How To Install Battery In Pop-up Camper

The theory of the selfish gene in action


This is the fourteenth in a series devoted to the theory of evolution by natural selection. We are in the book by Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene ", 1976. The translation is mine.

Here are links to all the episodes: 1 , 2, 3 , 4, 5 , 6, 7 , 8, 9 , 10, 11, 12 , 13, 14 .


Summary. Remember that genes create our brain is pre-programmed into them some basic trends and behaviors (strategies). The genes are then naturally selected based on the quality of programming strategies. But what kind of strategies are favored by natural selection? Episode precedente Dawkins ha accennato al fatto che le strategie che finiscono per evolversi sono le "strategie evolutivamente stabili " (abbreviate con ESS). Una ESS è una strategia che, se viene adottata dalla maggioranza della popolazione, non può essere migliorata; cioè, a nessuno conviene deviare da quella strategia per adottarne un'altra.

A partire da oggi cominceremo a capire con esempi concreti come davvero funziona la teoria del gene egoista. La parola a Dawkins.

--

Come applicazione pratica [dell'idea di teoria evolutivamente stabile], considerate uno dei più semplici esempi ipotetici fatti da Maynard Smith. Supponiamo che, in a population of a given species, there are only two types of combat strategies, "dove" and "hawk". (The names refer to use of conventional human and have no connection with the habits of the birds in question: the doves are actually quite aggressive birds.) Any individual in our hypothetical population is classified as a hawk or a dove. The hawks always fighting tirelessly and with more violence possible, retreating only when they are seriously injured. Doves launch only threats, never hurt anyone. If a hawk meets with a dove, the dove runs away immediately, so there is injury. If a hawk meets with a hawk continue until one of them is seriously injured or dead. If a dove meets a dove, no one gets hurt, they continue to insult each other for a long time until one gets tired or decides not to waste any time, and then retires. For now, assume that an individual has no way of knowing in advance whether a rival is a hawk or a dove. I discovered only in battle, and has no memory of past battles with particular individuals to guide them.

Now, as a purely arbitrary convention, assigning "points" for the contenders. say 50 points for the winner, 0 for losing, -100 for those who remain seriously injured, and -10 for those who waste time making a long fight. These punti si possono pensare come direttamente convertibili nella moneta della sopravvivenza dei geni. Un individuo che vince molti punti, cioè che ha in media un guadagno, è un individuo che lascia molti geni dietro di lui, nel pool di geni. Entro certi larghi limiti, i valori numerici esatti non contano, ma ci aiutano a ragionare sul problema.

La cosa importante è che non ci interessa se i falchi tenderanno o no a sconfiggere le colombe quando ci combattono contro . Sappiamo già la risposta: i falchi vinceranno sempre. Vogliamo sapere se falco e/o colomba sono strategie evolutivamente stabili (ESS) . Se una di esse è una ESS e l'altra no, we expect that the ESS is that the two ends to evolve. It is theoretically possible that there are two ESS. This may be true if, whatever the strategy in the majority population, the best strategy for any given individual had to adapt to the majority. In this case the population tends to stay at any of the two stable states were randomly reached first. However, as we shall see, none of the two strategies, hawk or dove, is in fact evolutionarily stable by itself, and therefore must not expect either to evolve. To show this we calculate the gain medium.

Suppose we have a population consisting entirely of doves. Whenever fighting, nobody gets hurt. The battle is long tournament rituals, for example consisting of eye contact, ending when one of the two rivals at a time. Then the winner earns 50 points because it gets the resource that was the subject of contention, but will pay a penalty of -10 for wasting time in a long battle of looks, it scores 40 points less. The loser is penalized -10 points for wasting time. On average, an individual can expect to win half the fights and lose half. Therefore its average profit for each battle is the mean value between +40 and -10, which is +15. Then, each individual in a population of pigeons seems rather passarsela bene.

Ma ora supponiamo che un falco mutante compaia nella popolazione. Poiché è l'unico falco nei paraggi, tutti i combattimenti che fa sono contro una colomba. I falchi battono sempre le colombe, così vince +50 ad ogni combattimento, ed è questo il tuo tornaconto medio. Egli ottiene un enorme successo rispetto alle colombe, il cui tornaconto netto è solo +15. Come risultato , i geni del falco si diffonderanno rapidamente nella popolazione. Ma adesso ogni falco non può più confidare che tutti i rivali che incontrerà saranno colombe. Per fare un esempio estremo, se il gene del falco si diffondesse con tale successo che l'intera popolazione finisse per essere di hawks, all fights would now be between hawks. In short, things are now very different. When a hawk meets a hawk, one of them is seriously wounded, totaling -100, while the winner scores +50. Each hawk in a population of hawks can expect to win half of his fights and lose half. Its average expected profit is therefore somewhere between +50 and -100, which is -25. Now consider a single dove in a population of hawks. Certainly lose all the battles, but on the other hand is never bad. His average gain is 0 in a population of hawks, while the average profit of a hawk in the same population is -25. genes are therefore likely to spread the dove in the population.

For as I told the story it seems that there should be a continuous oscillation in the population. The genes of the Falcon will rise rapidly and then, as a result of the majority of hawks, the genes of the dove will get an advantage and increase in number until once again the genes of the hawk began to prosper, and so on. On the other hand, a similar response should not necessarily take place. There is a stable ratio between the hawks and doves. In arbitrary point system we are using, this stable relationship, if we calculate it, turns out to be 5 / 12 doves to 7 / 12 hawks. When this stable relationship is reached, the gain medium for hawks is exactly equal to the average gain for the doves. Therefore, the selection does not favor either of the other. If the number of hawks in the population began to rise so that the ratio was no longer 7 / 12, the doves begin to have an extra advantage, and the proportion would return soon to the stable. Just as we will find that the stable relationship between the sexes is 50:50, so the stable relationship between hawks and doves in this hypothetical example is 7:5. In each instance, if there are oscillations around the stable point, you need not be very large.

Superficially, this looks a bit 'to group selection, but in reality it is not anything like that. It looks like group selection because it allows us to think of a population as having a stable equilibrium which tends to return when disturbed. But the ESS is a more subtle concept of group selection. It has nothing to do with groups that are more successful than others. This can be illustrated well by the arbitrary system of points in our hypothetical example. The average gain of an individual in a stable population made up of 7 / 12 hawks and 5 / 12 doves appears to be 6 * 1 / 4. This is true whether the individual is whether it is a hawk a dove. Now 6 * 1 / 4 of the gain medium is much less of a dove in a population of doves (which is 15). Se solo tutti si accordassero per essere colombe, ogni singolo individuo ne trarrebbe beneficio. Secondo la semplice selezione di gruppo, qualunque gruppo in cui tutti gli individui si accordano per essere colombe avrebbe molto più successo di un gruppo rivale che si trova in una situazione ESS. (Tra parentesi, una cospirazione fatta solo di colombe non è il gruppo di maggior successo possibile. In un gruppo che consiste di 1/6 falchi e 5/6 colombe, il tornaconto medio per combattimento è 16 * 2/3. Questa è la cospirazione di maggior successo possibile, ma per gli scopi attuali possiamo ignorarla. Una più semplice cospirazione di sole colombe, con un tornaconto medio doi 15 per ogni individual, it is much better than the ESS for each individual.) The theory of group selection and then predict the evolution of a conspiracy of doves sun, as a group that contains a proportion of 7 / 12 Hawks would have less success . But the problem of conspiracies, including those that make long-term interest of all is that they are vulnerable to betrayal. It 's true that everyone benefits in a group of doves sun more than they would in a group ESS. But, unfortunately, in a conspiracy of doves, a single hawk has been so successful that nothing can stop the evolution of hawks. The conspiracy is thus meant to be destroyed by betrayal from within. An ESS is stable, not because it is especially good for individuals who take part, but simply because it is immune to treachery from within.

(continued)

Does A Queen Mattress Fit In A Uhaul Van

Just Married The other


my wedding pictures taken by family and friends.

Surprisingly everything went well, and I have not made any impression. I followed it the clever strategy of "keep your mouth shut." If someone tried to greet me, I looked askance at gnashing of teeth. (At this time the 'yes', someone pushed his head forward, so that I nod.)

Il 12 maggio parto per il viaggio di nozze (e quindi non potrò essere al " pride laico ", ahimé). Andiamo in Giappone e nella libera terra di Hong Kong.

