first criterium of natural selection

Before selection from a competitive pool of species becomes the criterium for continuation and evolution, another selection takes place: the selection of an organism by itself. - Does it deem itself worthy to exist? Does it value its self-experience?

By recognition of this first criterium is explained why what strikes us most about nature is rather diversity than homogeneity - species of animals and plants that persist are those that delight in themselves, because / hence they concentrate their effort on what may be called aesthetics, to attain to positive valuation. They do so by exploiting their unique context to please their sense of value (and thereby like-“minded” others ), not by attaining to universal means of dominion (if the latter were the case, organic existence would seem to be restricted to simple and aggressively homogenizing molecular processes) -

  • and why multifarious possibilities of hideous creatures of suffering are not as abundantly present as would be if the universe were purely a function of domination over others (as the horror-writer imagines) - and lastly, why we should not attempt to cure those who suffer from self-loathing.

Conclusion: by the axiom “all are created equal”, the root-activity of evolving life (a lifeforms spontaneous, contextual self-valuation) is made impossible, or at least least rendered illegal, sabotaged.

Plants and animals don’t do this kind of questioning - that’s a human disease - too much thinking.

You are wrongly assuming that there is a questioning involved in the valuation.
The question is asked in retrospect, by me.

I think most life is lived on autopilot. There is no valuation happening, whether in retrospect or not. I don’t think “will to life”, in the animal sense, should reasonably be considered a value. The birth of values corresponds with the will to not live life on autopilot.

At least, why one should not attempt to bring peace of mind to those who suffer from self-loathing. (One may “cure” them by changing their self-perception, which is to effectively change their nature.

In modern context: how anti-depressiva are used to sabotage life’s way of dealing with itself, paralyzing its most fundamental activity - and how this must result in the creation of monstrosity.

If the question is not applicable to the process, why ask it in retrospect?

I think that we understand the verb valuing to mean different things. The way I see it, no successful integration of new substance is possible without valuation on any organic level, from molecular to intellectual.

basic valuations and physical results:
Positive response (assimilation)
negative response (separation)

In other words: why have science at all?
Why think about how anything has happened?

Why say f=m.a? f nor m nor a asks such a question. It should therefore not be asked.


This does not imply that an organism asks “Do I deem myself worthy to exist?”

Neither does the question “Does object A have enough momentum to move object B into orbit x in case of collision y?” imply that object A or object B must ask itself this question for us to be justified in asking it.

But you are not doing science. Science strips away the unessential layers instead of adding layers. You are overlaying your aesthetic values over a process where they have no place. It’s like saying that pendulum motion is that way because it is hypnotically beautiful. That’s more religion than science.
Your OP reads like ancient Greek or medieval science/philosophy.

But how does it make sense to conflate impulse with valuation? In what context is that a sensible thing to do?

first you said the question is asked by the organism itself, and then you said it’s only asked in retrospect by you.

Self-loathing is a social infection similar to auto-immune diseases that cause the body to attack itself.
Self-worth, rather than self-delight, is certainly an inherent attribute in all existence, living or not. And without which no existence could be, which all relates to why suicide is considered a “sin” (an error in rational judgment).

You must not have been wearing your reading glasses, Jesus :unamused:

I agree. We are probably the only ones who can think like this though, such allegorical use of terms provokes most people into typing in a thoughtless attempt at refutation before even finishing reading the post, let alone considering what is meant.

But suicide results from loss of self-worth, not from misunderstanding of it. Or do you think these are the same? How do you typically see such a loss happen?

Please show me how I am overlaying anything. (And feel free to add how scientists have determined what is essential to a proces they have not yet understood!)

If you want a the meaning text to be directly obvious on a first glance over the words that stimulate you, maybe there are areas of writing better suited to you than philosophy.

My proposition is, contrary to what you are led to believe by the prettiness of the words, a simplification, and even suggests a direction to seek an explanation of how life could have emerged, where until now we have had nothing of the sort.

I don’t know, and I don’t do anything of the sort.
Man, you guys are bad readers. Sorry to say it, but it’s disheartening.

Don’t be disheartened, Jakob. Explain this further for me.

I don’t know what is unclear to you, but here’s a simple example:

I am now eating a delicious pasta I just made. I value it, so I assimilate it. My body will use what it values in there to continue creating itself - a thing it values, the basic value around which I am built.

What is not valued by my organism will be separated from it.

Just because “valuation” is a word that has not yet been used by science does not mean it is unscientific. It provides an understandable perspective to what has been so far the riddle challenging Newton and Darwin beyond the point of even trying to solve it. They still believed in “God”, in objectivity. I don’t, which permits me to get closer to the matter, and use terms that actually mean something to us to describe processes we want to understand (that mean something to us).