# Evolutionary Dynamics > **Machine-Evolution Nexus:** [[articles/Digital Darwinism and the Invisible World of Machine Evolution|Digital Darwinism and the Invisible World of Machine Evolution]] places this concept within the history and governance of substrate-independent evolution. **Domain:** Evolution / Population Processes **Doc Type:** Canonical Wiki Node **Maturity:** Developed ## Definition Evolutionary dynamics studies how mutation, selection, drift, recombination, spatial structure and interaction change populations over time. ## Machine-Evolution Context Digital systems make many such dynamics fully observable because every instruction, birth, mutation and lineage can be logged. This turns evolution into an experimental generator of data. ## Continuity and Evidence Boundary A changing model or software ecosystem is not automatically an evolutionary population; the units, inheritance path and selection environment must be specified. ## Relationships [[wiki/Population Dynamics|Population Dynamics]], [[wiki/Mutation Rate|Mutation Rate]], [[wiki/Fitness Landscape|Fitness Landscape]], [[wiki/Evolving Population|Evolving Population]] - **Edge source route:** [[collections/Edge|Edge]] connects this topic to exact Annual Question passages promoted into the Simple Reminders archive. ## Simple Reminders, Quotations, and Thoughts > "As our computing resources expand and become better connected, more niches will appear in which AIs can reproduce, compete and evolve." > **— Donald D. Hoffman**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Evolution/AI Will Reproduce Compete and Evolve by Donald D. Hoffman|AI Will Reproduce Compete and Evolve by Donald D. Hoffman]] > "An artificial intelligence is coordinating the efforts of a sort of collective intelligence, operating thousands times faster than human brains, with many consequences for human life." > **— Luca De Biase**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Artificial Intelligence Could Coordinate Collective Intelligence by Luca De Biase|Artificial Intelligence Could Coordinate Collective Intelligence by Luca De Biase]] > "I believe our first answer will be: humans are for inventing new kinds of intelligences that biology could not evolve." > **— Kevin Kelly**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Humans Invent Intelligences Biology Could Not Evolve by Kevin Kelly|Humans Invent Intelligences Biology Could Not Evolve by Kevin Kelly]] > "However, until our brains coevolve with machines, our preferences will be the selection force. The machines that best satisfy them will evolve further, not to some singularity, but to become partners who fulfill our desires, for better or worse." > **— Randolph Nesse**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Machines Will Evolve to Fulfill Human Desires by Randolph Nesse|Machines Will Evolve to Fulfill Human Desires by Randolph Nesse]] > "What we have learned about the evolution of our intelligence adds to our fears." > **— Alun Anderson**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Understanding Human Evolution Can Intensify Fear of AI by Alun Anderson|Understanding Human Evolution Can Intensify Fear of AI by Alun Anderson]] > “The best evidence we have from anthropology is that our ancestors acquired this capacity some time between 75,000 and 200,000 years ago. (The evidence is in the form of manufactured artifacts that early humans left behind, which indicate such a level of abstract thinking and communication.) But how — and in terms of natural selection, why — did our ancestors acquire this capacity? All we know for sure is that it came at the end of a three-and-a-half-million year period in which the average brain size of our ancestors grew to roughly its present level, approximately nine times larger than is normal for a mammal of our body size and about twice that of a present-day ape.” > **— Keith Devlin**, *2002, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Your Question? ... Why?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Abstract Thought Emerged After Millions of Years of Brain Expansion by Keith Devlin|Abstract Thought Emerged After Millions of Years of Brain Expansion by Keith Devlin]] > “Rising computer power led to the first large break with the math-model approach in various species of artificial intelligence. Computer scientists programmed expert-system search trees directly from words. Some put uncertainty math models on the trees but the tree structure itself used words or text strings. The non-numerical structure let experts directly encode their expertise in verbal rules. That removed the old math models but still left the problem of literally doing only what the expert or modeler said to do. Adaptive fuzzy rule-based systems allowed experts to state rules in words while the fuzzy system itself remained numeric. Data could in principle overcome modeler bias by adapting the rule structure in new directions as the data poured in. That reduced expert or modeler input to little more than giving initial conditions and occasional updates to the inference structure. Still all these AI tree-based knowledge systems suffer from the curse of dimensionality in some form of combinatorial rule explosion.” > **— Bart Kosko**, *2007, Edge Annual Question, “What Are You Optimistic About?”* [[reminders/AI Control/Computer Power Broke AI Away from Mathematical Models by Bart Kosko|Computer Power Broke AI Away from Mathematical Models by Bart Kosko]] > “My nominee is the concept of evolution by selection (which encompasses natural selection, sexual selection, and the selective processes that generate cultural evolution). It offers the best explanation for what we are, where we came from, and the nature of life in the rest of the universe. It also explains why we invent and why we believe the inventions described in this list are important. It is the invention that explains invention.” > **— Paul W. Ewald**, *1999, Edge Annual Question, “What Is The Most Important Invention In The Past Two Thousand Years?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Evolution by Selection Explains What We Are and Where We Are Going by Paul W. Ewald|Evolution by Selection Explains What We Are and Where We Are Going by Paul W. Ewald]] > “I believe exaptation to be a concept of central importance not only for bodily organs, but also for the evolution of mind and brain (e.g. for the evolution of language). Much of what we use our brains for in modern times represents a change in function (e.g. piloting airplanes from basic visually-guided motor control, or mathematical thinking from some basic precursor concepts of number and geometry). These very new cognitive abilities (and many others, like reading) are clearly exaptations, with no further shaping by natural selection (yet). But debate rages about whether older but still-recent human capacities like linguistic syntax have yet been tailored by natural selection to their current role (proposed cognitive precursors for linguistic syntax include hierarchical social cognition as seen in primates, or hierarchical motor control as seen in many vertebrates).” > **— W. Tecumseh Fitch**, *2017, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Term Or Concept Ought To Be More Widely Known?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Exaptation Is Central to the Evolution of Mind and Brain by W. Tecumseh Fitch|Exaptation Is Central to the Evolution of Mind and Brain by W. Tecumseh Fitch]] > “Our ethics and our politics assume, largely without question or serious discussion, that the division between human and 'animal' is absolute. 'Pro-life', to take just one example, is a potent political badge, associated with a gamut of ethical issues such as opposition to abortion and euthanasia. What it really means is pro-human-life. Abortion clinic bombers are not known for their veganism, nor do Roman Catholics show any particular reluctance to have their suffering pets 'put to sleep'. In the minds of many confused people, a single-celled human zygote, which has no nerves and cannot suffer, is infinitely sacred, simply because it is 'human'. No other cells enjoy this exalted status.” > **— Richard Dawkins**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “What Will Change Everything?”* [[reminders/Civilization/Human-centered Ethics Ignore the Capacity to Suffer by Richard Dawkins|Human-centered Ethics Ignore the Capacity to Suffer by Richard Dawkins]] > “Many people find my optimism naive, if not delusional. Last semester, I taught a class called "War and Human Nature," and my students polled classmates on the following question: "Do you think humanity will ever stop fighting wars once and for all time?" Of the 205 respondents, 185 replied "No"; 20 said "Yes" or "Maybe. " Several of the "optimists" added comments like "Yes, war will end when the human race will end," and "Yes, because in the future the human species will unite to fight alien species. "” > **— John Horgan**, *2007, Edge Annual Question, “What Are You Optimistic About?”* [[reminders/Civilization/In the Future the Human Species Will Unite to Fight Alien Species by John Horgan|In the Future the Human Species Will Unite to Fight Alien Species by John Horgan]] > “Our species itself is partly shaped by the force of our environment through selection, and partly by fluctuations of chance. If humans had gone extinct 100,000 years ago, the world would go on turning, life would go on thriving, and some other species would be prospering in our place — and most likely not by following the same intelligence-driven technological path we did.” > **— P Z Myers**, *2011, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everybody's Cognitive Toolkit?”* [[reminders/Civilization/Intelligence Is Not Evolution's Inevitable Destination by P Z Myers|Intelligence Is Not Evolution's Inevitable Destination by P Z Myers]] > “Resolution of religious conflict is impossible because there is no empirical test of the ghostly, and many theologians prey, intentionally or not, upon the fears, superstitions, irrationality, and herd tendencies that are our species' neurobehavioral endowment. Religious fundamentalism inflames conflict and prevents solution—the more extreme and irrational one's position, the stronger one's faith, and, when possessing absolute truth, compromise is not an option.” > **— Robert Provine**, *2006, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Your Dangerous Idea?”