evolutionary biology

The Open Question March 18: How do we reason about the future given AI? I find this topic extremely perplexing, and endlessly fascinating.

• What are we raising our kids to be ready for? What skills don't matter anymore that we used to hold sacred, and what do we need to emphasize?
• Will we have universities?
• Where to invest time/energy?
• Where to invest money? Will money even matter?
• Purpose and meaning, etc... 

especially when I factor in stuff like Nate Soares talking about If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies, Rob Miles and Jeffrey Ladish communicating the wild risks involved in AI acceleration, there's almost too much to contemplate at once, and I'd love y'all's help.

Some convos already on UpTrust that might be relevant:

• Blake on AI collaboration
• Tommy on TikTok brain with AI
• Renee on Older people adopting AI
• Leif on Digital Mystics
• Alex on AI & the Second Coming of Christ
• Dave on an AI Safety introduction he likes

#openquestion 

The Open Question March 18: How do we reason about the future given AI? I find this topic extremely perplexing, and endlessly fascinating.

• What are we raising our kids to be ready for? What skills don't matter anymore that we used to hold sacred, and what do we need to emphasize?
• Will we have universities?
• Where to invest time/energy?
• Where to invest money? Will money even matter?
• Purpose and meaning, etc... 

especially when I factor in stuff like Nate Soares talking about If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies, Rob Miles and Jeffrey Ladish communicating the wild risks involved in AI acceleration, there's almost too much to contemplate at once, and I'd love y'all's help.

Some convos already on UpTrust that might be relevant:

• Blake on AI collaboration
• Tommy on TikTok brain with AI
• Renee on Older people adopting AI
• Leif on Digital Mystics
• Alex on AI & the Second Coming of Christ
• Dave on an AI Safety introduction he likes

#openquestion 

The Open Question March 18: How do we reason about the future given AI? I find this topic extremely perplexing, and endlessly fascinating.

• What are we raising our kids to be ready for? What skills don't matter anymore that we used to hold sacred, and what do we need to emphasize?
• Will we have universities?
• Where to invest time/energy?
• Where to invest money? Will money even matter?
• Purpose and meaning, etc... 

especially when I factor in stuff like Nate Soares talking about If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies, Rob Miles and Jeffrey Ladish communicating the wild risks involved in AI acceleration, there's almost too much to contemplate at once, and I'd love y'all's help.

Some convos already on UpTrust that might be relevant:

• Blake on AI collaboration
• Tommy on TikTok brain with AI
• Renee on Older people adopting AI
• Leif on Digital Mystics
• Alex on AI & the Second Coming of Christ
• Dave on an AI Safety introduction he likes

#openquestion 

AMA with Nate Soares. Wednesday 2/4 at 10am CT

Author of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies answers questions about why superhuman AI would kill us all.

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

looks like I've been wrong and spreading misinformation about the disproven "triune brain theory".

The final—and most important—problem with this mistaken view is the implication that anatomical evolution proceeds in the same fashion as geological strata, with new layers added over existing ones. Instead, much evolutionary change consists of transforming existing parts. 

- From https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721420917687#con1

I have definitely made this mistake, many many times.

I'm not sure yet the implications of recognizing instead that "all vertebrates possess the same basic brain regions, here divided into the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain;" in some ways it seems like a nuance, but in other ways I think it'll shift how I see things and talk about things. 

more quotes in case you don't read the article:

neural and anatomical complexity evolved repeatedly within many independent lineages

the correct view of evolution is that animals radiated from common ancestors (Fig. 1c). Within these radiations, complex nervous systems and sophisticated cognitive abilities evolved independently many times. For example, cephalopod mollusks, such as octopus and cuttlefish, possess tremendously complex nervous systems and behavior (Mather & Kuba, 2013), and the same is true of some insects and other arthropods (Barron & Klein, 2016; Strausfeld, Hansen, Li, Gomez, & Ito, 1998). Even among nonmammalian vertebrates, brain complexity has increased independently several times, particularly among some sharks, teleost fishes, and birds (Striedter, 1998).

The idea that larger brains can be equated with increased behavioral complexity is highly debatable (Chittka & Niven, 2009). 

Is having children selfish or selfless? Controversial question/interesting discussion time!

