I'm resurrecting the old lounge thread for this sub-forum, which was an abbreviation and thus too cryptic anyway.
Backlink: thread-31097.html
This evening I got into some real deep philosophizing, to the extent that I felt exhausted and just more confused. My inability to answer the questions I was asking drew my attention to how clueless we really are. For all we think we know in the sciences, we know almost nothing, especially in the social sciences. There is just so far to go, and I'd say that it's actually places like this forum that are leading modern social science research. I'd love to be able to take a peak at the body of knowledge we'll have in 1000 years, it'd be truly amazing.
I was trying to answer some questions on the nature of humanity, specifically pertaining to the interplay between genetics, 'the elite', and leftism. A hypothesis I came up with is that our understanding of genetic selection is far too simplistic, especially for a species as social as humans. It is possible that rather than being as simple as 'all individuals fighting for sex and survival', i.e. merely an 'individual and family' level of natural and sexual selection, it exists in multiple orders above that too.
My working hypothesis was that the 'tail' of the bell-curve of genetic endowment, exists in a symbiotic relationship with the conflict it creates in the rest of the bell. It catalyses conflicts between components of the rest of the bell, not just due to the first order of genetic selection of 'benefits of the tail-end individuals involved', but in the conflicts it creates naturally boosting selection in the rest of the bell (in a manner polynomial in time), which produces new tail-end individuals, thereby completing the circle. But I'm going to put this down now before I hurt my brain.
So come one and all, and post your latest deep thoughts.
Backlink: thread-31097.html
This evening I got into some real deep philosophizing, to the extent that I felt exhausted and just more confused. My inability to answer the questions I was asking drew my attention to how clueless we really are. For all we think we know in the sciences, we know almost nothing, especially in the social sciences. There is just so far to go, and I'd say that it's actually places like this forum that are leading modern social science research. I'd love to be able to take a peak at the body of knowledge we'll have in 1000 years, it'd be truly amazing.
I was trying to answer some questions on the nature of humanity, specifically pertaining to the interplay between genetics, 'the elite', and leftism. A hypothesis I came up with is that our understanding of genetic selection is far too simplistic, especially for a species as social as humans. It is possible that rather than being as simple as 'all individuals fighting for sex and survival', i.e. merely an 'individual and family' level of natural and sexual selection, it exists in multiple orders above that too.
My working hypothesis was that the 'tail' of the bell-curve of genetic endowment, exists in a symbiotic relationship with the conflict it creates in the rest of the bell. It catalyses conflicts between components of the rest of the bell, not just due to the first order of genetic selection of 'benefits of the tail-end individuals involved', but in the conflicts it creates naturally boosting selection in the rest of the bell (in a manner polynomial in time), which produces new tail-end individuals, thereby completing the circle. But I'm going to put this down now before I hurt my brain.
So come one and all, and post your latest deep thoughts.