Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 5
It's about 20 minutes long and I think that anyone with a passing interest in the dynamics of ant behavior will probably find it as engaging as i did:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/145


That's pretty interesting. She doesn't start getting in to the meat of Emergent Behavior until about the 10 minute mark.

The significant things I got from it were:

* Ant task allocation is a result of what the ants smell on other ants. If an ant doesn't encounter a forager on returning to the nest, it will tend to go forage. Thus, if there's a lot of foraging work to be done and the foragers aren't coming back to the nest frequently, you get more foragers.

* It's purely a mechanical process, because you can change what tasks the ants perform by placing beads that smell like ants doing particular tasks near the nest.

* It's not very efficient. In only mostly gets the job done, with a lot of fumbling and errors along the way.

The last point is significant, because it's in line with things like junk DNA vs. coding DNA. The end result gets the job done, but there are a lot of false starts, dead ends, and cruft along the way, because the process is undirected.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's pretty interesting. She doesn't start getting in to the meat of Emergent Behavior until about the 10 minute mark.

The significant things I got from it were:

* Ant task allocation is a result of what the ants smell on other ants. If an ant doesn't encounter a forager on returning to the nest, it will tend to go forage. Thus, if there's a lot of foraging work to be done and the foragers aren't coming back to the nest frequently, you get more foragers.

* It's purely a mechanical process, because you can change what tasks the ants perform by placing beads that smell like ants doing particular tasks near the nest.

* It's not very efficient. In only mostly gets the job done, with a lot of fumbling and errors along the way.

The last point is significant, because it's in line with things like junk DNA vs. coding DNA. The end result gets the job done, but there are a lot of false starts, dead ends, and cruft along the way, because the process is undirected.


Did you ever read "Ant Fugue" by Douglas Hofstadter? You can find it in both "The Mind's I" and "Godel Escher Bach."

Pure fantasy, of course -- Hofstadter envisions ants as coming together to form a "brain" at a higher level of functionality which is composed of ants does not communicate or have awareness of the ants. But still, one of the coolest analogies for the mind that I've ever seen.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, I've read "Ant Fugue" - "Godel, Escher, Bach" is one of my favorite books.

The mind of course is another emergent phenomenon, though you'll never convince a theist who thinks there's something supernatural about the mind.

- Gus
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
GusSmed wrote:
The mind of course is another emergent phenomenon, though you'll never convince a theist who thinks there's something supernatural about the mind.

On a small tangent...

It's worth considering why brain cells are never replaced - memory would be dependent (directly or indirectly) on the wiring of the brain cells, but nature's never found a way to replace a brain cell with identical (or functionally equivalent) wiring. So replacing brain cells would be at the expense of memory.
Print the post Back To Top