The DOI matches its DataCite record.
A Tale of Two Animats: What does it take to have goals?
Open accessAbstract
What does it take for a system, biological or not, to have goals? Here, this question is approached in the context of in silico artificial evolution. By examining the informational and causal properties of artificial organisms ('animats') controlled by small, adaptive neural networks (Markov Brains), this essay discusses necessary requirements for intrinsic information, autonomy, and meaning. The focus lies on comparing two types of Markov Brains that evolved in the same simple environment: one with purely feedforward connections between its elements, the other with an integrated set of elements that causally constrain each other. While both types of brains 'process' information about their environment and are equally fit, only the integrated one forms a causally autonomous entity above a background of external influences. This suggests that to assess whether goals are meaningful for a system itself, it is important to understand what the system is, rather than what it does.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Systems with lower phi may be qualitatively different from systems with higher phi, being less capable of state-dependent adaptation-and thereby learning-which may drastically limit their intelligence and agency.
“Systems with lower phi may be qualitatively different from systems with higher phi (Albantakis, 2017; Albantakis and Tononi, 2019), being less capable of state-dependent adaptation—and thereby learning—which may drastically limit their intelligence and agency.”
From An Integrated World Modeling Theory (IWMT) of Consciousness (2020) · cites this paper as Albantakis, 2017
Section IV (pp. 4–5) distinguishes integrated systems from feedforward systems by their causal autonomy, but says the two example animats are equally intelligent by task fitness. Section V (p. 5) says integrated agents may be more flexible in complex, changing environments with limited resources. It does not establish that lower Φ reduces state-dependent learning or generally limits intelligence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [1]1. Schrödinger E (1992) What is Life?: With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches . Cambridge University Press.
- [12]12. Bateson G (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind . University of Chicago Press.
- [14]14. Pearl J (2000) Causality: models, reasoning and inference . Cambridge Univ Press.
- [17]17. Marshall W, Albantakis L, Tononi G (2016) Blackboxing and cause-effect power. arXiv 1608.03461 . · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Safron, A. (2020) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2020.00030 · Cited by 133
Metadata
- Authors
- Albantakis, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Albantakis, Larissa
- ORCID
- Albantakis, Larissa
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2017
- Pages
- 5-15
- ISSN
- 1612-3018 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1705.10854
- OpenAlex
- W2619677877
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 13.01
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- The frontiers collection (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Keywords
- animats, artificial evolution, adaptive neural networks, goal-directed behavior, intrinsic information, autonomy, meaning, artificial organisms, in silico evolution
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