* [[reminders/Civilization/Material Life Is All There Is by Robert Provine|Material Life Is All There Is by Robert Provine]] > “We know that gut-feelings, such as reactions of empathy or disgust, have a major influence on how children and adults reason about morality. And no serious theory of moral development can ignore the role of natural selection in shaping our moral intuitions. But what I like about Macnamara's proposal is that it allows for moral realism. It allows for the existence of moral truths that people come to discover, just as we come to discover truths of mathematics. We can reject the nihilistic position (help by many researchers) that our moral intuitions are nothing more than accidents of biology or culture.” > **— Paul Bloom**, *2005, Edge Annual Question, “What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Moral Development Cannot Ignore Natural Selection by Paul Bloom|Moral Development Cannot Ignore Natural Selection by Paul Bloom]] > “Natural selection shapes systems whose complexity is indescribable in terms satisfying to human minds. Some may feel this is nihilistic. It does discourage hopes for finding simple specific descriptions for all biological systems. However, recognizing a quest as hopeless is often the key to progress. As Haldane put it, "We are thus brought face-to-face with the conclusion which to the biologist is just as significant and fundamental, just as true to the facts observed, as the conclusion of mass persists is to the physicists… the structure of a living organism has no real resemblance in its behavior to that of a machine… In the living organisms…the "structure" is only the appearance given by what seems at first to be a constant flow of specific material, beginning and ending in the environment."” > **— Randolph Nesse**, *2012, Edge Annual Question, “What Is Your Favorite Deep, Elegant, Or Beautiful Explanation?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Natural Selection Builds Unimaginably Complex Systems by Randolph Nesse|Natural Selection Builds Unimaginably Complex Systems by Randolph Nesse]] > “If spacetime is not fundamental, then our perception of visual space, and of objects in that space, is not a high-fidelity reconstruction of fundamental reality. What, then, is it? From the theory of evolution we can conclude that our sensory systems have been shaped by natural selection to inform us about the fitness contingencies relevant to us in our niche. We have assumed that this meant that our senses inform us of fitness-relevant aspects of fundamental reality. Apparently, they do not. They simply inform us about fitness, not fundamental reality.” > **— Donald D. Hoffman**, *2017, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Term Or Concept Ought To Be More Widely Known?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Natural Selection Tunes Perception for Fitness Not Reality by Donald D. Hoffman|Natural Selection Tunes Perception for Fitness Not Reality by Donald D. Hoffman]] > “One of the most pernicious misconceptions in cognitive science is the belief in a dichotomy between nature and nurture. Many psychologists, linguists and social scientists, along with the popular press, continue to treat nature and nurture as combatting ideologies, rather than complementary perspectives. For such people, the idea that something isboth "innate" and "learned", or both "biological" and "cultural", is an absurdity. Yet most biologists today recognize that understanding behavior requires that we understand the interaction between inborn cognitive processes (e.g. learning and memory) and individual experience. This is particularly true in human behaviour, since the capacities for language and culture are some of the key adaptations of our species, and involve irreducible elements of both biology and environment, of both nature and nurture.” > **— W. Tecumseh Fitch**, *2011, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Concept Would Improve Everybody's Cognitive Toolkit?”* [[reminders/Civilization/Nature and Nurture Are Complementary Not Competing Forces by W. Tecumseh Fitch|Nature and Nurture Are Complementary Not Competing Forces by W. Tecumseh Fitch]] > “Just as evolution can create infinite species by expressing a common process in specific environments, so too can the mind create infinite mental species. One can no sooner count emotions or moral concerns than snowflakes or colors. To be sure, there are descriptive similarities and differences across instances, but any groupings are arbitrary and rest heavily on the intuition of researchers. This is why scientists can never agree on the fundamental number of anything; one scientist may divide a mental experience into 3, another 4, and another 5.” > **— Kurt Gray**, *2014, Edge Annual Question, “What Scientific Idea Is Ready For Retirement?”* [[reminders/Evolution/One Evolutionary Process Can Generate Infinite Species by Kurt Gray|One Evolutionary Process Can Generate Infinite Species by Kurt Gray]] > “Science helps shape how we see ourselves. Words also matter to perception, and perception matters to behavior. Consider what the theory of natural selection did to our view of humans in the biological world. We should be worried about the new era of Anthropocene—not only as a geological phenomenon, but also as a cultural frame.” > **— Jennifer Jacquet**, *2013, Edge Annual Question, “What *should* We Be Worried About?”* [[reminders/Evolution/The Anthropocebo Effect by Jennifer Jacquet|The Anthropocebo Effect by Jennifer Jacquet]] > “My response to the inquiry about questions that are no longer asked is to reframe it and suggest instead a common class of missing questions, those associated with obsolete and inappropriate metaphors. Metaphor is a powerful cognitive tool, which, like all models, clarifies thinking when appropriate, but constrains it when inappropriate. Science is full of them. My professional specialties of neuroscience and biopsychology has mind/brain metaphors ranging from Locke's ancient blank slate (tabula rasa), to the more technologically advanced switchboard, and the metaphor de jour, the computer. None do justice to the brain as a soggy lump of wetware, but linger as cognitive/linguistic models. Natural selection in the realm of metaphors is slow and imperfect. Witness the reference to DNA as a "blueprint" for an organism, when Dawkins' "recipe" metaphor more accurately reflects DNA's incoding of instructions for organismic assembly.” > **— Robert Provine**, *2001, Edge Annual Question, “What Questions Have Disappeared?”