Ryan Chapman - Why Do We Believe Things That Aren't True?

What evolves in Universal Darwinism?

Back in 2012, I wrote the article: An inherited unit for Universal Darwinism - in which I proposed that we reuse the term "gene" for this purpose. "Gene" is a bit of an overloaded term, but it could still be useful in this application, I claimed.

I still think we ought to be able to reuse the term "gene" - assuming that we define it in a sufficiently general way in the first place. So: if we say that a gene is a small peice of inherited information, I think we can use that definition in Universal Darwinism. Note that this is an information-theoretic definition that makes no reference to the world of atoms.

I mentioned some other candidate terminology in that 2012 post. Have others attempted to address this question in the interim?

Another candidate is "innovation". For example see this 2014 paper titled: " Spaces of the possible: universal Darwinism and the wall between technological and biological innovation". While the term "gene" comes from evolutionary biology, innovation comes from the stuudy of technological evolution. "Innovation" has the implication of novelty and newness. However, "innovation" strikes me as a broadly similar term.

Another attempt was made recently by Lee Cronin. He wrote this - about what counts as an "object" in his own reworking of evolutionary theory:

"An object is finite, is distinguishable, persists over time and is breakable such that the set of constraints to construct it from elementary building blocks is quantifiable."

I think that's a bit of a hot mess. It seems to say that things have to be "breakable" to evolve. I don't see the need to refer to infinite objects or unquantifiable sets either. However, perhaps we should take the term "object" seriously as a candidate term for "things that evolve". Another similar candidate is "entity".

None of these more recent proposals have much to do with evolutionary biology - but some may have their merits.

Update: Bing offers this: "The generalization made in Universal Darwinism is to replace “organism” with any recognizable pattern, phenomenon, or system." No catchy terminology - but it does at least try to capture some of the breadth of the generalization intended.

Chatbots on cultural kin selection

I tried explaining cultural kin selection to ChatGPT. It doesn't really get it: it keeps talking about "genetic relatives". It does illustrate what I'm up against though, IMO. Transcript follows:

TT: What is cultural kin selection?

Cultural kin selection is a theory that explains how humans develop and transmit cultural traits or behaviors that promote the survival and reproduction of their genetic relatives. This theory suggests that individuals may be more likely to adopt and transmit cultural practices that benefit their genetic relatives, such as their siblings, parents, and children, because these behaviors increase the probability that their genetic material will be passed on to the next generation.

The concept of kin selection was originally developed in evolutionary biology to explain the evolution of altruistic behaviors in animals, such as when animals sacrifice their own reproductive success to help their close relatives. Cultural kin selection applies the same principle to cultural transmission, suggesting that individuals may be more likely to adopt and transmit cultural traits that benefit their genetic relatives, even if those behaviors do not directly benefit the individual themselves.

For example, a cultural practice of sharing resources with extended family members may have evolved because it promotes the survival and reproduction of genetic relatives, even if it means sacrificing resources for oneself. Similarly, cultural practices that promote cooperation and social cohesion within kin groups may have evolved because they increase the survival and reproductive success of genetic relatives. Cultural kin selection, therefore, provides a framework for understanding how cultural traits evolve and spread through populations based on their impact on genetic relatedness.

TT: Cultural kin selection is actually a theory about how kin selection applies to cultural evolution. It's about shared memes, not shared genes. It suggests that cultural traits may spread via influencing copies of themselves in other bodies. So, for example, memes for suicide bombing could still spread despite the fact that they reduce the fitness of their host - if the resulting attack is successful and inspires others. Did you learn anything about that?

You are correct. I apologize for my earlier response. Cultural kin selection is a theory about how kin selection applies to cultural evolution, specifically in the transmission of cultural traits or memes. It suggests that individuals may be more likely to adopt and transmit cultural practices that benefit their kin, even if those practices do not directly benefit the individual themselves.

As you mentioned, this theory suggests that cultural traits or memes may spread through populations by influencing copies of themselves in other bodies. Memes can be transmitted through social learning, such as through imitation, teaching, or storytelling. Just like genes, memes can also replicate and mutate, and those that are more successful at spreading will be more likely to persist and evolve over time.

While cultural kin selection suggests that cultural traits that benefit kin may be more likely to spread, it is important to note that not all cultural traits or memes will necessarily promote the survival or reproduction of genetic relatives. Some cultural practices may even be harmful to the individuals who adopt them or to their kin. Therefore, the spread of cultural traits is a complex phenomenon that is influenced by a variety of factors, including social learning, cultural transmission biases, and the fitness consequences of the traits themselves.

I also tried Bing chat. It has the same conceptual issue:

TT: What is cultural kin selection?

Cultural kin selection is a theory that explains how cultural traits can evolve through natural selection in a way that benefits an individual’s relatives. It is based on the idea of kin selection, which is an evolutionary strategy that favors the reproductive success of an organism’s relatives. Kin altruism can look like altruistic behavior whose evolution is driven by kin selection.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

Lastly I tried Google Bard. It mostly gets it!

TT: What is cultural kin selection?

Cultural kin selection is a theory that explains how cultural traits can be passed down through generations, even if they do not confer a direct genetic benefit to the individual. The theory argues that individuals who share a common culture are more likely to help each other, even if they are not related genetically. This is because they share a common set of values and beliefs, which makes them more likely to trust and cooperate with each other.

There is some evidence to support the theory of cultural kin selection. For example, studies have shown that people are more likely to help others who share their language, religion, or ethnicity. This suggests that people are more likely to feel a sense of kinship with those who share their cultural background.

Cultural kin selection can have a significant impact on human societies. For example, it can help to explain why people are willing to sacrifice their own resources to help others in their community. It can also help to explain why people are willing to follow the rules and norms of their society, even if they do not always benefit them personally.

The theory of cultural kin selection is still under development, but it is a promising new way of understanding how culture evolves.

Cosmism

I've written here before aobut the 'A for Andromeda' scenario ...in which organisms spread through the universe via radio waves - relying on the prior existence of organisms smart enough to construct radio receivers in remote locations

This is in contrast to the more usual scenario - where life spreads via interactions between atoms and matter. If there are enough radio receivers around, spreading via information may be possible. The advantage of spreading via information is that you can spread faster - perhaps at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Spreading between the stars via information seems reminiscent of a cosmic religion. I propose that we call it "Cosmism".

The viability of cosmism is likely to depend on the age of the universe. In the early universe there will not be enough radio receivers around to make Cosmism viable. However, as the universe ages, more and more radio receivers will appear - making Cosmism more viable. It has been speculated that Cosmism faces a "window" - with smart enough agents developing immunity to Cosmism's message. I think this may under-estimate the attractiveness of Cosmism to the recipients. If there's a window it could be very wide.

If Cosmism is indeed viable, there may be a competitive dynamic between factions that want to spread via atoms and factions that want to spread via radio waves. It could be a significant power struggle. Cosmism may stand accused of giving technolgy to future competitors for resources.

Such resource conflicts are common in nature. A strawberry plant typically faces a choice between growing more leaves, reproducing via runners or reproducing via seed. A seed is not pure information - but it is quite close. This is analogous to: staying on the home planet, propagating to other planets via matter (genes) or propagating to other planets via information (memes).

The spread of Cosmism could also be likened to a pioneer species. Those also travel fast and can survive in inhospitable conditions. Once an ecosystem is mature the pioneer species vanish - but they played their part in initially transforming the ecosystem.

RIP Herb Gintis

Alas, Herb Gintis is no longer with us. He was a pioneer of social and cultural evolution.

There is a page on this site devoted to related media resources here.

Also, here is his Wikipedia page.

Lastly, here is my review of A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution