# Singularity vs Evolution (Gain of Function)
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482
**Category:** Science, Technology, and Math
**Created:** [January 25, 2024, 10:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482 "2024-01-25T22:55:10Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2024, 10:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482/1 "2024-01-25T22:55:10Z")
What if you think you’ve created a new species, except that in this tweaking, it has lost the function to reproduce, and therefore remains just one anomaly of the species it came from?
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2024, 11:03pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482/2 "2024-01-25T23:03:46Z")
You could say, “We can reproduce it in a factory”.
If the factory is 100% automated, would that be the same thing as genetic reproduction?
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [January 25, 2024, 11:49pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482/3 "2024-01-25T23:49:26Z")
If you think you’ve created a new species, but you don’t think the automated processes making evolution possible created a new species in the same sense that you created a new species, you might be de-anthropomorphizing the situation (yours).
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2024, 2:16am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482/4 "2024-01-26T02:16:40Z")
Things get even creepier when you try to go “back” to when the laws of physics were not yet automated. You know, … where they “break down”?
😆
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2024, 3:10am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482/5 "2024-01-26T03:10:33Z")
Information / naturing (toward the eternal—gain/discovery of function)
deformation / denaturing (loss of function)
does knowledge increase (is mathematization knowledge? - is all information accurately informative?) Or do we remember—extract—abduct—the essential?
Sublime angst until the proper resolution of Anfechtung — a kind of cognitive dissonance against a kind of cognitive distortion (the absurd) is a phantom hunger/thirst that can never be filled, so we must keep going further up and further in to the infinite whole/well (spiritual food/water) from which we get (communion, remembrance) our being/life (spiritual material) — this is my body & my blood (life). We are incomplete sojourners here—all we see (in part) and everything that is missing (negative space, privation) either points the way home, or is like a carrot dangled over quicksand. Our home (the source of being, the original) is where we are whole. “On earth as it is in heaven.”
Was Jesus riffing off Socrates, or were they both riffing off The Father? Was Husserl _really_ the first? 😉
Is invention really possible where conservation is the law? Perhaps the universe is a canvas created to allow for the possibility of co-creation toward the eternal no privation can nullify, but only foreshadow?
---
### Author:  [@Pandoras\_Box](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pandoras_Box)
#### Post date: [February 1, 2024, 10:36pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482/6 "2024-02-01T22:36:27Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> What if you think you’ve created a new species, except that in this tweaking, it has lost the function to reproduce, and therefore remains just one anomaly of the species it came from?
Some of the gm products are made with this inability intentionally built in. Gettem addicted. Then make sure they have to come back for more.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2024, 2:28am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482/7 "2024-02-02T02:28:41Z")
Are you talking about Microsoft or methadone?
---
### Author:  [@Pandoras\_Box](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Pandoras_Box)
#### Post date: [February 2, 2024, 6:32am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482/8 "2024-02-02T06:32:17Z")
> [@Ichthus77](#):
>
> Are you talking about Microsoft or methadone?
Seeds of suicide is what some critics call some of Monsanto’s products.
---
### Author:  [@Ichthus77](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Ichthus77)
#### Post date: [April 1, 2025, 9:37am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/singularity-vs-evolution-gain-of-function/49482/9 "2025-04-01T09:37:18Z")
The evolution video that shows that various sequences end up at the same shapes. Frontloaded teleology. [http://youtube.com/post/UgkxLNT7\_WxnkxbysyG46gyRYxcdJrkIRnex?feature=shared](http://youtube.com/post/UgkxLNT7_WxnkxbysyG46gyRYxcdJrkIRnex?feature=shared)
It would be super interesting to research the tertiary configurations in the same way in terms of what all kinds of configurations result in similar functions, number one. It would also be interesting to do a taxonomy based on the limited number of shapes and functions of various things — rather than, say, commonalities or differences in sequence.
Would that help show how it could be progressively developed toward particular aspects of the taxonomy, or rather would it show how it would’ve been impossible to develop towards it and that it required an already whole capacity/function/teleology/program parameter.
You know how certain pieces can be used for more than one function? Maybe personhood operates similarly. Kind of like you can have all manner of different styles of signal receivers and senders— but they all have some basics in common. And there’s a difference between just being a sender/receiver, and being the person who configures the signal—or a conscious signal that can self-configure (or subsumes all its variation of configuration). Can anything in the material (is the signal included?) suggest what that difference is? What sort of signal plays well with all other signals as long as they play well with it?