0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by JohnMarkNorman · 2025-03-17T15:14:59.956Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I’d like to hear specific critiques – what do you see as the biggest issue with this perspective? This dialogue intentionally explores a potential blind spot in evolutionary thinking, and if the downvote is because it clashes with conventional views, reconsider whether that alone is a sufficient reason. Dismissing ideas purely for deviating from established narratives risks circular reasoning – sharing objections would make for a more productive discussion.
Replies from: lsusr↑ comment by lsusr · 2025-03-17T23:56:16.718Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Does this make sense? Could a fundamental principle – alongside the genetic principle – have existed from the very beginning of life, one that later became embodied in the brain?
There's no such thing as a "fundamental principle". Principles, by definition, are not fundamental. There are fundamental laws, but those are physical laws, not biological laws. Moreover, "the genetic principle" isn't a standard concept in biology, so it's unclear to me what you're referring to here.
Replies from: lsusr↑ comment by lsusr · 2025-03-18T00:05:14.846Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
If you're interested in an example of how to write a well-received post that deviates from a established narrative (in this case, "primordial soup"), you may enjoy my book review of The Vital Question [LW · GW].
In case you're more interested in the philosophical dialogue angle, here's an example of a well-received dialogue. [LW · GW]. This one in particular goes against the dogma of this website. (It's anti-Bayesian.)