Shakespeare, Darwin, and the Monkeys

[email hidden] wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

There is a well known idea that if you could put billions of monkeys onto billions of typewriters,
and keep them typing away, then eventually, just by chance, they would produce the complete works
of Shakespeare.

Now that has always struck me as a cute idea, but not true, because I estimate the probability of
turning out several thousand characters in a specific order is vanishingly small, and would
therefore require more monkeys and typewriters than there are atoms in the universe. (I have not
actually made that calculation, however.)

Of course there are other difficulties which make that project impossible anyway, such as the
difficulty of getting the monkeys to cooperate, where to put all those typewriters, how to feed
them all, and how to get rid of all the monkey [censored]. You would also have to have computers
scanning all the output and comparing them with the known works of Shakespeare to see if they
actually did it. Hence it has always been clear to me that this is just a fantasy.

But recently I had the thunderous realization that this experiment has already actually been
performed! And what is more, the monkeys succeeded, eventually producing the complete works of
Shakespeare! Furthermore, the typewriters were not even necessary. The monkeys fed themselves and
took care of their own housekeeping. They mostly had fun performing this experiment, even though
it took many millions of years. Their primary tools were their reproductive organs, which they
generally enjoy using.

By now, dear reader, you have probably figured out that I'm referring to the process of evolution,
acting on the primates of 100 million years ago. To call them monkeys is not exactly accurate;
they were the precursors of today's apes, monkey, and humans. But one of their descendants, all by
himself, produced the complete works of Shakespeare. He was, of course, William Shakespeare.

Soon afterwards, the same process produced the typewriter!

Dawkins has already used the monkey example to illustrate evolution in "Climbing Mount Improbable",
IIRC. His point was not exactly the same as yours - he was showing that if you started off with
monkey babble, but then chose only those monkey passages that resembled Shakespeare (his stand-in
for selection), and proceeded with additional random variations on the Shakespearean-like passages,
you could produce Shakespeare (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) in a much shorter period of time
than with random monkeys.

But actually a far more interesting take on this can be found in Daniel Dennett's "Darwins Dangerous
Idea", in the chapter that is a takeoff on Borges conceit of the Library of Babel. This combines
Borges' rather mind-boggling conception of infinite infinitesimal variation on a literary theme with
the idea of how evolution can explore many possibilities to arrive at masterpieces such as
Shakespeare. Since you seem to have independently realized several of these concepts (I myself am
good at realizing concepts - after others have pointed them out to me), I think you might enjoy
Dennett's take on them.

Yours,

Bill Morse

William Morse wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Dawkins has already used the monkey example to illustrate evolution in "Climbing Mount
Improbable", IIRC. His point was not exactly the same as yours - he was showing that if you
started off with monkey babble, but then chose only those monkey passages that resembled
Shakespeare (his stand-in for selection), and proceeded with additional random variations on the
Shakespearean-like passages, you could produce Shakespeare (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) in
a much shorter period of time than with random monkeys.

This would cause monkey talk (which is purposeful and goal directed) to evolve a literary capacity
as well. Maybe this actually happened, because a literary speech talent probably gives a selective
advantage in

<snip>

Mitchell Timin

--
"Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal." -
Friedrich Nietzsche

annevolve.sourceforge.netannevolve.sourceforge.netOpen ↗ is what I'm into nowadays. Humans may write to me at this address:
zenguy at shaw dot ca

<< But actually a far more interesting take on this can be found in Daniel Dennett's "Darwins
Dangerous Idea", in the chapter that is a takeoff on Borges conceit of the Library of Babel. This
combines Borges' rather mind-boggling conception of infinite infinitesimal variation on a literary
theme with the idea of how evolution can explore many possibilities to arrive at masterpieces such
as Shakespeare. >>

TH I think everything Shakespeare said or anyone says or does can be based on one of four basic
thoughts or goals or directions or life processes. I encourage anyone to try to find any Shakespeare
passage that doesn't fit in one of these 4 options:

1. doesn't have - but wants
2. doesn't have - but does not want

3. has - wants
4. has - doesn't want

And all these can be based on first life processes when a cell structure (outside the membrane,
inside the membrane) is set up. In essence everything of life can be reduced to 'food in/waste out'

TomHendricks474 said:

TH I think everything Shakespeare said or anyone says or does can be based on one of four basic
thoughts or goals or directions or life processes. I encourage anyone to try to find any
Shakespeare passage that doesn't fit in one of these 4 options:

1. doesn't have - but wants
2. doesn't have - but does not want

How about the need for self-esteem?

Virtually all psychologists recognize that man experiences a need of self-esteem. But what they
have not identified is the nature of self-esteem, the reasons why man need it, and the conditions
he must satisfy if he is to achieve it. Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only vaguely,
that there is some relationship between the degree of a man's self-esteem and the degree of his
mental health. But they have not identified the nature of that relationship, nor the causes of
it. Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only dimly, that there is some relationship between
the nature and degree of a man's self-esteem and his motivation,
i.e., his behavior in the spheres of work, love and human relationships. But they have not
explained why, nor identified the principle involved. (Nathaniel Branden).

PR

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There is a well known idea that if you could put billions of monkeys onto billions of typewriters,
and keep them typing away, then eventually, just by chance, they would produce the complete works
of Shakespeare. Now that has always struck me as a cute idea, but not true, because I estimate the
probability of turning out several thousand characters in a specific order is vanishingly small,
and would therefore require more monkeys and typewriters than there are atoms in the universe. (I
have not actually made that calculation, however.) < snip >

When yer right, yer right - this idea doesn't work as proponents might have guessed. I recalled a
recent experiment to investigate it, and a central problem was that that there was not an
appropriate degree of randomness with the monkeys - they tended to repetitively hit just a few keys
in similarly ordered patterns, as opposed to depth and breadth of keystrokes and keystroke
combinations needed to turn out anything meaningful. IIRC, the monkeys failed to produce "a single
word" (which presumabley meant something more complex than < a >.) Regards, Brett.

Quoted message said:

Mitchell Timin

--
"Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal." -
Friedrich Nietzsche

annevolve.sourceforge.netannevolve.sourceforge.netOpen ↗ is what I'm into nowadays. Humans may write to me at this
address: zenguy at shaw dot ca