Re: An expected utility maximiser is a theoretical agent who considers its actions, computes their consequences and then rates them according to a utility function … I think you’d have a hard time arguing that even a higher mammal does this.
There’s relevant work by von Neumann and Morgenstern that suggests that all economic actors can be modelled as rational economic agents maximising some utility function—regardless of the details of their internal operation—with the caveat that any deviations from this model results in agents which are vulnerable to burning up their resources for no personal benefit under some circumstances—and in the case of evolution, it is likely that such vulnerabilities would either crop up rarely, or be selected against.
Of course organisms without brains have relatively little look-ahead. They are limited to computations that can be produced by their cells—which are still sophisticated computation devices, but not really on the same scale as a whole brain. The “expectations” of plants are mostly that the world is much the same as the one its ancestors experienced.
It can certainly happen. But brains exist partly to help adapt to the effects of environmental fluctuations—and prevent unfamiliar environments from breaking the genetic program. Of course some organisms will still fail. Indeed, most male organisms will fail—even with an environment that is the expected one. That’s just how nature operates.
Re: An expected utility maximiser is a theoretical agent who considers its actions, computes their consequences and then rates them according to a utility function … I think you’d have a hard time arguing that even a higher mammal does this.
Real organisms are imperfect approximations to expected utility maximisers—but they really do act rather a lot like this. For example see the work of Jeff Hawkins on the role of prediction in brain function.
There’s relevant work by von Neumann and Morgenstern that suggests that all economic actors can be modelled as rational economic agents maximising some utility function—regardless of the details of their internal operation—with the caveat that any deviations from this model results in agents which are vulnerable to burning up their resources for no personal benefit under some circumstances—and in the case of evolution, it is likely that such vulnerabilities would either crop up rarely, or be selected against.
Of course organisms without brains have relatively little look-ahead. They are limited to computations that can be produced by their cells—which are still sophisticated computation devices, but not really on the same scale as a whole brain. The “expectations” of plants are mostly that the world is much the same as the one its ancestors experienced.
Re: organisms executing “unsuitable” adaptations...
It can certainly happen. But brains exist partly to help adapt to the effects of environmental fluctuations—and prevent unfamiliar environments from breaking the genetic program. Of course some organisms will still fail. Indeed, most male organisms will fail—even with an environment that is the expected one. That’s just how nature operates.