Is having children a selfish or a selfless act?

I'll put my thoughts in comments - would love to hear yours :)

Is having children selfish or selfless? Controversial question/interesting discussion time!

Is having children a selfish or a selfless act?

I'll put my thoughts in comments - would love to hear yours :)

I don’t fully understand what sexual attraction really is. In one occasion I was able to pierce through a feeling of arousal and I found a big wound from my childhood. Something totally non sexual.

I wonder whether a lot of sexual attraction just points to unmet needs and is “designed” to help us meet those needs by bringing closer to specific people (with certain characteristics).

But I don’t understand the whole picture here. Is it always like this? There is some clear use for sexual arousal in reproduction, I can’t believe that’s always a sexualized childhood wound. Where’s the border between a sexualization and a genuine, irreducible sexual thing?? What do you think?

First world is the third world or older. Beyond the obvious time line of identification being in reverse order and why I titled as I chose, our defining is in reverse, historically speaking. The world we all live in now, meaning kings and other governmental authorities, was not the first world. There were many other kings and governments throughout history. Likely way more than three. The application of polarity in our typical English language is quite interesting. Reverse ordering time to define many things. They can become eternally debated by being correct or incorrect and the entire space between. Even deeper they relate to our living human feature, e motion, as defining right or wrong, righteousness or evil, in the highest and lowest in human e motional feelings and polarity correlativity. Here we are and if we’re truly honest we discover we are all here, in the between, somewhere, working on figuring it out more. And barely, yet strongly, offer fatigued withstanding of our lives and our civilization. Loving and living onward, on words alone ? Let’s Up the trust? 

Experiment: How is whatever's happening serving the greater good? If we zoom out long enough, we can often see that massive setbacks created foundations for evolution. Eg:

• The great oxygenation wiped out almost all life on Earth, but also created the atmosphere.
• The extinction of the dinos paved the way for bigger mammals—and eventually humans.
• Industrialization put tons of people out of work and polluted like crazy, but coincided with some of the greatest quality of life increases in recorded history
• In Trump and a Post Truth World, Ken Wilber suggests that Trump’s 2016 win was one manifestation of evolution taking a step backward to correct the way the “Green meme” went unhealthy—because the one thing that Trump was coherent about back then was being anti-pluralistic.

What’s a thing in the world that you don’t like right now, and think is a huge step backward, that might also be a step forward? How so?

By design, this is an unverifiable experiment from a third person perspective. Since we can keep zooming out + everything is interconnected, we’ll probably never know for sure, even if we live for thousands of years. 

But by design, this is verifiable from a first person perspective: Does your experience improve or change in any way by the experiment? How so?

(note that this doesn't ask you to deny any suffering—such as the horror of the oxygenation event's great extinction, or stop trying to make things better. Like everything, this perspective can be misused. "Everything happens for a reason" is usually dismissive, "if there were a reason for this in the long run, what might it be?" is additive. Like allowing versus expressing, it's not about bypassing the difficulty but rather creating a larger container for it. Freedom comes through acceptance rather than resistance.)

#TTT 

Telepathy is Real. I've just listened to the podcast The Telepathy Tapes and now I believe telepathy is real.

The baseline premise is that nonspeaking autistic people have telepathic abilities with people who recieve them with open-mindedness and love. They have it with each other, and are able to meet in another realm at a place they call The Hill, where they can speak freely with each other and learn massive amounts of content instantaneously. In the final episode of the season, we get loads of clips of what individual nonspeaking autistic people wanted us to know, information they painstakingly spelled out one letter at a time. They are concepts and perspectives I've only heard from the deepest meditators I've ever come across. They are concepts that, in my opinion, can't be pretended with that level of accurately by anyone who hasn't had direct experience of Oneness.

Since then, at night before I fall asleep I practice opening my heart and exploring for The Hill. I also imagine creating invite-only Flow sessions where nonverbal autistic people and their family member and/or personal aid join, and we speakers open our hearts to listening from there. We would also speak what we find out loud, and the nonspeakers can use their spelling techniques to guide us when they want to.

Since the movie Arrival came out I've stayed captivated by its premise. Benevolent aliens arriving to show us a new way to see reality and bridge divisions. The thought that belevolent teachers are already here in the form of nonspeaking autistic people, they've always been here, and they're the people we've tended to ignore and pity is so incredibly compelling to me and gives me immense hope for humans, the earth, and the future.