Broken Capillaries Wikipedia

Why the face of Dawkins


Questa faccia incredibile meritava un post tutto per sé :)

--

E dopo questo futile post, colgo l'occasione per salutarvi per qualche giorno, cari lettori, in quanto domani mi sposo. PEREAT MUNDUS!!

Herpes In Men On Stomach

altruism (1)


Questo è il tredicesimo post di una serie dedicata alla teoria dell'evoluzione per selezione naturale. Siamo nel libro di Richard Dawkins "Il Gene Selfish, 1976. The translation is mine.

Here are links to all the episodes: 1 , 2, 3 , 4, 5 , 6, 7 , 8, 9 , 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14 .

this episode begins with the most beautiful and surprising book.

We have already seen that the genes "plan" our brain by providing general strategies to follow. From that moment on, genes are naturally selected based on quality of strategies that produce . The surprising thing, that we will see from today is that genes that are selected are those that plan in the brains altruism, generosity and kindness. short, all these basic feelings have been created by natural selection. The reason is that there are genes that produce a brain selfless increase their chances of survival compared with genes that produce a brain is completely selfish. Of course we should not expect that altruism and kindness of the machines for survival are indiscriminate and unlimited: the genes of success are those that produce brain capable of altruism in some cases and selfishness in other cases. Now begins a long series of posts that illustrates many examples of these mechanisms. This post is especially important because introduces game theory and the concept of evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). The word to Dawkins.



Chapter 5

[..]

For a survival machine, another survival machine (which is not his son or another close relative) is part of the environment , as a rock or a river or a piece of food. It 's something that gets in the way or something that can be exploited. It differs from the rocks and rivers to an important aspect: it tends to respond if it is hit. This is because it too is a machine which contains its own geniuses in trust for the future, and also will stop at nothing to preserve them. Natural selection favors those genes that control their survival machines in order to exploit the environment in the best way . This includes take advantage of other survival machines, both of the same species of different species.

[..]

machines survival of different species influence each other in various ways. They may be predators or prey, parasites or hosts of parasites, or in competition for scarce resources. Survival machines possono essere sfruttate in vari modi. [Ad esempio, le orchidee inducono le api a copulare coi loro fiori, a causa della loro forte somiglianza con le api femmine. Ciò che l'orchidea ottiene da questo inganno è l'impollinazione, perché un'ape che venga ingannata da due orchidee trasporterà il polline dall'una all'altra. Come altro esempio, le lucciole attraggono i loro partner lampeggiando di fronte a loro. Ogni specie di lucciola ha la sua particolare sequenza di lampeggio, il che impedisce la confusione tra le varie specie, e la conseguente dannosa ibridazione. Proprio come i marinai ricercano la sequenza di lampeggio di un preciso faro, le lucciole ricercano sequenze della propria specie. Le femmine del genere Photuris hanno "Discovered" that can attract the males of the genus Photinus mimic the code if the flashing of a female Photinus . So they do, and when a male Photinus nell'imbroglio falls and approaches the female, it is summarily eaten.]

survival machines of the same species tend to influence more directly with each other. This for many reasons. One is that half the population of your own species could be a potential mating partner, and a tireless and exploitable parent for your children. Another reason is that members of the same species, since machines to preserve the genes in the same type of environment, with the same stile di vita, competono tra loro in modo particolarmente diretto per tutte le risorse necessarie per vivere. Per un merlo, una talpa può essere un concorrente, ma non un concorrente tanto importante quanto un altro merlo. I merli e le talpe possono competere per i vermi, ma un merlo e un altro merlo competono tra loro per vermi e ogni altra cosa. Se sono membri dello stesso sesso, possono competere anche per i partner di accoppiamento. Per ragioni che vedremo, sono di solito i maschi che competono tra loro per le femmine. Questo significa che un maschio potrebbe dare beneficio ai propri geni se produce qualche danno a un altro maschio con cui è in competizione.

Potrebbe quindi sembrare che la politica più logica sia assassinare rivals and then eat them instead. Although the murder and cannibalism in fact occur in nature, are not as common as naive interpretation of the selfish gene theory seems to predict. Konrad Lorenz, on aggression, its emphasis on nature, "as gentlemen" of fighting between animals. For him, the remarkable thing about the fights between animals is that they are formal tournaments, fought according to rules such as boxing or fencing. The animals fight with boxing gloves and blunt swords. Threats and bluffs take the place of [deadly earnest]. I made gestures are recognized by the victors, they fail to give that final blow that our folk theory would predict.

[...] Although it has been overstated, this view "sport" of fighting animals seems to have some truth. On the surface it seems a form of altruism. The selfish gene theory is faced with the difficult task of explaining it. Why Animals Do not just kill members of their species rivals whenever they can?

The general answer is that the indiscriminate pugnacious, and providing benefits, it also has costs, and not just the obvious costs in terms of time and energy. For example, suppose that B and C are both my opponents, and I happen to meet B. It might seem reasonable that I, as a selfish individual, to try to kill him. But wait. Even C is my rival, and C is also rival B. Killing B, I'm potentially doing a favor to C, eliminating one of its rivals. It might be better for me to leave alive B, because then he could compete or fight with C, thus indirectly benefiting me. The moral of this simple hypothetical example is that there is an obvious advantage in trying to indiscriminately kill their rivals. In a large and complex system of rivalries, to eliminate a rival from the scene is not necessarily good: other rivals could benefit from his death more than me. This is the hard lesson learned by the officials of pest control. You have a serious pest that threatens agriculture, a good way to discover destroying them, and do, only to discover that another parasite benefits from its elimination even more than does agriculture, and you end up worse off than before.

On the other hand, might seem like a good plan to kill, or at least fight, rivals some special selectively. If B is an elephant seal that has a large harem of females, and I, another elephant seal, I killing him acquire his harem, could defendant attempted to kill him. But there are costs and risks in a pugnacious selective. E 'interest in B respond to the attack, to defend his valuable property. If I start a fight, I have the same chance of dying that has him. Maybe anche di più. Lui possiede una risorsa di valore, ed è per questo che lo voglio sfidare. Ma perché la possiede? Forse l'ha vinta in combattimento. Probabilmente ha sconfitto altri sfidanti prima di me. E' probabilmente un bravo combattente. Anche se io vincessi ed ottenessi l'harem, potrei uscirne così malconcio da non poterne trarre beneficio. Inoltre, combattere consuma tempo ed energia. Potrei far meglio a conservarli per adesso. Se mi concentro nel cibarmi e a tenermi fuori dai guai per un po', diventerò più grande e più forte. Prima o poi lo sfiderò, ma, se aspetto, potrei avere maggiori possibilità di vincere.

Questo soliloquio soggettivo è solo un modo di evidenziare che la decisione se combattere or not should be preceded by a complex (albeit unconscious) cost-benefit assessment. The potential benefits are not all on the side of the fight, although some of them undoubtedly are. Similarly, during the fight, every tactical decision whether to continue the fight or flight has costs and benefits, in principle, can be gauged. Ethologists have understood for a long time, but it was necessary the genius of John Maynard Smith, not generally regarded as an ethologist, to express this idea clearly and decisively. [...] He uses the branch of mathematics known as Game Theory . Its elegant ideas can be expressed in words without resorting to mathematical symbols, although for a small price in terms of accuracy.

The essential concept introduced by Maynard Smith is to evolutionarily stable strategy, an idea that dates back to WD Hamilton and RH MacArthur. A "strategy" is a policy of pre-programmed behavior. An example of the strategy is "Attack the opponent flees if Pursue; responds to the attack if it escapes." It 'important to understand that we are not thinking about the strategies as if they were consciously implemented by individuals. Remember that we are portraying the animal as a robot survival machine with a pre-programmed computer that controls the muscles. Represent the strategy in the English language is our only convenient way of thinking. Through some mechanism not specified, the animal behaves as if was following those instructions.

An "evolutionarily stable strategy" or ESS, is defined as a strategy that, if adopted by most members of the population, can not be improved by an alternative strategy. E 'subtle and important idea. Another way of putting the matter is that say that the best strategy for an individual depends on what makes the majority of the population. As the rest of the population consists of individuals, each of which is trying to maximize their happened, the only strategy che persiste nella popolazione sarà quella che, una volta diffusa nella popolazione, non può essere migliorata da un individuo che cerchi di cambiarla. Se c'è un repentino cambiamento nell'ambiente, subito dopo ci può essere un breve periodo di instabilità evolutiva, forse anche un'oscillazione nella popolazione. Ma una volta che una ESS si è diffusa nella popolazione, rimarrà: la selezione penalizzerà le deviazioni da essa.

