3 ms·

> Ultimately patterns (atoms, cells, people, societies, whatever) organize by efficiency, by how well they reduce energy gradients across time You'd probably l

> Ultimately patterns (atoms, cells, people, societies, whatever) organize by efficiency, by how well they reduce energy gradients across time You'd probably like the Selfish Gene by Dawkins. He makes a strong case that societies evolve very differently from cells/species. Edit: Thought I'd provide an example. Suppose there is a herd of animals hunted by a predator. Imagine it was possible for a single member of the herd (maybe the oldest/weakest) to sacrifice itself and save the rest of the herd from taking additional casualties. From the perspective of the herd, it's the best option for longterm survival, "reducing energy gradients", as you say. However, that would not happen. You generally don't see animals purposely sacrificing themselves for the good of the larger group. There are some exceptions (e.g. bees) but Dawkins very convincingly argues it's not for the good of the group.

Radim 8y ago
This smells of false dichotomy. Does a suicide terrorist choose to die for his individual "good" (sic), or for his ideology = the "group good"? In reality, an "individual" and his social context are inseparable. You and your environment are one, the separation is entirely linguistic, devised by that talking homunculus between your ears. "Individual" and "society" are just words that suppress some nuances of physical reality in favour of a more actionable world representation; a useful skill that evolved over time, not a fundamental property of the universe. Physically speaking, there's no such thing as a gene, animal or society: they're useful language abstractions, simplified models of the world that exist in your brain and that we learned to encode/decode across brains. You don't even need suicide terrorists to illustrate this non-separation. Why do individuals (genes, animals, societies, whatever) die at all? Wouldn't you choose to live forever, instead of dying on the altar of "reproduction and evolution"? Who gives a shit about evolution, at their own level of survival? And yet, as far as we know, all individuals go out of business, across all levels of complexity. Death is a strange "unselfish choice" they all make, if you accept this artificial separation. It's precisely your "a single member of the herd (maybe the oldest/weakest) to sacrifice itself and save the rest of the herd from taking additional casualties"! It's the same principle in action. From the universal perspective, the "herd" is a net decrease in free energy, and something's gotta give for the show to go on. They must all obey the laws of thermodynamics. In order to increase entropy over ever larger spans of space and time, local pockets of orderliness have evolved that we call life (matter, culture, whatever). These pockets trade a local temporary decrease in entropy for a long-term global increase, cf Maxwell's demon. A global net acceleration, rather than an exception.
- 3minus1 8y ago
  All I can say is read the book and decide for yourself. You seem interested in these kind of questions about life and energy in the universe and personally the book blew my mind. Btw, he does talk about suicide terrorists in the book and how it relates to his thesis.

Radim 8y ago

This smells of false dichotomy. Does a suicide terrorist choose to die for his individual "good" (sic), or for his ideology = the "group good"? In reality, an "individual" and his social context are inseparable. You and your environment are one, the separation is entirely linguistic, devised by that talking homunculus between your ears. "Individual" and "society" are just words that suppress some nuances of physical reality in favour of a more actionable world representation; a useful skill that evolved over time, not a fundamental property of the universe. Physically speaking, there's no such thing as a gene, animal or society: they're useful language abstractions, simplified models of the world that exist in your brain and that we learned to encode/decode across brains. You don't even need suicide terrorists to illustrate this non-separation. Why do individuals (genes, animals, societies, whatever) die at all? Wouldn't you choose to live forever, instead of dying on the altar of "reproduction and evolution"? Who gives a shit about evolution, at their own level of survival? And yet, as far as we know, all individuals go out of business, across all levels of complexity. Death is a strange "unselfish choice" they all make, if you accept this artificial separation. It's precisely your "a single member of the herd (maybe the oldest/weakest) to sacrifice itself and save the rest of the herd from taking additional casualties"! It's the same principle in action. From the universal perspective, the "herd" is a net decrease in free energy, and something's gotta give for the show to go on. They must all obey the laws of thermodynamics. In order to increase entropy over ever larger spans of space and time, local pockets of orderliness have evolved that we call life (matter, culture, whatever). These pockets trade a local temporary decrease in entropy for a long-term global increase, cf Maxwell's demon. A global net acceleration, rather than an exception.

3minus1 8y ago
All I can say is read the book and decide for yourself. You seem interested in these kind of questions about life and energy in the universe and personally the book blew my mind. Btw, he does talk about suicide terrorists in the book and how it relates to his thesis.