Genetic drift and memetic transcendence

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

There is a tie in here, particularly as pointing to the ongoing debate between various evolutionary theories.

The case being that Darwin’s messing with the result gained by the geneticists author working on bullfrogs, varied importantly with those of Darwin’s claims, inferred some general hypothesis, which may be made in regard to framing of specific issues that relate to a moralistic consideration over unethical changing of lab results.

That, in this case the factors which make genetic drift increasingly tied to the topographic tie in between groups, may be shown as examples of phenomenally reduced traits to genetic variables on an increasing rate of change, as AI processes exceed human assessment processes .

The groupings most certainly show increased probability functions, as will pointed to , beyond the scope of general framing.

The aim of utilizing this drift at an increased rate of implementation is many fold, but primarily related to cognitive , individual functions, as they process larger, social group’s drifting toward esoteric interpretation of laboratory findings, that undermine natural selection as the primary mode of evolution.

Beyond that an assumption, that more than natural transmission of memetic data , as certain limits are reached , pro ceed to inform through more and more esoteric means, albeit, without an unnecessary literal extraction from lower social group perimeters.

And finally, these more natural, and not unnatural modes of changing forms of communication, reaching new barriers (frontiers) may cause artificially simulated signs and codes, to present the data in other ways that mimic AI bits, by above intelligence(super/intelligent) as presented into an exoteric method, that surpasses the conscious cognitive state, as the medium of communication.

Genetic drift then will explain and fortify the goal is phenomenal reduction toward higher levels of simulation.

This is a framework by which extra sensory communication bears up the similarity and difference between Husserl’s and William James’ approach, whic Sartre was known to have as favoring the later.

2

My understanding is that genetic drift is basically randomness. Is that how you also see it, or is that what is being claimed here? Genetic drift being the result of random increase or decrease (particularly decreases, I suppose) in certain genes or gene-groups over time in a population. Such random factors would seem to be kept in check over very long periods of time by natural selection, but over shorter periods of time and in large populations I can see genetic drift could play a large role.

It seems more a limiting factor, not a counter-force or opposing principle of natural selection. In the end, over long enough time natural selection will assert its ultimate power in shaping the overall genome. But genetic drift would also have some influence even in this longer-term, having caused certain gene patterns or opportunities to either increase or decrease randomly, which is to say beyond the logic of those actual genes and the environmental factors involved.

So in a way, genetic drift works just like random mutation. Another factor allowing natural selection to take place. Small random changes in the genetic codes of lots of people in the population is needed for changes to appear that can be selected for or against. Granted these random influences would need to be kept quite small compared to the already stabilized and successful gene patterns.

…What you say about AI and simulation is interesting and I am still trying to figure out exactly what you mean. Are you saying that because of AI and the newly enhanced processing power it represents it is now the case that memetic or idea-based “evolution” transitions to a higher tier and further away from non-AI processing in the spaces of ideas/memetics, meaning that human thought begins to evolve away from humans more and more? That could be the case in terms of in relation to most individual humans as well as in terms of relating to the general population at large and especially as the statistical or theoretical average person within a population which is what the society in effect signifies or indicates at a more abstract level.

Genetic drift occurring in the ideas-spaces could result in more randomness than is required or helpful for the overall “evolution” of ideas and human thought, if indeed you believe in framing that in terms of these things evolving over time or being subject to something akin to natural selection. If AI’s end up causing accelerated genetic drift within the memetic milieu how would this impact everything else? It could or indeed perhaps would threaten to tear apart existing memetic structures that have already been more or less stabilized over time. This would put new pressure on any selection mechanisms, like creating actual buildup of inner pressure ‘inside’ and in-between the memetic structures. That seems like a dangerous situation. Most random mutations are harmless, but more are damaging than beneficial. And if keeping with the the analogy to genetics and evolution here, most of the genome codes for something about the brain, just as I would suspect most of the memetic content “codes” or associates productively or generatively-stabilizingly for something about the mind. In effect, throwing new wrenches into the unfathomed complexity of the clockwork gears usually ends up badly, certainly in the short term. Of course over the very long term it doesn’t much matter how much genetic damage you do, the ship will right itself in the far end somehow.

