2 ms·
I think we're basically in violent agreement here. The only thing I would point out is that there is an asymmetry: reproduction can exist without playfulness (
by lisper 3y ago
I think we're basically in violent agreement here. The only thing I would point out is that there is an asymmetry: reproduction can exist without playfulness (I don't think bacteria do much playing). But playfulness cannot exist without reproduction. That's the reason I think it's fair to put reproduction in a more primary role.
- haswell 3y agoI guess I'm not sure what one is supposed to conclude about that asymmetry, or if it makes sense to compare reproduction and playfulness in that way. What is the primary role you're referring to? Existence can be fundamentally a lot of things. One isn't taking away from the other.
- lisper 3y agoI'm just saying that there's a hierarchy of emergent phenomena. At root everything is governed by the Schrodinger equation or something like that, but from that you get chemistry, and from chemistry you get biology, and from biology you get technology, and from technology you get Nintendo. Each of these are strictly dependent on the ones before in the list. You can't have chemistry without physics, you can't have biology without chemistry, you can't have technology without biology, and you can't have Nintendo without technology. But none of these are the "meaning of life", they are just the causes and ancillary effects of life.