Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:55:54.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A GLASS HALF-FULL: BRIAN SKYRMS'S SIGNALS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2012

Kim Sterelny
Kim Sterelny*
Affiliation:
Australian National University and Victoria University of Wellington, [email protected] or [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Brian Skyrms's Signals has the virtues familiar from his Evolution of the Social Contract (1996) and The Stag Hunt (2003). He begins with a very simple model of agents in interaction, and in a series of brief and beautifully clear chapters, this model and its successors are explored, elaborated, connected and illustrated through biological theory and the social sciences. Signals borrows its core model from David Lewis: it is Lewis's signalling game. In this game, two agents interact. One agent can observe which of two equi-probable states the world is in, but that agent cannot act directly and profitably on that information. However, the informed agent can act in a way that will be perceptually salient to a second agent: say, by raising a red or a green flag. The second agent does have the capacity to respond appropriately to each state of the world. If that second agent chooses the right option, given the state of the world, both are rewarded. If the second agent fails to choose the right action, neither are. Obviously, the two agents are best off if they have a practice in which the informed agent regularly chooses a distinct, salient cue in response to each of the two world states, and in which the powerful agent uses that cue to select the rewarding act. Less obviously, agents with simple trial and error learning capacities can learn to signal and respond: neither explicit negotiation nor cognitive sophistication are required. Likewise, if individual agents do not have the capacity to learn, but if they breed true but with some variation, the evolutionary version of trial and error learning can take a population to one of the signalling system equilibria.

Type
Critical notice
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 73 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Binmore, K. 1994. Game Theory and the Social Contract. Volume 1: Playing Fair. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. 1998. Game Theory and the Social Contract. Volume 2: Just Playing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bonner, J.T. 1998. Origins of multicellularity. Integrative Biology 1: 27–36.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calcott, B. 2008. The other cooperation problem: generating benefit. Biology and Philosophy 23: 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, D. and Seyfarth, R. 1990. How Monkeys See the World. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, J.T. 2006. The Other Insect Societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Danchin, E. and Luc-Alain, G. 2004. Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305 (July 23).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennett, D.C. 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 1996. Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2006. The strategy of model-based science. Biology and Philosophy 21: 725–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2009. Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies 143: 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. 1971. Geometry for the selfish herd. Journal of Theoretical Biology 31: 295–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, M. 1996. The Evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. and Dawkins, R. 1984. Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation. In Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, eds. Davies, N. and Krebs, J.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levins, R. 1966. The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist 54: 421–431.Google Scholar
Levy, A. Forthcoming. Game theory, indirect modeling and the origins of morality. Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1961. Cause and effect in biology. Science 134: 1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owren, M., Rendall, D. and Ryan, M. 2010. Redefining animal signaling: influence versus information in communication. Biology and Philosophy 25: 755–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Queller, D. and Strassmann, J.. 1998. Kin selection and the social insects. Biosciences 48: 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. 1996. The Evolution of the Social Contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. 2003. The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. 1984. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. R. and Hauser, M. 2004. Why be nice? Psychological constraints on the evolution of cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8: 60–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinbergen, N. 1963. On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 20: 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W.C. 2007. Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zahavi, A. and Zahavi, A. 1997. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar