Hacker News Reader

Comment by alexpetralia | Hacker News Reader

Yes I've long thought that the actual unit of evolution is not the gene but instead the "pattern". Genes are merely a conduit for information. Even through artificial selection, we can "select out" genes we don't want. What remains? What survives? A pattern.

View on HN

If I follow you, this is basically the notion of a "replicator" that Dawkins talked about at length (and maybe coined?) - if you haven't read The Selfish Gene, I recommend checking it out.

Yeah! I feel very similarly.

You might get a kick out of this post by a man who works adjacent to Sante Fe Institute folks. This guy takes it to the next level and makes you almost start to think of "non-living" things as "participating" in this dance of living with us as non-passive structural actors.

https://knowm.org/thermodynamic-computing/

> For example, the [mud hut] structure’s inhabitant (also a volatile structure), may use the structure as a residence. If the structure succeeds in protecting the inhabitant from the degrading effects of the environment then the inhabitant will be better able to conserve energy, which may be directed toward the repair of the structure. On the other hand, if the structure fails to increase the inhabitant’s ability to dissipate energy, for example by requiring the inhabitant to spend more time on its repair than on obtaining food and resources (free energy), then the structure can be seen as participating in its own destruction (2nd Law). In the event of death or sickness of the inhabitant, the structure will decay back into the homogeneous state from where it came.

I don't think we have fully grasped what information really is yet, almost like fish that have just become aware of the ocean. After finishing James Gleick's excellent The Information (mentioned recently on HN), I came away wanting more. There doesn't seem to be more because humans haven't figured it out yet.

Santa Fe Institute! Highly recommend the Complexity podcast. So much good stuff that all dovetails with Gleick's stuff <3

My recent favourite contained an analogy by researcher Sara Imari Walker, who had this great line about how "If you want to understand gravity, you look to black holes, since they're the densest known objects where gravity acts insanely strongly compared to all other forces. In the same way, if you want to study information and how it operates in the world, you need to study life."

Thanks. I'll have to check that out.

In George C Williams' book Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges, he starts the book with some philosophical problems for biologists. One of my favorites is that he points out a sharp distinction between the "codical" domain and the domain of "interactors".

Interactors are the physical organisms that interact with each other and the environment. The codices are the information stored in the genes. He makes this point to emphasize that the world of information has its own rules that are different from the rules of physical bodies, and that the interactors seem to exist merely to ensure the continued propagation of the information.

This is how Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed are real, not because all the stories about them are true or that they are actually divine. But because they are actual self propagating ideas promoted by real physical people.

Neat! I haven't seen this idea out in the world much, but a book called "Object Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything" kinda runs at this from a neat science-rooted philosophy perspective. It basically says that any philosophical framework needs to have just as much to say about fictional beings as it does physical, since fictional constructs certainly affect us.

I'd just never run across that idea before that book, but is there a specific place you came across it? :)

Interesting. In some circles of psychology and mythology, such as in reading Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, there is an importance given to fiction because stories will affect people's lives in a profound way. The way I understand this view is that any information - whether objectively observed, or subjectively interpreted - which is meaningful deserves to be honored and understood.

>I'd just never run across that idea before that book, but is there a specific place you came across it? :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa

This is dancing on the edge of reality and metaphysics, I think the subject is fascinating since so much of our world is dominated by narratives.. real or imagined.

Aren't you just redefining the word "real" there to mean "the idea exists" instead of "a physical person existed"?

But by that definition, Han Solo and Bilbo Baggins are also "real". At what point do we simply use a different word for "physically exists"?

Almost, Star Wars and LOTR are not really self propelling ideas that guide populations of people. The information is there, it's just not nearly as memetic.

Although I would say that Star Wars has inspired a lot of space exploration, it's not nearly as viral as something like Christianity.

Also religion is going through evolution, Christianity or Islam is just the result of many trial-error previous long forgotten religions which were less fit and were replaced by religions that spread faster. For example, it seems like mono-theistic religions were simpler and easier to understand - this is one shared trait between the most of the current "live" religions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com