cousin_it comments on Open Thread, September 23-29, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (261)
Ilya Shkrob's In The Beginning is an attempt to reconcile science and religion. It's the best such attempt that I've seen, better than I thought possible. If you enjoy "guru" writers like Eliezer or Moldbug, you might enjoy this too.
Is there a summary available?
I haven't found one, so I'll try to summarize here:
"Prokaryotic life probably came to Earth from somewhere else. It was successful and made Earth into a finely tuned paradise. (A key point here is the role of life in preserving liquid water, but there are many other points, the author is a scientist and likes to point out improbable coincidences.) Then a tragic accident caused individualistic eukaryotic life to appear, which led to much suffering and death. Evolution is not directionless, its goal is to correct the mistake and invent a non-individualistic way of life for eukaryotes. Multicellularity and human society are intermediate steps to that goal. The ultimate goal is to spread life, but spreading individualistic life would be bad, the mistake has to be corrected first. Humans have a chance to help with that process, but aren't intended to see the outcome."
The details of the text are more interesting than the main idea, though.
Hold on, is he trying to imply that prokaryotes aren't competitive? Not only does all single-celled life compete, it competes at a much faster pace than multicellular life does.
Yeah, I know. I don't agree with the text, but I think it's interesting anyway.
What makes it interesting?
Based on that summary, I'd say that it's interesting because it draws on enough real science to be superficially plausible, while appealing to enough emotional triggers to make people want to believe in it enough that they'll be ready to ignore any inconsistencies.
Superficially plausible: Individuals being selfish and pursuing their own interest above that of others is arguably the main source of suffering among humans, and you can easily generalize the argument to the biosphere as a whole. Superorganisms are indeed quite successful due to their ability to suppress individualism, as are multi-celled creatures in general. Humans do seem to have a number of adaptations that make them more successful by reducing individualistic tendencies, and it seems plausible to claim that even larger superorganisms with more effective such adaptations could become the dominant power on Earth. If one thinks that there is a general trend of more sophisticated superorganisms being more successful and powerful, then the claim that "evolution is not directionless" also starts to sound plausible. The "humans have a chance to help with that process but aren't intended to see the outcome" is also plausible in this context, since a true intelligent superorganism would probably be very different from humanity.
"Evolution leads to more complex/intelligent creatures and humans are on top of the hierarchy" is an existing and widely believed meme that similarly created a narrative that put humans on top of the existing order, and this draws on that older meme in two ways: it feels plausible and appealing for many of the same reasons why the older meme was plausible, and anyone who already believed in the old meme will be more inclined to see this as a natural extension of the old one.
Emotional triggers: It constructs a powerful narrative of progress that places humans at the top of the current order, while also appealing to values related to altruism and sacrificing oneself for a greater whole, and providing a way to believe that things are purposeful and generally evolving towards the better.
The notion of a vast superorganism that will one day surpass and replace humanity also has the features of vastness and incomprehensibility, two features which Keltner and Haidt claim form the heart of prototypical cases of awe:
The more I think of it, the more impressive the whole thing starts to feel like, in the "memeplex that seems very effectively optimized for spreading and gaining loyal supporters" sense.
I'd add slow-to-moderated paced, low-pitched sounds to the list of vastness indicators.
I'm not sure about music with fast heavy bass rhythm, though that may also be a sort of vastness.
I like this. Like all good religion, it's an idea which feels true and profound but is also clearly preposterous.
It reminds me of some concepts in animes I liked, like the Human Instrumentality Project in Neon Genesis Evangelion and the Ragnarok Connection in Code Geass.
Sounds like an attempt to reconcile, not science and religion in general, but specifically science and the Christian concepts of the Fall and original sin; or possibly some sort of Gnosticism.
(Aleister Crowley made similar remarks about individuality as a disease of life in The Book of Lies, but didn't go so far as to attribute it to eukaryotes.)
Well the relevant story (God banishing Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden) is in Genesis, so it's in the Torah as well. Gnostics considered the Fall a good thing--it freed humanity from the Demiurge's control.
Holy crap that's easily the stupidest thing I've read this week.
Downvoted for insult + not giving a reason.