I am not sure what you mean by “algorithm” here, but the book you link repeatedly acknowledges that of course Natural Selection is an “optimization process”, though there are of course disagreements about the exact details. The book has not a single mention of the word “algorithm” so presumably you are using it here synonymous with “optimization process”, for which the book includes quotes like:
“selection is obviously [to some degree] an optimizing process”
The book then discusses various limits to the degree to which evolution will arrive at optimal solutions, but the book seems quite clear that calling evolution an optimization process is fine, though also often leads to miscommunication and conveys some wrong intuitions.
Sure. It’s an optimization process. At least in my vocabulary process and algorithm are more or less synonymous. But totally fine with calling it a process instead.
What in your mind are the wrong intuition created from calling it an algorithm?
(I was objecting to Dan’s point. I think evolution is both an optimization process and meaningfully described as an “optimization algorithm”. I don’t really know what Dan’s point is, since the book he linked doesn’t super agree with it, though it does provide nuance to the degree to which evolution could be described as an optimization process)
Strictly speaking there is no such thing as “natural selection” or “fitness” or “adaptation” or even “evolution”. There are only patterns of physical objects, which increase or decrease in frequency over time in ways that are only loosely modeled by those terms.
But it’s practically impossible to talk about physical systems without fudging a bit of teleology in, so I don’t think it’s a valid objection.
Yes, agreed. Teleology is still very useful in biology. Describing the above post with chemistry would be like describing a high level programing language using only NAND gates (I.e. not very useful).
So of course ‘natural selection is not optimizing fitness’, since none of those things actually exist in the atoms, and electrons, and spacetime fabric, etc… that make up planet Earth.
i.e. There are no ‘natural selection’ molecules to be found anywhere.
And even the patterns are highly contingent on many factors, perhaps infinitely many, so they can’t be said to have discrete, separable, relationships in the literal sense.
It’s just convenient shorthand to describe something many people believe to be sufficiently understood enough among their peers, that they can get away with skipping some mental steps and verbage.
Relevant: Natural Selection Favors AIs over Humans
Evolution is not an optimization algorithm (this is a common misconception discussed in Okasha, Agents and Goals in Evolution).
I am not sure what you mean by “algorithm” here, but the book you link repeatedly acknowledges that of course Natural Selection is an “optimization process”, though there are of course disagreements about the exact details. The book has not a single mention of the word “algorithm” so presumably you are using it here synonymous with “optimization process”, for which the book includes quotes like:
“selection is obviously [to some degree] an optimizing process”
The book then discusses various limits to the degree to which evolution will arrive at optimal solutions, but the book seems quite clear that calling evolution an optimization process is fine, though also often leads to miscommunication and conveys some wrong intuitions.
Sure. It’s an optimization process. At least in my vocabulary process and algorithm are more or less synonymous. But totally fine with calling it a process instead.
What in your mind are the wrong intuition created from calling it an algorithm?
(I was objecting to Dan’s point. I think evolution is both an optimization process and meaningfully described as an “optimization algorithm”. I don’t really know what Dan’s point is, since the book he linked doesn’t super agree with it, though it does provide nuance to the degree to which evolution could be described as an optimization process)
Got it.
So natural selection is not optimizing fitness? Please elaborate. 😊
Strictly speaking there is no such thing as “natural selection” or “fitness” or “adaptation” or even “evolution”. There are only patterns of physical objects, which increase or decrease in frequency over time in ways that are only loosely modeled by those terms.
But it’s practically impossible to talk about physical systems without fudging a bit of teleology in, so I don’t think it’s a valid objection.
Yes, agreed. Teleology is still very useful in biology. Describing the above post with chemistry would be like describing a high level programing language using only NAND gates (I.e. not very useful).
So of course ‘natural selection is not optimizing fitness’, since none of those things actually exist in the atoms, and electrons, and spacetime fabric, etc… that make up planet Earth.
i.e. There are no ‘natural selection’ molecules to be found anywhere.
And even the patterns are highly contingent on many factors, perhaps infinitely many, so they can’t be said to have discrete, separable, relationships in the literal sense.
It’s just convenient shorthand to describe something many people believe to be sufficiently understood enough among their peers, that they can get away with skipping some mental steps and verbage.