Advertisement

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 479–498 | Cite as

The Evolution of Shared Concepts in Changing Populations

  • Jungkyu Park
  • Sean Tauber
  • Kimberly A. JamesonEmail author
  • Louis Narens
Article

Abstract

The evolution of color categorization systems is investigated by simulating categorization games played by a population of artificial agents. The constraints placed on individual agent’s perception and cognition are minimal and involve limited color discriminability and learning through reinforcement. The main dynamic mechanism for population evolution is pragmatic in nature: There is a pragmatic need for communication between agents, and if the results of such communications have positive consequences in their shared world then the agents involved are positively rewarded, whereas if the results have negative consequences, then involved agents are punished. A mechanism for changing the composition of the population due to agents’ birth and death is also investigated. This birth-death mechanism is found to effectively move an established population color naming system toward a theoretically more optimal one. The simulation results of this article provide insights regarding mechanisms that may constrain universal tendencies in human color categorization systems observed in the linguistic and anthropological literatures.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by The National Science Foundation 2014-2018 (#SMA-1416907, K.A. Jameson, PI), and by an award from the University of California Irvine Multidisciplinary Design Program Award to J. Park. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

13164_2018_420_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (284 kb)
(PDF 283 KB)

References

  1. Albert, R., and A.-L. Barabási. 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics 74: 47–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R., and R.A. Hammond. 2003. The evolution of ethnocentric behavior. Paper presented at midwest political science convention, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  3. Baronchelli, A., T. Gong, A. Puglisi, and V. Loreto. 2010. Modeling the emergence of universality in color naming patterns. PNAS 107(6): 2403–2407.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908533107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belpaeme, T. 2015. Color category learning in naming-game simulations. Encyclopedia of color science and technology, eds. Jameson K. and Ronnier Luo. Berlin, Springer. ISBN: 978-3-642-27851-8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27851-8.
  5. Belpaeme, T., and J. Bleys. 2005. Explaining universal color categories through a constrained acquisition process. Adaptive Behavior 13: 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlin, B., and P. Kay. 1969. Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bimler, D. 2015. Psychological color space and color terms. Encyclopedia of color science and technology, eds. Jameson K. and Ronnier Luo. Berlin, Springer. ISBN: 978-3-642-27851-8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27851-8.
  8. Börgers, T., and R. Sarin. 1997. Learning through reinforcement and replicator dynamics. Journal of Economic Theory 77: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farnsworth, D. 1949/1957. The Farnsworth-Munsell 100 hue test for the examination of color vision. Baltimore: Munsell Color Company.Google Scholar
  10. Gladstone, W.E. 1858. Studies on Homer and the Homeric age. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gooyabadi, M., and K. Joe. 2018. ColorSims 2.0: an extension to the python package for evolving linguistic color naming conventions applied to a population of agents. IMBS Technical report series, MBS 18-02, Institute for mathematical behavioral sciences.Google Scholar
  12. Hardin, C.L. 2013. Berlin & Kay theory. Encyclopedia of color science and technology. New York: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  13. Indow, T., and A.K. Romney. 2008. Reflectance spectra of Munsell standard chips and their appearance. Color Research & Application 33: 229–237.  https://doi.org/10.1002/col.20406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jameson, K., and R.G D’andrade. 1997. It’s not really red, green, yellow, blue: an inquiry into cognitive color space. Color categories in thought and language, eds. Hardin C.L. and Maffi L., 295–318. England, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jameson, K.A., and N.L. Komarova. 2009. Evolutionary models of color categorization. I. Population categorization systems based on normal and dichromat observers. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 26(6): 1414–1423. Reprinted in The Virtual Journal of Biomedical Optics, 4(8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jameson, K.A., and N.L. Komarova. 2009. Evolutionary models of color categorization. II. Realistic observer models and population heterogeneity. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 26(6): 1424–1436. Reprinted in The Virtual Journal of Biomedical Optics, 4(8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kay, P., and R. Cook. 2015. World color survey. Encyclopedia of color science and technology, eds. Jameson K. and Ronnier Luo. Berlin, Springer. ISBN: 978-3-642-27851-8. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-27851-8.Google Scholar
  18. Kay, P., and T. Regier. 2003. Resolving the question of color naming universals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100: 9085–9089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kay, P., B. Berlin, and W.R. Merrifield. 1991. Biocultural implications of systems of color naming. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 1.1: 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kay, P., B. Berlin, L. Maffi, W.R. Merrifield, and R. Cook. 2009. The world color survey. Stanford: CSLI. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/wcs/data.html.
  21. Komarova, N.L., and K.A. Jameson. 2008. Population heterogeneity and color stimulus heterogeneity in agent based color categorization. Journal of Theoretical Biology 253: 680–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Komarova, N.L., K.A. Jameson, and Narens L. 2007. Evolutionary models of color categorization based on discrimination. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 51: 359–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. 1969. Convention. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lindsey, D.T., Angela M., and A.M. Brown. 2006. Universality of color names. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103: 16608–16613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mantere, K., J. Parkkinen, M. Mäntyjärvi, and T. Jaaskelainen. 1995. Eigenvector interpretation of the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-hue test. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 12: 2237–2243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maynard Smith, J., and D. Harper. 2003. Animal signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mesoudi, A., and A. Whiten. 2008. The multiple roles of cultural transmission experiments in understanding human cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 363(1509): 3489–501.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Narens, L., K.A. Jameson, N.L. Komarova, and S. Tauber. 2012. Language categorization and convention. Advances in Complex Systems 15:(03n04).Google Scholar
  29. Quine, W.V. 1936. Truth by convention. Philosophical essays for A.N. Whitehead, ed. Lee O.H. New York, Longmans.Google Scholar
  30. Quine, W.V. 1961. Two dogmas of empiricism. From a logical point of view, ed. W.V. Quine, 20–46. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Quine, W.V. 1963. Carnap and logical truth. The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, ed. P.A. Schilipp, 385–406. LaSalle, Open Court.Google Scholar
  32. Regier, T., P. Kay, and N. Khetarpal. 2007. Color naming reflects optimal partitions of color space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 1436–1441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Regier, T., P. Kay, and R.S. Cook. 2005. Focal colors are universal after all. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 8386–8391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roberson, D., I.R.L. Davies, and J. Davidoff. 2000. Color categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 129: 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberson, D., I.R. Davies, G.G. Corbett, and M. Vandervyver. 2005. Free-sorting of colors across cultures: Are there universal grounds for grouping? Journal of Cognition and Culture 5.3: 349–386.Google Scholar
  36. Romney, A.K. 2008. Relating reflectance spectra space to Munsell color appearance space. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A 25: 658–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Skyrms, B. 1996. Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Skyrms, B. 2004. The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Skyrms, B. 2010. Signals evolution, learning, & information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tamariz, M. 2017. Experimental studies on the cultural evolution of language. Annual Review of Linguistics 3(1): 389–407.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tauber, S. 2015. Colorsims: a python package for evolving linguistic color naming conventions within a population of simulated agents. University of California, Irvine. Institute for mathematical behavioral sciences, technical report series. #MBS 15–01.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer ScienceUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Mathematical Behavioral SciencesUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  3. 3.Cognitive SciencesUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations