On simulating the evolution of communication

The prospects for modelling the evolution of communication are considered, including the problem of intentional explanation, and the possibility of grounding simulation work in theoretical biology. The seminal work of MacLennan and Burghardt [16] on the evolution of cooperative communication is described, and their experiment replicated. Our results were broadly similar, in that evolved communication was observed, but specific differences are discussed. MacLennan and Burghardt’s work is extended and their methodology critiqued in detail. Their experiment remains a useful demonstration, but artefactual features make their results difficult to interpret. Furthermore, we argue that too many factors are simultaneously investigated for any general principles to be extracted, and suggest an alternative program of narrowly-focused simulations. 1 Modelling Communication What has to be happening such that we would describe two entities within a computer simulation as communicating? Can communication behaviour evolve in simulation? Do we learn anything about animal communication or the development of language from such work? MacLennan and Burghardt [16, p. 186] conclude that “even in [a] simple synthetic world, communication may evolve that exhibits some of the richness of natural communication.” The intent of this paper is to investigate the prospects for modelling communication through a critical replication of their research.

[1]  Bruce J. MacLennan,et al.  Synthetic Ethology and the Evolution of Cooperative Communication , 1993, Adapt. Behav..

[2]  A. Zahavi.  Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. , 1975, Journal of theoretical biology.

[3]  D. Lendrem.  Modelling in Behavioural Ecology , 1986, Studies in Behavioural Adaptation.

[4]  Geoffrey P. Miller,et al.  Artificial life as theoretical biology: How to do real science with computer simulation , 1995 .

[5]  J. M. Smith.  Adaptation and satisficing , 1983, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[6]  Charles E. Taylor,et al.  Artificial Life II , 1991 .

[7]  Pattie Maes,et al.  On Simulating the Evolution of Communication , 1996 .

[8]  D. E. Matthews.  Evolution and the Theory of Games , 1977 .

[9]  W. Hamilton.  The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. , 1964, Journal of theoretical biology.

[10]  V. Braitenberg.  Vehicles, Experiments in Synthetic Psychology , 1984 .

[11]  Peter de Bourcier,et al.  Signalling and territorial aggression: an investigation by means of synthetic behavioral ecology , 1994 .

[12]  A. Zahavi.  The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). , 1977, Journal of theoretical biology.

[13]  G. M. Werner.  Evolution of Communication in Artificial Organisms, Artifial Life II , 1991 .

[14]  Stewart W. Wilson.  Classifier Fitness Based on Accuracy , 1995, Evolutionary Computation.

[15]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[16]  Thomas R. Nilsen.  On defining communication , 1957 .

[17]  D. Dennett.  The Intentional Stance. , 1987 .

[18]  P. Marler,et al.  Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. , 1980, Science.

[19]  S. Gould,et al.  The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[20]  A. Grafen.  Biological signals as handicaps. , 1990, Journal of theoretical biology.

[21]  D. B. Lewis,et al.  Biology of Communication , 1979 .

[22]  이영식.  Communication 으로서의 영어교육 , 1986 .