3

This is interesting, because now I am seeing how AI is only indicating a new level or increased scope of what was already occurring within the memetic structures by virtue of technology as a whole. Both random mutation and genetic drift at the genomic level can find their corresponding counterparts in the memetic structures themselves, albeit at a more removed and abstract level. Yet the analysis is more or less the same.

AI will accelerate whatever processes of random mutation and genetic (memetic) drift were already occurring in the memetic layers and substances. Technology would already have been producing new levels of change and novelty, new pressures but also new challenges and opportunities, that would of course end up having severe impacts on existing memetic structures (human ideas, beliefs, feelings, ideologies, mental tendencies, abilities or inclinations for thinking and the overall forms of thought, etc). It is surprising that I didn’t realize the extent of this before, it helps to explain a lot. This view should be integrated within the overall scope of ‘the crumbling genome’ in first industrial and then even more so technological societies. That overall picture indicates the existence of certain limits or restrictions/frictions on the ability of any one meme, group influence or conspiracy/psyop to actually alter the memetic space in a larger or more permanent way, particularly in terms of being able to predict in advance what longer-term effects might result from such influences. This also means that things like movies, TV shows and books are having a decreased effect compared to the effects they used to have not that long ago. The proliferation of technological mediums (“media”) and overall amount of content puts limits on how far any one single content might influence things, certainly we see this is the case temporally if not so much spatially – as certain trends or contents might grip large parts of society in a sudden and big way today or tomorrow, only next week to have been almost entirely forgotten as the next “new big thing” or meme/trending “viral” content appears.

Damage to long-term memory if not also to working memory could result from this hyper-short term focus. An abridgement of the memetic space itself, like it is being squeezed from within by too much content, too much changing content as exampled by the parallels with random mutation and genetic drift. How would all of this relate to simulation? It might be the case that it ends up forcing people more and more into their own individual subjective realities where there is at least some hope of creating a relative stabilization of the mental space if only for themselves and their most immediate (digital) environment. Thoughts of effecting stabilities beyond that could be abandoned increasingly as the overall storm of technologically and now AI-fueled acceleration continues to grow. An overall force or pressure pushing everyone into more isolated individualted subjectivities along with the continued development of immersive technology like virtual reality and neurotech for example could end up creating a situation in which we are all put into simulation. That is probably the likely outcome in the mid to near-mid term. I am not sure if that is what you meant regarding simulation or if you were talking about simulation theory? Simulation theory being a context for this entire discussion would actually produce some really interesting results.

4

Yes. Random variation as a precursor, rather than natural selection.

The degree of uncertainty, depends on social limits of expansive size, yes, but the time determined as to later or previously signified is determined by the expansive this accorded by the spatial configuration.

This IS confusing, but Jin a spatial temporal configuration the expansion of configured spatial limits does pre figure the elapsed time before markers, codes, signs.

Again the uncertainty of the force/limit paradigmn probably determines it, which is pretty much a kind of reinforcement , counterforce, to natural evolving , and that they may be counter to the force, is calculated by many variables, not necessarily pre-figured (in time)

This is yet an unknown X which pits the counterpositional ‘idea’ within the sphere of the temporal arc, the calculation of fed back data suggests, I feel, that limits are invariably superimposed, just like when later circumnavigation of the globe, at increasing rates of acceleration , revealed an unending limitless surface, whereas now, certainty has assumed that the counter-position into be not contrary, but literally counting on the point at which it could be said that stability or content verification shows the framing , or the hypothetical assumptions to successfully correlate with synergy.

Yes and you appear to do get more complex in analysis, in an inverted bell curve fashion, I’ve been doing that all along without realizing why, so the correspondence, that is the awareness of it between smaller and larger social aggregates evolve along this graph of vertical/horizontal functions expressing pulse, code, and along the line of delineation, edging the projected assumptions to be evaluated as more or less proximal.

5

For now, the framing in typical characteristics within aggregate groupings of traditional entropy/redundancy limits, interactions , both within natural boundaries of evolution could be staged, just like levels of cancer spread can be visually inspected through medical photography. This analogy is far too broad and is useful only as much as interpretation may allow it to this extent.