I agree that “limited” is a better word than “horrible”.
What I meant by “horrible” is that, relative to human maps, ant maps are extremely limited; they do not represent “truth” or reality as well to the same scope or accuracy of human maps.
I think the point is that even though ant maps are limited, they can still be adaptive. Natural selection is indifferent to the scope/accuracy of a map in and of itself.
Critically, the areas in which ant maps are limited are the areas in which natural selection doesn’t kill them for it. Colonies that think food is in places where food isn’t starve to death.
Yes, you’ve hit on the main point. Survival (and later on, reproductive value) is what matters. The fact that the maps help them survive is what matters. The existence of the map or its accuracy matters only matters in so far as it contributes to reproductive success.
Natural selection doesn’t “reward” them for having an accurate map, only a map that helps they live and reproduce.
Yes...? And one of the key traits of a useful map is accuracy.
I mean, yes, clearly natural selection doesn’t value truth for its own sake. It certainly does favor truth for instrumental reasons. I’m uncomfortable phrasing this as “indifferent to truth” as the original quote did. But perhaps we’re talking past each other, here.
Another way to think about his idea:
Natural selection is equally brutal to all life. Moss and ants have horrible maps, but they are still successful in terms of natural selection.
That’s not self-evident to me. They certainly have very limited maps, but I don’t know if these limited maps are bad.
I agree that “limited” is a better word than “horrible”.
What I meant by “horrible” is that, relative to human maps, ant maps are extremely limited; they do not represent “truth” or reality as well to the same scope or accuracy of human maps.
I think the point is that even though ant maps are limited, they can still be adaptive. Natural selection is indifferent to the scope/accuracy of a map in and of itself.
Critically, the areas in which ant maps are limited are the areas in which natural selection doesn’t kill them for it. Colonies that think food is in places where food isn’t starve to death.
Yes, you’ve hit on the main point. Survival (and later on, reproductive value) is what matters. The fact that the maps help them survive is what matters. The existence of the map or its accuracy matters only matters in so far as it contributes to reproductive success.
Natural selection doesn’t “reward” them for having an accurate map, only a map that helps they live and reproduce.
Yes...? And one of the key traits of a useful map is accuracy.
I mean, yes, clearly natural selection doesn’t value truth for its own sake. It certainly does favor truth for instrumental reasons. I’m uncomfortable phrasing this as “indifferent to truth” as the original quote did. But perhaps we’re talking past each other, here.