General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Nietzscheanism

Started by Tim Tyler · · Last activity · 5 posts · 489 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
27 February 2004
Last activity
3 March 2004
Original author
Tim Tyler
Posts
5
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
489
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–5 of 5
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The following material is my article about the idea that most future complex organisms will be built
    to *consciously* propagate their genes.

    Much of it is quoted from...

    alife.co.uknietzscheanism

    ...and - if the subject matter is of interest to you - are probably better off reading the
    material there.

    Nietzscheanism
    ==============

    Introduction
    ------------
    In the pulp-SF series "Andromeda" there's a species known as the Nietzscheans.

    They are a race of genetically-engineered supermen - with great strength powerful immune systems and
    acute senses.

    Their society is founded on the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche.

    Nietzsche believed that men would reshape themselves into better and stronger creatures.

    He referred to these as "ubermenschen" - or supermen.

    The Nietzscheans took his words to heart - and used genetic engineering and nanotechnology to
    reshape themselves into literally superhuman organisms. [...]

    The Nietzschean difference
    --------------------------
    Evolutionary biology tells us that most of the creatures seen in the modern world are likely to
    spend most of their lives attempting to propagate their genes - since they are descended from a long
    series of ancestors who performed that task slightly better than their peers managed it.

    However, the Nietzscheans are a bit different from most other creatures in this regard - because
    they engage in this activity /consciously/ and /deliberately/.

    Rather than blindly following the program of their genes, the Nietzscheans recognise the existence
    of their genes' purpose in life - and /consciously/ adopt it as their own.

    Consciousness helps
    -------------------
    One of the lessons I think we can draw from humans in biology is that consciousness "works".

    Having a rich model of the environment that includes a represention of yourself really does pay off
    when attempting to predict how others will behave in response to your actions. [...]

    The future
    ----------
    With this in mind I would like to suggest that - in the future, most large, complex living orgainsms
    are likely to have consciously embraced propagating their genes as their purpose in life.

    Those who consciously propagate their genes are likely to be more effective at performing this task
    than those who merely unconsciously follow their natural inclinations.

    As a result of this they will be rewarded by an increases probability of leaving long term
    descendants - and eventually the world will fill with their descendants - who will inherit their
    ancestors intentions.

    Nietzscheanism's opponents
    --------------------------
    Richard Dawkins is the best-known public opponent of Nietzscheanism.

    In 1976 he wrote:

    We are build as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against
    our creators. We alone on earth have the power to rebel against the tyranny of the selfish
    replicators.

    Since then he's continued his crusade against the wishes of the gene:

    In the title piece of "The Devil's Chaplain", he describes nature as "the ruthlessly cruel process
    that gave us all existence", speaks of "revulsion against [evolution's] implications" - and
    describes the process that made us as "wasteful, cruel and low".

    He says that nature gave us a brain capable of "underdstanding its own provenance, of deploring the
    moral implications and of fighting against them".

    He says that "if selfish genes are Frankensteins and all life is their monster, it is only we that
    can complete the fable by turning against our creators."

    He describes humanity as" the only potential island of refuge from the implications of [evolution]:
    from the cruelty, and the clumsy, blundering waste."

    Of course, this is all the exact opposite of Nietzscheanism.

    Nietzscheanism suggests cooperating with your genetic program - not rebelling against it.

    It points out that those who rebel will not be favoured by natural selection - and the only part of
    them that is potentially immortal - their genes - will thus be assigned to eternal oblivion - the
    Nietzschean equivalent of eternal damnation.

    Over time evolution will weed out the non-cooperators, and reward those who go along with the
    gene's wishes.

    It's a shame Richard holds this view - I'm sure he would make a good Nietzschean ;-)

    Nature is beautiful - and he should be proud to be a part of it - rather than embarassed about
    his roots.

    In the future, nature will find ways to avoid some of the waste that he is blaming it for.

    In particular it will manage to perform some fitness evaluations under simulation - where failures
    do not make such a mess.

    Also - rather than using random mutations - nature will use intelligent design to develop new types
    of organism.

    However these processes will still be /part/ of evolution - and natural selection will still rule
    over everything - for the forseeable future.

    There is no need to advocate rebelling against the system if you merely want to change parts of it -
    and in this case, evolution appears to be a fundamental part of nature's thermodynamic laws - and so
    attempting to rebel aganist it looks worse than the actions of King Canute.

    [...]

    The web site:

    alife.co.uknietzscheanism

    ...has more information - including a:

    "Frequently Asked Questions about Nietzscheanism"

    - alife.co.ukfaq

    ...and "The Nietzscheans in their own words"

    - alife.co.ukscript

    Enjoy,
    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  2. I have a brief comment in reply to a small part of Tim's intriguing post. I think the predictions
    contained in the rest of his post are misguided by assuming that natural selection is the
    fundamental basis of organismal design, whereas I think that thermodynamics represents a more
    fundamental basis. I suspect that consciousness is generated more by basic thermodynamics than by
    natural selection. [I expect a hardy hooray from Tom Hendricks on this point.]

    in article [email hidden], Tim Tyler at [email hidden] wrote on 2/26/04 8:44 AM:

    Quoted message said:

    Consciousness helps
    -------------------
    One of the lessons I think we can draw from humans in biology is that consciousness "works".

    Having a rich model of the environment that includes a represention of yourself really does pay
    off when attempting to predict how others will behave in response to your actions. [...]

    Right. Consciousness is basically the existence of an internal representation of self and
    environment, which is continually updated, more or less "correctly" (note the degree of accuracy in
    learning), by experience. This is intriguingly similar to what the genome does in a different
    context. It contains representations of RNAs and proteins, which are continually updated in ways
    that are guided more or less effectively by experience.

    Just a thought,

    Guy

  3. Tim Tyler: Nietzscheanism suggests cooperating with your genetic program - not rebelling against it.

    What constitutes "cooperating" with your genetic program? What constitutes "rebelling" against it?

    Michael Ragland

  4. Guy Hoelzer <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:

    I have a brief comment in reply to a small part of Tim's intriguing post. I think the predictions
    contained in the rest of his post are misguided by assuming that natural selection is the
    fundamental basis of organismal design, whereas I think that thermodynamics represents a more
    fundamental basis.

    Well, theromdynamics represents a very fundamental basis for the whole of the evolutionary process.

    I think I argue that at some length on:

    originoflife.netbright light

    Kauffman is correct about the rules of biology representing new laws of thermodynamics - even if his
    statement of them is a botch job ;-)

    I can't see the connection to my essay, though - unless it is being asserted that reproducing
    consciously is going to prove /less/ effective than doing it unconsciously.

    Consciousness seems on an upswing to me. I expect it will illuminate increasing areas in the future
    - based on what I percieve as the results of disabling its filter a bit so far.

    Huxley's doors are being opened ;-)

    Quoted message said:

    I suspect that consciousness is generated more by basic thermodynamics than by natural
    selection. [...]

    Maybe we can agree to differ, then - since I don't want to be the instigator of thread about the
    nature of consciousness.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  5. << The following material is my article about the idea that most future complex organisms will be
    built to *consciously* propagate their genes.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    But lets' go further and consider this. Let's say we soon agree that all life is energy moderation
    and all the variants of life are composed of novel ways to best moderate energy within their
    specific environment.

    Then instead of coding a species oriented genome, you may well shift to the all-life best genome.

    Instead of considering life as individual separate species, you begin to see life as each species
    being a variant of the same single goal of energy moderation. Then one sees that replication (which
    you are stressing) is no more than one of many ways to moderate temp.

    That being, we would then look at ALL species and find an amalgamation genome of that which best
    moderates energy in every way, and under every circumstances and in every environment. (and perhaps
    even an environment that someday is outside of our planet)

    For ex. If humans also had photosynthesizing abilities, think how that would help in getting
    food/energy.

    In essence you would take your idea much further. And find the best parts of all species - and
    combine them into one best energy moderator.

    Comment?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.