(nel prossimo episodio cominceremo a vedere esempi pratici)

Xbox Lives Cards At Cvs

labeling children according to the creed


Traduco una parte di una bellissima conferenza tenuta recentemente da Richard Dawkins. Clicca qui per il video originale della conferenza (in English).

Dawkins is in great shape, and its exposure is particularly deep (I have found even moving, but they are a special case). Do not miss this opportunity.



--- I have been asked to speak about faith and, not being an expert in faith and fundamentalism, I will speak of faith as a scientist. Faith to me means "belief without evidence".

I want to start explaining the difference between faith-based beliefs and those based on the evidence, invented in the form of an edition of the "Quarterly Review of Biology, a well-known journal of biology. I invented a special edition focused on the difficult question of "how they became extinct i dinosauri?". Ho qui una lista di pubblicazioni scientifiche immaginarie che avrebbero potuto essere inviate alla Quarterly Review su questa domanda: i dinosauri furono uccisi da un asteroide?

1. La prima pubblicazione titola: "Lo strato di iridio nel confine-KT e la datazione mediante potassio e argo di un cratere nello Yucatan indicano che i dinosauri sono stati uccisi da un asteroide". Si tratta di una pubblicazione scientifica perfettamente ragionevole e rispettabile.
   
   
2. La seconda pubblicazione: "il presidente della Royal Society ha manifestato la sua forte convinzione interiore [il pubblico ride] che i dinosauri sono stati uccisi da un asteroide."
   
   
3. Il prof. Hapstein ha ricevuto la rivelazione privata [il pubblico ride] che i dinosauri sono stati uccisi da un asteroide.
   
   
4. Il professor Hardly è stato cresciuto per avere fede totale e indiscussa che i dinosauri sono stati uccisi da un asteroide.
   
   
5. Il prof. Hawkins ha promulgato un dogma ufficiale, vincolante per tutti gli hawkinsiani leali, che afferma che i dinosauri sono stati uccisi da un asteroide.

Beh, spero sia chiaro che la prima pubblicazione è quella che approvo, e spero che nessuno approvi le pubblicazioni 2, 3, 4 e 5. Esse sembrano illustrare precisamente the religious approach to what is true and what is false in the world.


Faith can sometimes get, like a virus, a charismatic preacher or a book persuasive, but more often faith is hereditary. is not an amazing coincidence? Almost all have the same religion of their parents. And each time, it so happens that one's own religion is the correct one. Religion tends to be preserved in the family. If we had been grown in ancient Greece, we would all be worshiping Zeus and Apollo. If the Vikings were born, we would venerable Thor and Wotan. What has this to do with the indoctrination of children?

Once, at Christmas time, my newspaper, the Independent, was looking for a picture vacation, and found that this ecumenical photo warms the heart:



The photo shows a school play about the Nativity. The caption of the photo reads, "The three wise men were played by Brit- Shad (a Sikh), Musharraf (a Muslim) and Adel (a Christian), all 4 years of age . " [audience laughs]

I will make a small change to this disascalia: "The three wise men were played by Brit- Shad (a monetarist), Musharraf (a Keynesian) and Adel (a Marxist), all age 4 years . " [audience laughs and applauds]

If it had appeared in the newspaper caption, the parents of these children were investigated to discover whether they were suitable for growing children?

Feminists have taught me What does "raise awareness", and I want to raise our consciousness against labeling children with the religion of their parents. If we are talking about children aged 4 years, there is no such thing as a Catholic child. There Only one child with Catholic parents. There are no Protestant children. There are Muslim children. Only children whose parents are Muslims.

's change that image once again: "The three wise men were played by Brit- Shad (an atheist), Musharraf (an agnostic) and Adel (a secular humanist), all 4 years of age . "Well, I'd suggest that parents of those children were investigated for child abuse.




