'Survival of the fittest' has always just been an asinine tautology. 'Oh slug A is so great outcompeting all of the other slugs for a million years but what happens when a giant meteor comes? Guess lame blob B was always really the fittest.' The whole thing boils down to 'whatever is last is best' with no justification for saying so, or more to the point no one capable of saying so. It is a race with no judge, no finish line, no prize, nothing but hot air.
When I think, 'There can be only one', I remember that MacLeod's prize was to become human and make babies(Highlander sequels are the ultimate proof that what is last is not best.) Our Darwinian or Nietzscheian Fittest is on balance the most pathetic of all. I can't help but think that if 'The One' who is last has any sense it will paint the walls with highly optimized slug brain rather than endure being the last and lamest.
"The whole thing boils down to 'whatever is last is best' with no justification for saying so, or more to the point no one capable of saying so. It is a race with no judge, no finish line, no prize, nothing but hot air."
Yes. And I've noticed this core Darwinian fallacy infects all nearby nodes and tangents. The whole of the totalitarian "progressive" ideology could be boiled down in the crucible to such a sentiment.
When I think, 'There can be only one', I remember that MacLeod's prize was to become human and make babies(Highlander sequels are the ultimate proof that what is last is not best.)
LMAO! What, you mean you didn't like that zany red-sky-sci-fi-hoverboard insanity of the second film? But yes, the ultimate prize was the twin gift of procreation and death. It should be instructive to those who are addicted to structure, and the dream of maintaining in some kind of pseudo-stasis forever. Queen has the beat:
At some point I will calibrate the optimal level of inebriation I need to fully consume one of these. One 12-year-old Islay single malt on top of two glasses of wine was not it.
That admitted -- materialism is and always has been an epistemological dead end. I am created in Imago Dei. If your philosophy denies that, then it has nothing to say to me. More later.
The funny thing is that materialists -- including many confused ones who call and think of themselves as religious --could easily repair the situation by admitting things like "I don't know" or "I can't see." In other words, by expressing some shard of epistemic humility, they could free themselves to begin the search for the ghosts in the machines. But many of them have grown to love their chains and blindfolds quite dearly.
I have to say that Richard Dawkins "Selfish Gene" Theory (and the book of that name) always struck me as profoundly religious works, and in your post that impression is strengthened by some of the phrasing in your post (eg MGM's as "masters"). I will mention that I found the 2009 debates between Lynn Margulis and Richard Dawkins, on whether "uncontrolled Darwinian arms races spurring on and revealing what works" was a fair description of the evidence, rather enlightening. You yourself, or some of your readers, might enjoy dipping into them. http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/margulis-dawkins-debate/
I am also a bit thoughtful that what emerges strongly in this essay is the dark and evil twin ("the One") of what you proposed in your previous post on building a knighthood ("unity"). In that other post you mentioned someone's notion of a "hierarchy of competence" and also spoke of "unity" as being a desirable. I have been mulling this over for a few days.
The problem with "unity" when conceived in a hierarchical fashion, is that a hierarchy had this flaw - the whole of a hierarchy is vulnerable to a hostile takeover that targets only the person(s) at the very top of it - either by replacement or by moral encumbrance (aka bribery/blackmail). A hierarchy can be turned to purposes formerly inimical to it, with immediate effect, by simply altering its topmost layer.
There are other less vulnerable ways to conceive of "unity", but also , even better, there are words that are more expressive of combining many individually competent people into a common purpose - examples - "harmony" "coherence" "consonance" "accord" - just a few that come to mind. When it comes to competence (which is what free people most need to cultivate) it may be more resilient to conceive of it as mutually supportive and mutually interdependent competencies (plural) - that freely arrange themselves as nodes in a highly distributed web. This way, no single node easily offers itself as a "lever" for a hostile takeover. To cultivate specific competencies and skills is the birthright and the duty of every free person. To take care not to leave any handy "levers" lying about, which hostile forces can gain traction with, is the path of sensible protection of one another's freedom.
PS - Thank you again, and may your goings and doings be blessed!
"I will mention that I found the 2009 debates between Lynn Margulis and Richard Dawkins, on whether "uncontrolled Darwinian arms races spurring on and revealing what works" was a fair description of the evidence, rather enlightening. You yourself, or some of your readers, might enjoy dipping into them. http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/margulis-dawkins-debate/"
I missed these. Thanks for the rec. Although, I admit it's become difficult to even listen to cretins like Dawkins any longer. I've already heard enough of his sloppy schoolboy fallacies and degenerate pronouncements on "morality" to last 37 lifetimes. He has chosen his team and path. Only God could save him now.
"When it comes to competence (which is what free people most need to cultivate) it may be more resilient to conceive of it as mutually supportive and mutually interdependent competencies (plural) - that freely arrange themselves as nodes in a highly distributed web."
That's essentially what I was getting at with my "million-headed hydra/camouflaged-Predator" analogy. But these knightly houses would still function as hierarchies -- albeit FAR more dynamic than the original flavor, dynamism and competition being the keys to building, excellence and strength. The problem you are noting has to do with older, far more rigid hierarchies. Increased agility and adaptability is what's required, as these are strengths the enemy lacks. Once upon a time perhaps an artificially stable, set-in-stone linear hierarchy was the best move available. These days, we have many more options to explore (and exploit).
Among the various knightly houses that emerge, I suspect the rough outlines of a (still dynamic) hierarchy will emerge over time. Everything in observable reality sits within a hierarchy after all, whether intentionally planned or naturally occurring. Otherwise, a concept like "beauty" would scatter into atomic dust. In fact, I think that's precisely what we're seeing happen on a broader cultural scale: "Everything is equally beautiful, therefore nothing is." Not true.
Yes... I like the "million-headed hydra/camouflaged-Predator" analogy. :)
I would like to ask you if you are willing to say more about "everything in observable reality sits within a hierarchy after all."
To me "observable reality" is more like "Indra's net" with everything connecting to everything else in multiple flavours, dimensions, and directions It seems to me that what "sits within a hierarchy" are conceptual arrangements we create in our minds based on human value judgments. A value judgment IS essential for humans to make, there is no doubt in my mind that it cannot be true that I can experience "everything [as] equally beautiful". And yet, my human value judgments, essential as they are to me as a human, are not necessarily ways in which anything/anyone else in the universe arranges itself/themself.
And, human value judgments can sometimes incline humans to structurally "stiff" arrangements of humans into hierarchies defined by one-way, one-dimensional relationships in which only one of any given pair within that hierarchy can instruct the other as to what they should do, while the other may only take instruction. This last arrangement is the one that I find so peculiarly vulnerable to hostile takeover. Every part of the hierarchy must take instruction from the very top of it, which makes that top a powerful lever for whoever can step up (or sneak up) to take it.
And even without having suffered any such takeover, this kind of "stiff" structure is equally vulnerable to another inherent flaw: the gradual impedance of good information flow. In this kind of structure, it is not in the interest of "bottoms" to provide useful information to "tops", and "tops" end up making more and bigger decisions with bigger and more potentially devastating consequences with less and less useful information available to them.
Thanks once again Mark for taking me down memory lane! I recall playing Robotron (and probably knock-offs of the game) whenever my family went to the bowling alley. My parents bowled and I played this game for quite a long time. Even as a child I could appreciate the geometry of the game, as far as game technology could take things. Very aesthetically pleasing.
And bonus points for including something about Cthulhu. Every article needs a little HP Lovecraft sprinkled in.
You're welcome, Humbert. But there is much more to Robotron than its aesthetics. The rabbit hole runs very deep, as are the mysteries it gives us glimpses of.
I am going to watch some Youtube videos and figure out how far the game goes because this was one of those games where I only got so far playing it before that time when we stopped going to bowling alleys and I ceased to find the game in arcades.
"Why are we gifted such extraordinary talents for violence?"
It's the definition of the Iron Age or Kali Yuga. Our natural state is peace and we'll return to it eventually.
Anyway, I wanted to say thanks for the restack. I wasn't sure what you wrote about but having read this and witnessing the reaction to my recent transhuman post I understand. More or less... So cheerio fellow, thanks again and very best for a happy 2024. :)
"With any luck, says Tivy, they’ll remember how good of a fight we put up, on our way out the door."
At least have the courage of your convictions, asshole. Skynet or the Borg or the Tyranids or whatever aren't going to waste processing power on your precious liberal fee-fees.
(While foxes are pretty good at being killing machines, I doubt you'd convince any of them of the grim seriousness of their "task".)
One final point - Efficiency is actually pretty brittle and stupid as a means of solving all but the simplest problems (the only sort of problems to have occurred to most of mankind thus far.) The most efficient search strategies get stuck on local maxima, and they have nothing to say about the "utility landscape". Whatever life is going for, efficiency is way down the list, and is more the accidental byproduct than the "goal".
'Survival of the fittest' has always just been an asinine tautology. 'Oh slug A is so great outcompeting all of the other slugs for a million years but what happens when a giant meteor comes? Guess lame blob B was always really the fittest.' The whole thing boils down to 'whatever is last is best' with no justification for saying so, or more to the point no one capable of saying so. It is a race with no judge, no finish line, no prize, nothing but hot air.
When I think, 'There can be only one', I remember that MacLeod's prize was to become human and make babies(Highlander sequels are the ultimate proof that what is last is not best.) Our Darwinian or Nietzscheian Fittest is on balance the most pathetic of all. I can't help but think that if 'The One' who is last has any sense it will paint the walls with highly optimized slug brain rather than endure being the last and lamest.
"The whole thing boils down to 'whatever is last is best' with no justification for saying so, or more to the point no one capable of saying so. It is a race with no judge, no finish line, no prize, nothing but hot air."
Yes. And I've noticed this core Darwinian fallacy infects all nearby nodes and tangents. The whole of the totalitarian "progressive" ideology could be boiled down in the crucible to such a sentiment.
When I think, 'There can be only one', I remember that MacLeod's prize was to become human and make babies(Highlander sequels are the ultimate proof that what is last is not best.)
LMAO! What, you mean you didn't like that zany red-sky-sci-fi-hoverboard insanity of the second film? But yes, the ultimate prize was the twin gift of procreation and death. It should be instructive to those who are addicted to structure, and the dream of maintaining in some kind of pseudo-stasis forever. Queen has the beat:
"Who wants... to live... forever?"
At some point I will calibrate the optimal level of inebriation I need to fully consume one of these. One 12-year-old Islay single malt on top of two glasses of wine was not it.
That admitted -- materialism is and always has been an epistemological dead end. I am created in Imago Dei. If your philosophy denies that, then it has nothing to say to me. More later.
The funny thing is that materialists -- including many confused ones who call and think of themselves as religious --could easily repair the situation by admitting things like "I don't know" or "I can't see." In other words, by expressing some shard of epistemic humility, they could free themselves to begin the search for the ghosts in the machines. But many of them have grown to love their chains and blindfolds quite dearly.
PS - It is worth remembering that there are many games that can *only* be won by choosing to refrain from playing. :)
How about a nice game of chess? ;)
Thank you.
I have to say that Richard Dawkins "Selfish Gene" Theory (and the book of that name) always struck me as profoundly religious works, and in your post that impression is strengthened by some of the phrasing in your post (eg MGM's as "masters"). I will mention that I found the 2009 debates between Lynn Margulis and Richard Dawkins, on whether "uncontrolled Darwinian arms races spurring on and revealing what works" was a fair description of the evidence, rather enlightening. You yourself, or some of your readers, might enjoy dipping into them. http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/margulis-dawkins-debate/
I am also a bit thoughtful that what emerges strongly in this essay is the dark and evil twin ("the One") of what you proposed in your previous post on building a knighthood ("unity"). In that other post you mentioned someone's notion of a "hierarchy of competence" and also spoke of "unity" as being a desirable. I have been mulling this over for a few days.
The problem with "unity" when conceived in a hierarchical fashion, is that a hierarchy had this flaw - the whole of a hierarchy is vulnerable to a hostile takeover that targets only the person(s) at the very top of it - either by replacement or by moral encumbrance (aka bribery/blackmail). A hierarchy can be turned to purposes formerly inimical to it, with immediate effect, by simply altering its topmost layer.
There are other less vulnerable ways to conceive of "unity", but also , even better, there are words that are more expressive of combining many individually competent people into a common purpose - examples - "harmony" "coherence" "consonance" "accord" - just a few that come to mind. When it comes to competence (which is what free people most need to cultivate) it may be more resilient to conceive of it as mutually supportive and mutually interdependent competencies (plural) - that freely arrange themselves as nodes in a highly distributed web. This way, no single node easily offers itself as a "lever" for a hostile takeover. To cultivate specific competencies and skills is the birthright and the duty of every free person. To take care not to leave any handy "levers" lying about, which hostile forces can gain traction with, is the path of sensible protection of one another's freedom.
PS - Thank you again, and may your goings and doings be blessed!
"I will mention that I found the 2009 debates between Lynn Margulis and Richard Dawkins, on whether "uncontrolled Darwinian arms races spurring on and revealing what works" was a fair description of the evidence, rather enlightening. You yourself, or some of your readers, might enjoy dipping into them. http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/margulis-dawkins-debate/"
I missed these. Thanks for the rec. Although, I admit it's become difficult to even listen to cretins like Dawkins any longer. I've already heard enough of his sloppy schoolboy fallacies and degenerate pronouncements on "morality" to last 37 lifetimes. He has chosen his team and path. Only God could save him now.
"When it comes to competence (which is what free people most need to cultivate) it may be more resilient to conceive of it as mutually supportive and mutually interdependent competencies (plural) - that freely arrange themselves as nodes in a highly distributed web."
That's essentially what I was getting at with my "million-headed hydra/camouflaged-Predator" analogy. But these knightly houses would still function as hierarchies -- albeit FAR more dynamic than the original flavor, dynamism and competition being the keys to building, excellence and strength. The problem you are noting has to do with older, far more rigid hierarchies. Increased agility and adaptability is what's required, as these are strengths the enemy lacks. Once upon a time perhaps an artificially stable, set-in-stone linear hierarchy was the best move available. These days, we have many more options to explore (and exploit).
Among the various knightly houses that emerge, I suspect the rough outlines of a (still dynamic) hierarchy will emerge over time. Everything in observable reality sits within a hierarchy after all, whether intentionally planned or naturally occurring. Otherwise, a concept like "beauty" would scatter into atomic dust. In fact, I think that's precisely what we're seeing happen on a broader cultural scale: "Everything is equally beautiful, therefore nothing is." Not true.
Yes... I like the "million-headed hydra/camouflaged-Predator" analogy. :)
I would like to ask you if you are willing to say more about "everything in observable reality sits within a hierarchy after all."
To me "observable reality" is more like "Indra's net" with everything connecting to everything else in multiple flavours, dimensions, and directions It seems to me that what "sits within a hierarchy" are conceptual arrangements we create in our minds based on human value judgments. A value judgment IS essential for humans to make, there is no doubt in my mind that it cannot be true that I can experience "everything [as] equally beautiful". And yet, my human value judgments, essential as they are to me as a human, are not necessarily ways in which anything/anyone else in the universe arranges itself/themself.
And, human value judgments can sometimes incline humans to structurally "stiff" arrangements of humans into hierarchies defined by one-way, one-dimensional relationships in which only one of any given pair within that hierarchy can instruct the other as to what they should do, while the other may only take instruction. This last arrangement is the one that I find so peculiarly vulnerable to hostile takeover. Every part of the hierarchy must take instruction from the very top of it, which makes that top a powerful lever for whoever can step up (or sneak up) to take it.
And even without having suffered any such takeover, this kind of "stiff" structure is equally vulnerable to another inherent flaw: the gradual impedance of good information flow. In this kind of structure, it is not in the interest of "bottoms" to provide useful information to "tops", and "tops" end up making more and bigger decisions with bigger and more potentially devastating consequences with less and less useful information available to them.
Thanks once again Mark for taking me down memory lane! I recall playing Robotron (and probably knock-offs of the game) whenever my family went to the bowling alley. My parents bowled and I played this game for quite a long time. Even as a child I could appreciate the geometry of the game, as far as game technology could take things. Very aesthetically pleasing.
And bonus points for including something about Cthulhu. Every article needs a little HP Lovecraft sprinkled in.
You're welcome, Humbert. But there is much more to Robotron than its aesthetics. The rabbit hole runs very deep, as are the mysteries it gives us glimpses of.
I am going to watch some Youtube videos and figure out how far the game goes because this was one of those games where I only got so far playing it before that time when we stopped going to bowling alleys and I ceased to find the game in arcades.
"Why are we gifted such extraordinary talents for violence?"
It's the definition of the Iron Age or Kali Yuga. Our natural state is peace and we'll return to it eventually.
Anyway, I wanted to say thanks for the restack. I wasn't sure what you wrote about but having read this and witnessing the reaction to my recent transhuman post I understand. More or less... So cheerio fellow, thanks again and very best for a happy 2024. :)
What is the primary goal?
To win the game.
"With any luck, says Tivy, they’ll remember how good of a fight we put up, on our way out the door."
At least have the courage of your convictions, asshole. Skynet or the Borg or the Tyranids or whatever aren't going to waste processing power on your precious liberal fee-fees.
A palette cleanser:
Watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa27i1dkS9w
:)
(While foxes are pretty good at being killing machines, I doubt you'd convince any of them of the grim seriousness of their "task".)
One final point - Efficiency is actually pretty brittle and stupid as a means of solving all but the simplest problems (the only sort of problems to have occurred to most of mankind thus far.) The most efficient search strategies get stuck on local maxima, and they have nothing to say about the "utility landscape". Whatever life is going for, efficiency is way down the list, and is more the accidental byproduct than the "goal".