Fabric of Reality Book Club

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #2230 and its comments.

See full discussion·See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik Orrje, 9 days ago·#2031

How do you think of "problems" for genes?

Dirk Meulenbelt’s avatar
Dirk Meulenbelt, 6 days ago·#2149

I don't think a gene has problems. It does not have ideas.

Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 6 days ago·#2151

A gene doesn’t have problems in any conscious sense, but it always faces the problem of how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals.

Maybe that answers your question, Erik.

Criticism of #2149
Dirk Meulenbelt’s avatar
Dirk Meulenbelt, 6 days ago·#2152

How could we integrate that vision with Popper's definition (paraphrased): a tension, inconsistency, or unmet explanatory demand that arises when a theory clashes with observations, background assumptions, or rival theories, thereby calling for conjectural solutions and critical tests.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 6 days ago·#2153

The rival theories and clashes sound like competition between genes – or more precisely, between the theories those genes embody.

Basically, genes contain guesses (in a non-subjective sense) for how to spread through the population at the expense of their rivals. Those guesses are met with selection pressure and competition.

Dirk Meulenbelt’s avatar
Dirk Meulenbelt, 6 days ago·#2154

Dirk approves of your comment.

Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik Orrje, 5 days ago·#2190

Yeah, thanks! Are ideas also guesses of how to survive in the mind and across substrates, or is there more to ideas?

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 5 days ago·#2200

In the neo-Darwinian view, any replicator’s primary ‘concern’ is how to spread through the population at the expense of its rivals. This view is what Dawkins (IIRC) calls the gene’s eye view, and it applies to ideas as much as it does to genes. Any adaptation of any replicator is primarily in service of this concern.

So I think the answer to your question, “Are ideas also guesses of how to survive in the mind and across substrates …?”, is ‘yes’.

Criticized2oustanding criticisms
Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik Orrje revised 1 day ago·#2271
Show idea #2231Show idea #22233rd of 3 versions leading to #2230 (3 total)

Most people (except in Alzheimer's, etc.) don't run out of memory in the brain. If there's no scarcity for the space of ideas, why do they have to compete?

Criticism of #2200
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 4 days ago·#2230

Since you’re a doctor, Erik, let me ask: is there a possibility Alzheimer’s could be explained in terms of bad software? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like the prevailing view is limited to bad hardware.

Criticized1oustanding criticism
Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik Orrje revised 1 day ago·#2272

Hmm never thought of that, interesting! I think since the disease involves continuous loss of brain volume, hardware decay seems like the best explanation.

In general I think it makes sense to speak of diseases in neurology (e.g. Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, stroke) as bad hardware and psychiatric disease as bad software. But it could very well be that some of those diagnoses are miscategorised.

Criticism of #2230
Dirk Meulenbelt’s avatar
Dirk Meulenbelt, 4 days ago·#2241

Not a doctor. But it's not hard for me to imagine untainted memory but a script with an error such that it can't manage to look up the information.

Criticized1oustanding criticism
Erik Orrje’s avatar
Erik Orrje revised 1 day ago·#2270

Yeah that's definitely a possible medical condition, e.g. in psychosis or after having ECT. Don't think it's the best explanation for Alzheimer's though, where the loss of brain volume is so apparent.

Criticism of #2241