This entry was posted on Monday, September 21st, 2009 at 8:24 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I found Johnson’s examples and insight of emergent software to be very
interesting and provocative. Around pg. 170, Johnson discusses Danny
Hillis’ attempt at writing emergent software that can improve itself
with time to eventually be efficient at sorting numbers. In order to
make the end result as efficient as possible, Hillis had to introduce
“predators” into the system in order to weed out programs that took
too many steps to sort the numbers.
I couldn’t help thinking if perhaps we humans are trapped in a “false
peak in the fitness landscape”, as described by Johnson. Of course, in
order to make this assertion, there needs to be a predefined goal for
mankind to achieve. Assuming that there is a goal to achieve, are we
as a whole continuing to develop and evolve to better achieve this
goal? Or have we instead stuck in a rut where we are content to exist
the way we do? In answering this, both social and biological evolution
should be considered.
I personally believe that we are still evolving socially, as shown by
the emergence of macro behavior in cities; however, it appears that we
are no longer ruled by biological evolution. I think the main question
is will we eventually be limited in social evolution as a result of
the absence of biological evolution.
“Assuming that there is a goal to achieve, are we
as a whole continuing to develop and evolve to better achieve this
goal?”
I don’t think there’s an end goal, I think that we just have to adapt to be able to survive in the current environment, and as that environment changes, we too change. So unless there’s an end environment, I don’t think there’s an end goal to human evolution.
I found Johnson’s examples and insight of emergent software to be very
interesting and provocative. Around pg. 170, Johnson discusses Danny
Hillis’ attempt at writing emergent software that can improve itself
with time to eventually be efficient at sorting numbers. In order to
make the end result as efficient as possible, Hillis had to introduce
“predators” into the system in order to weed out programs that took
too many steps to sort the numbers.
I couldn’t help thinking if perhaps we humans are trapped in a “false
peak in the fitness landscape”, as described by Johnson. Of course, in
order to make this assertion, there needs to be a predefined goal for
mankind to achieve. Assuming that there is a goal to achieve, are we
as a whole continuing to develop and evolve to better achieve this
goal? Or have we instead stuck in a rut where we are content to exist
the way we do? In answering this, both social and biological evolution
should be considered.
I personally believe that we are still evolving socially, as shown by
the emergence of macro behavior in cities; however, it appears that we
are no longer ruled by biological evolution. I think the main question
is will we eventually be limited in social evolution as a result of
the absence of biological evolution.
“Assuming that there is a goal to achieve, are we
as a whole continuing to develop and evolve to better achieve this
goal?”
I don’t think there’s an end goal, I think that we just have to adapt to be able to survive in the current environment, and as that environment changes, we too change. So unless there’s an end environment, I don’t think there’s an end goal to human evolution.