= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
billswift comments on Intelligence Explosion vs. Co-operative Explosion - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (61)
The analogies between biological and social evolution are limited. Not only does group selection work in social evolution, but social evolution is Lamarckian in that it retains acquired traits. So you need to be careful when reasoning from one to another; I think that is one reason people keep trying to "justify" group selection in biology.
The "new" group selection (e.g. here and here) works with both organic and cultural evolution.
Dogs pass on fleas they acquired during their lifespan to their offspring - much as humans pass on ideas they acquired during their lifespan to their offspring. Both the fleas and the ideas can mutate inside their hosts - and those changes are passed on as well.
The differences between organic and cultural evolution are thus frequently overstated. Critically, Darwinian evolutionary theory applies to both realms.
except it's more like viruses than flies: singificant amounts of evolution can hapen within a single host generation, and entirely different species can crospolinate if they end up within the same host.
Depends on yer memes - but sure, often more like viruses.
"Species" is one of the more tricky areas - if there's much interbreeding, then maybe it's not two species. It isn't just memes, though - bacteria and viruses exhibit this too, as you say.
Yea, I oversimplified a bit.
Isn't modern opinion that vanilla natural selection is also non-negligibly Lamarckian? (I suppose it's very possible that the sources I've read over-stated the Lamarckian factors.)