[FRIAM] semi-idle question

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Both of these (using CRISPR to edit away the problem or where to draw the line between selected and selector) seem to miss the larger point, which is that "natural" selection is a kind of metaphysical "top turtle". No matter how grandiose our engineering scheme, no matter how high and total-universe-incorporating it might be, there's always a super-context outside it ... and *that's* where natural selection operates ... similar, again, to Tarski's argument that you can't define truth from within the language (or von Neumann's no finite description, or Gödel's incompleteness, or Rosen's no largest model, ad nauseum).

We prolly should lay out the "language" a little more concretely before claiming that some operation is not inside that language. E.g. before declaring an end to human evolution, perhaps be more hard-nosed about what "human evolution" means.

For example, in a recent genetic algorithms talk, the presenter studied (and argued) that mutation didn't play a significant role, at all, in finding the (locally) optimal individuals. But that wouldn't rule out, with different evolutionary algorithms -- and their contexts/runtimes -- mutation might take on a more significant role. As we cross the transhuman inflection point, perhaps some operators fade, others gain prominence, and still others emerge?

On 4/26/21 12:39 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> And I wondered why the impulse to develop contraception and vaccines, for example, and social welfare programs aren't elements of the environment.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:13 PM jon zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I pressed a similar argument for CRISPR on vFriam this week. If the socially
>     responsible thing to do is to vaccinate for COVID-19, then perhaps it is
>     even more socially responsible to CRISPR away all potential to contract the
>     virus for future generations.

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