* [[reminders/Evolution/The Computer Metaphor Cannot Explain the Brain by Robert Provine|The Computer Metaphor Cannot Explain the Brain by Robert Provine]] > “We begin with the individual organism as the primary unit of biology and society because the organism is the principal target of natural selection and social evolution. Thus, the survival and flourishing of the individual organism—people in this context—is the basis of establishing values and morals, and so determining the conditions by which humans best flourish ought to be the goal of a science of morality. The constitutions of human societies ought to be built on the constitution of human nature, and science is the best tool we have for understanding our nature.” > **— Michael Shermer**, *2013, Edge Annual Question, “What *should* We Be Worried About?”* [[reminders/Evolution/The Is-ought Fallacy of Science and Morality by Michael Shermer|The Is-ought Fallacy of Science and Morality by Michael Shermer]] > “Laptop QCs will make us rethink neuroscience. A few decades ago we peered inside brains and saw complex telephone switch boards. Now we peer inside brains and see complex classical computations, both serial and parallel. What will see once we have thoroughly absorbed the mind set of quantum computation? Some say we will still find only classical computations, because the brain and its neurons are too massive for quantum effects to survive. But evolution by natural selection leads to surprising adaptations, and there might in fact be selective pressures toward quantum computations.” > **— Donald D. Hoffman**, *2009, Edge Annual Question, “What Will Change Everything?”* [[reminders/Evolution/The Laptop Quantum Computer by Donald D. Hoffman|The Laptop Quantum Computer by Donald D. Hoffman]] From [[wiki/The World, the Flesh and the Devil|The World, the Flesh and the Devil]]: Bernal proposes deliberate design as a possible successor to undirected biological adaptation. > "It is quite conceivable that the mechanism of evolution, as we know it up to the present, may well be superseded at this point. Biologists are apt, even if they are not vitalists, to consider it as almost divine; but after all it is only nature's way of achieving a shifting equilibrium with an environment; and if we can find a more direct way by the use of intelligence, that way is bound to supersede the unconscious mechanism of growth and reproduction." > **— J. D. Bernal**, *1929, The World, the Flesh and the Devil, “The Flesh”* [[reminders/Evolution/Intelligence Could Supersede Blind Evolution by J. D. Bernal|Intelligence Could Supersede Blind Evolution by J. D. Bernal]] From [[wiki/Erewhon|Erewhon]]: The Erewhonian professor compares the short history of complex machines with biological time. > "The more highly organised machines are creatures not so much of yesterday, as of the last five minutes, so to speak, in comparison with past time." > **— Samuel Butler's Erewhonian professor**, *1872, Erewhon, Chapter XXIII* [[reminders/Evolution/Machines Are Young Creatures on Evolutionary Time by Samuel Butler|Machines Are Young Creatures on Evolutionary Time by Samuel Butler]] From [[wiki/A Letter to Mother Nature|A Letter to Mother Nature]]: The “you” in More’s open letter is Mother Nature; this passage opens with gratitude for natural evolution. > "You have raised us from simple self-replicating chemicals to trillion-celled mammals. You have given us free rein of the planet." > **— Max More**, *A Letter to Mother Nature, 1999 lecture; later revised author republication* [[reminders/Evolution/Mother Nature Raised Us From Molecules to Mammals by Max More|Mother Nature Raised Us From Molecules to Mammals by Max More]] > “How will evolution shape the biological world one hundred years from now, or one hundred thousand?” > **— Jonathan B. Losos**, *2018 Edge Annual Question, question* [[reminders/Evolution/What Will Evolution Make of Life in a Hundred Thousand Years by Jonathan B. Losos|What Will Evolution Make of Life in a Hundred Thousand Years by Jonathan B. Losos]] > “Evolution is sometimes confused with progress. From the perspective of a cancer patient, somatic evolution certainly isn’t. Rather, as cancer develops, changes in the composition of the body’s gene pool occur: the very definition of evolution. The notion that cancer is evolution is not an analogy, but a matter of fact characterization of the process. It is humbling indeed that evolution is not only an ancient process that explains our existence on this planet, but is also constantly happening within our bodies—within our soma.” > **— Itai Yanai**, *2017 Edge Annual Question, response passage* [[reminders/Evolution/Cancer Shows That Evolution Does Not Mean Progress by Itai Yanai|Cancer Shows That Evolution Does Not Mean Progress by Itai Yanai]] > “The very process of evolution itself is evolving. The infusion of technology into human reproduction - through birth control, embryo screening, and soon genetic engineering - isn't stopping our biological evolution, but slamming it to fast forward.” > **— Gregory Stock**, *Wired, June 2002* [[reminders/Evolution/Technology Is Changing Biological Evolution by Gregory Stock|Technology Is Changing Biological Evolution by Gregory Stock]] ## Sources / Provenance - Nowak, _Evolutionary Dynamics_ (2006); Avida literature.