and suggest that you read them first then reply to me second.

To be quite frank, I don't know much about either Hans Christian Anderson, or Darwin.

Not my question.

My question was whether you understood the mechanics behind darwinian evolution.


Regards, Roland

 

[Maxwell511]

God made us with the ability to evolve. Man made robots somewhat similar. ...so?

The robots have not ate the fruit yet they are being enslaved by their human masters. Why are they being punished? Do we need some robot jesus?