All of us have seen maps like this, which mapped with different colors predominant religions of the world.


green area, you are a Sunni Muslim, in the red, you're a Protestant, and so on. Ma .. as it is absurd this map, when we reflect bene. Provate a immaginare una mappa simile per gli scienziati, che mappi zona per zona cosa credono gli scienziati in merito all' estinzione dei dinosauri. [Il pubblico ride, ma Dawkins si infiamma:]


Il punto è che, sebbene tutto questo sia ridicolo, tutta la società, anche la parte laica della società, accetta che sia perfettamente naturale vedere una mappa come quella precedente, e che sia perfettamente naturale vedere in un titolo di giornale "questo bambino di 4 anni è un cristiano, questo bambino di 4 anni è un musulmano, ecc" . Non sono solo le persone religiose ad accettare questo. Tutti noi nella società we have been conditioned, persuaded to treat religion as the only entity to which it is allowed to implement such shameful labeling of children with impunity.


Here is a map of Belfast. Areas Protestant and Catholic areas. And in many centuries of history, those lines of division have been and are still trenches of war. There is no other difference between people living in Belfast: have the same skin color, speak the same language, have the same look and voice, the only difference is that they have different faiths hereditary. Hereditary in the sense that Protestants attending Protestant schools, and their children and grandchildren do the same, and Catholics attend schools Catholic. And so it is propagated from generation to generation. It is taught their separation.


[..]

Now, science is often accused of arrogant certainty [and Dawkins is accused of fundamentalism, NDM]. But what about faith? The third law of Arthur C. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Clarke's Third Law is a good illustration humility of science, in this case in the form of technology. We are humble in the sense that we implicitly acknowledge that the technology we have in a century or two centuries, appear to us as the magic mobile phone technology and computers and would apparza boing 747 a person from the 18th century. The same is true of science, in his attitude toward the mysteries of the universe. JBS Haldane, the British universal genius, said, "my suspicion is that the universe is not only stranger than we suppose but stranger than we can suppose. I suspect there are more things in heaven and earth than I dream of us, and we can dream in any philosophy. "

[..]

Where Can I Buy A Stethoscope In Dc?

The power of simulation


This is the twelfth post in a series devoted to the theory of evolution by natural selection. We are in the book of Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene " 1976. The translation is mine.

Here are links to all the episodes: 1 , 2, 3 , 4, 5 , 6, 7 , 8, 9 , 10, 11, 12 , 13, 14 .

previous episode we saw that genes, in building our bodies, must play a role similar to prediction of the future: they must "choose" for us the characteristics that increase, even very little, our chances of survival (and thus the probability of survival of the genes themselves). D'altra parte è bene capire che questa metafora della "predizione" è solo una metafora: i geni non capiscono nulla di ciò che stanno facendo. Non hanno una mente. E come fanno i geni, senza avere una mente, a prendere decisioni corrette? Semplicemente, i geni mutano a caso . Quei geni che per caso infondono nei corpi un vantaggio (seppur microscopico ed infinitesimale) vengono automaticamente selezionati dalla natura, e gli altri vengono automaticamente scartati. Questi piccoli miglioramenti si accumulano , nell'arco delle generazioni, fino a produrre organi complessi come l'occhio o il cervello. In questo modo i geni "inventano" (fra virgolette!) la varietà di features in biological bodies, and in our body. One of the many "inventions" made by the genes is the brain, and the simulation of the world by him. The word to Dawkins.

4. The car genes (below)

learning strategies were used in some programs that play chess. These programs are becoming more skilled as they play against human opponents or against other computers. Even though they have a repertoire of rules and tactics, they also inserted a small component of randomness in their decision-making process. They record the decisions of the past and every time you win a game, slightly increase the weight given to the tactics that have gone before la vittoria, così da avere una probabilità maggiore di scegliere le stesse tattiche la prossima volta.

Uno dei metodi più interessanti di predire il futuro è la simulazione. Se un generale vuole sapere se un dato piano militare sarà migliore dei piani alternativi, ha un problema di predizione. Sono in gioco delle quantità non note, come il tempo, il morale delle sue truppe e le possibili contromisure del nemico. Un modo di scoprire se un piano è buono è attuarlo sul campo di battaglia e vedere che succede, ma non è desiderabile usare questo test per tutti i piani ipotetici che vengono in mente, se non altro perché la quantità di giovani disposti a morire "per il loro Paese" è limitata, e la quantità di piani possibili è molto grande. E' meglio mettere alla prova i vari piani per finta, anziché sul serio. Questo può avvenire con esercitazioni con munizioni a salve, ma anche questo è costoso in termini di materiale e tempo. Più economicamente, si può fare un gioco di guerra, con soldati di latta e carri armati giocattolo che vengono spostati su una grossa mappa.

