"if things cannot keep being, their value is limited. if they can’t be at all, their value is similarly non-extant. any ethics that is realist... will be an ethics of survival: what can we do to last longer?"
-
Man is only of particular relevance as he is at the frontier of evolution. If that frontier shifts forward into silicon based intelligence, mans relevance as a vector for meta-evolutionary purposes is diminished and his relevance is abnegated.
-
-
definitely not linear, but hard to see how it's not an (arms) race
-
I was think 'running' race. But even arms race is probably given too much agency to the process.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You are thinking of 'adaptive' evolution. I'm referring to 'generative' evolution, the meta-level on which evolution as a process itself evolves...
-
Doesn't that further undercut the initial claim? Meta-level generative processes unfold through singularities, phase shifts and cross-scale entanglements. Man constitutes a point in this, but imo raising it up to the level of frontier undermines the meta-level backend
-
Seems like focus on adaptivity would align with something more like cladistics (and thus retain arms race elements), but a generative focus would be more like rhizomatics (and would lose the lead-force element).
-
Getting the two the talk to each is the real meat of the issue I suppose
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.