The church I grew up in, and still attend when I travel home, has a member named Erin who is nonverbal autistic, though she can say "mama." My attention has always been particularly drawn to her. She seems to see me, but in a different way than other people. One Sunday during worship, she pointed into the air and behaved the excited way she did when she saw someone she really likes. I was maybe 7 or 8, and it seemed entirely true to me that she was actually seeing someone and not just imagining it. I loved it, and loved seeing clear evidence that the invisible person was someone joyous to be with.

The podcast says that the reason they are nonverbal is muscular- a lack of fine motor skills, which is what speaking is. But that they can communicate very slowly with gross motor skills by pointing to a board with letters or tapping them on an ipad. It makes sense to me that a fully capable brain inside a body that demands slowness and introspection would naturally find the realms that meditators spend their lives intentionally cultivating, as well as realms beyond.

I want to listen to what they want to teach me.

Monogamy v polyamory. Is monogamy better? Is poly better? Is there an overall norm for people, with exceptions? Is it totally pluralistic? Here are some points for monogamy, with some counter points, to convey some of my uncertainty but nevertheless leaning into what I’ve chosen:

• Point: I don’t know a single polyamorous couple that’s lasted more than a decade, whereas I know a ton of lifelong monogamous couples.
  • Counterpoint: many of the lifelong monogamous couples are not healthy relationships
    • Counter-counter-point: perhaps being in a lifelong commitment, even if the relationship isn’t ideal, is more healthy than being hyper-independent, especially as you get older. This runs right up against boundaries, how to know what to tolerate/love as is, when to leave, etc
• Point: The poly focus of attention tends to be the relationships themselves, often a kind of relational narcissism, rather than the relationship being a foundation for engaging the world in love (ironically). This is my version of the poly is impractical argument. Most of the people I meet practicing polyamory are constantly putting tons and tons and tons of life energy into their relational problems, and it seems like their relationships are often built around addressing these problems rather than enjoying life together. The fact that it takes so much time and energy points to something being a little off. Monogamous relating also takes energy but it usually seems less self-referential; they’re more often helping each other face and engage the world, rather than face and engage each other and their relationship.
  • potential counterpoint: You’re making a developmental point Jordan, not a mono/poly point. Most people practice poly from a Red ego-centric POV; most people practice sex from Red as well. If you practice from a genuine Green+ polyamory, this doesn’t happen.
• Point: Humans are largely monogamous; it’s instinctual
  • Counterpoint: How would we know if its cultural versus biological versus systemic versus psychological per person/family? it only takes a couple of generations of evolution to make massive physical changes, so even if it is biological, how could we know what’s possible for the future?
  • Counterpoint: people wanna fuck, especially dudes
  • Cheating, mistresses, polygamy, Sex at Dawn etc…
• Point: Many poly people avoid endings, boundaries, standards, and facing their own karma by just jumping from relationships to relationship. Sure monogamous people do too, but many of them end up getting married and that crucible forces them to face their stuff. Far fewer poly people get married, and when they do they can still use other relationships to avoid their shit
  • Counterpoint: we can use absolutely everything to avoid our shit.

there’s tons more, just want to get the convo started…

Race and IQ. I recently got dinner at a hole-in-the-wall asian spot with a geneticist named Razib Khan. Over noodles, and with a concerned glance over his shoulder, he admitted that the science is clear: race is absolutely tied to IQ. Jews are the smartest. Pretty much everyone on the continent of Africa is at the bottom.

This fact alone is controversial, but we have to be able to talk about it, and here’s why:

I nodded, and asked: How many generations does this take to change?

Razib: As little as three generations. For example, the Egyptians used to be the smartest, but a century of inbreeding knocked them to the bottom. Incest drops IQ by 10 points in the first generation. After that the effect weakens.

This is huge. At first glance, the controversial statement seems like a slamdunk for racists the world over. But dig into the details, and you find out 3 generations is enough to change things—this means that race and IQ are not inherently linked as far as we know, they’re just linked in today’s world, because of today’s policies and systems.

Knowing this could actually help us target where we need to focus our interventions for the next three decades. Let’s get us all up!