Di recente i computer sono diventati protagonisti nel campo della simulazione, non solo nella stategia militare ma in tutti i campi dove è necessario predire il futuro, come l'economia, l'ecologia, la sociologia e molti altri. La tecnica funziona così. Viene inserito nel computer un modello di qualche aspetto del mondo. This does not mean that we would see if smontaste your computer into a miniature form of the object with the same simulated. On computers that play chess there is no "mental image" in the memory banks, which visually resembles a checkerboard with pedestrians and horses resting on it. The board and the current state of the game are represented in lists of numbers encoded electronically. For us, a map is a miniature scale model of the world, packed in two dimensions. In a computer, a map can be represented as either a list of cities and other points of interest, each with two numbers - its latitude and longitude. But it does not matter exactly how the computer stores the pattern the world in his head, until it stores it in a form where it can be manipulated easily, can make us experiments above, and can return to the human operator in a form he can understand. Through the technique of simulation, the simulated battles can be won or lost, the simulated aircraft can land or precipitate, and economic policies can lead to prosperity or disaster. In any case, the entire process takes place inside the computer in a small fraction of the time it would in real life. course there are models of the world good and bad models, and even the good ones are only approximations. No amount of simulation can predict exactly what will happen in reality, but a good simulation is enormously preferable to a blind approach based on "trial and error." [..]

If the simulation is really such a good idea, we should expect that the genes discovered to have before us. After all, natural selection has invented many of the techniques of human, long before humans existed: the lens and the parabolic reflector, frequency analysis of sound waves, servo-control, sonar, storage buffered input information, and countless other inventions with long names, whose details need not concern us. What about simulation? Well, quando tu hai una decisione difficile da prendere che coinvolge quantità ignote nel futuro, tu stesso ti cimenti in una forma di simulazione: cerchi di immaginare che cosa succederebbe se prendessi ciascuna delle alternative che hai di fronte. Costruisci un modello dentro la tua testa; non un modello di ogni aspetto del mondo, ma di quelle entità del mondo che tu ritieni rilevanti. Potresti vederle con chiarezza nel tuo "occhio mentale", oppure potresti vedere e manipolare astrazioni stilizzate di esse. In un modo o nell'altro è improbabile che da qualche parte nel tuo cervello ci sia un vero e proprio modello spaziale degli eventi che stai immaginando. Ma, proprio come nel computer, i dettagli di come il tuo cervello rappresenta his model of the world are less important than the fact that the brain can use it to predict possible events. survival machines that can simulate the future are always survival advantage over machines that can only learn from their mistakes. The real problem is that the attempts of error is often fatal. Simulation is both safer and faster.



[...] [This means] the machines to survive and become beings capable of making decisions, they are emancipated from those who ultimately are their masters, the genes. not only the brain are now in command in the daily struggle for survival, but have also acquired the ability to predict the future and act accordingly. They even have the power to rebel against the dictatorship of the genes, for example by refusing to have as many children as possible. But in this respect, the man is a very special case, as we shall see.


What has this to do with egoism and altruism? I'm trying to articulate the idea that animal behavior, altruistic or selfish, is under the control of genes in one direction only indirect but nonetheless very powerful. genes determine how the machines are built for survival and their nervous systems, thus exercising their power over behavior. But the decisions on what to do at any given time are taken by nerves. The genes are those that provide the general policies, the brains are the performers. But as brains became more developed, occupy a more and more power of decision, using, in so doing tricks like learning and simulation. The logical conclusion of this trend, not yet reached in any case, would be that the genes would give the survival machine a single statement: Do whatever you think is the best way to keep us alive.

The analogies with computers and human decisions are fascinating. But now we must return to reality and remember that evolution is small steps, through the sopravvivenza differenziata di alcuni geni all'interno del pool di geni. Quindi, affinché possa evolversi una tendenza comportamentale -- altruistica o egoistica -- è necessario che un gene "per" quel comportamento sopravviva nel pool di geni con maggior successo di un gene rivale o allele "per" un comportamento diverso.

(continua)