CC won't like this

Amazing podcast that covers the entire history of humanity from bipedal motion to how we solve the coming energy crisis. It is an evolutionary perspective, from a biology perspective that recognize our different brains, and that we are a complex organism with bacteria and muscle groups competing for resources. But, CC has something critical to say about everything I post, so, I’m looking forward to that.

Write4 will put a math spin on it, Mriana will relate it to Star Trek, Morgan will have another scholar to enhance the conversation, vanamail will note that god is barely mentioned. Then there’s that one guy. :wink:

1 Like

When I get a chance, I’ll listen to it, but I probably will relate it to Star Trek. :smiley:


image:thinking: …?

If you’re looking for the most salient/relevant part of this, try starting at 38:00.

He introduces 4 laws of populations. He’s very clear to delineate these as lenses to view the world, not physical laws with formulas. He relates them to the story of eukaryotic life become the complex biome of human life, but notes that laws of cells aren’t directly translatable to laws of centuries of human history. Here they are

The law of energy
The law of innovations and efficiencies
The law of cooperation
The law of evolution, which is included in the above

[quote=“lausten, post:4, topic:10533”] He relates them to the story of eukaryotic life become the complex biome of human life, but notes that laws of cells aren’t directly translatable to laws of centuries of human history. Here they are:

The law of energy
The law of innovations and efficiencies
The law of cooperation
The law of evolution, which is included in the above

I can’t install that player format, but from the above it must be tongue-in-cheek.

All natural laws are involved in the evolutionary processes of everything.

But the evolution of cells is dependent on accurate copying of DNA coding during mitosis.

I still maintain that in the case of human evolution it was due to a major beneficial mutation, not a long-term gradual change. But even mutations are guided by all applicable laws of nature, but will yield different results than the normal genetic “drift”.

I listened to that yesterday, from the beginning, and found it fascinating, but was working on wood so no time for notes. So, I’ve listened to it again.

Incidentally, just before that I started a new audiobook, “Determined” by Robert Sapolsky, and somewhere between the two, a new appreciation has crystalized for me.

Other than certain physicist philosopher types, it’s not that I’m in competition with what Earth and biological and evolutionary scientists, or Neuroendocrinology, in the case off Sapolsky are sharing.

Besides, the new information is very much in harmony with my fundamental understanding. Possessing that internal consilience that rings of “truth” or at least Honest.

I fully appreciate I’m in no position intellectually or educationally to try and compete.

Still, I need to grapple with the fact that often this information lacks a key dimension of our evolutionary reality, something I’ve become keenly aware of.

That underly intellectual paradigm being presented can be metaphorically described as The Abrahamic Mindset. The defining character being its self-absorption intellectually and a self-serving physically nature. I don’t make a moral issue out of it, because I appreciate survival depends on a certain degree of both. So, there it is.

I really enjoyed the beginning and everything he brought to the table, excellent stuff.
Listen to 10:00 and at 14:25 gets into information transfer. 15:30 human learning, accepting tings others tell us.
But it’s like he took it to the brink then backed. The vision I got was human as lighthouse - sending out signals. What was lacking was a recognition that we are human, because we have been in constant intercourse with our environments and the other creatures that exist. Nothing like that, nope instead it was looking out from a box. We are blind to a huge dimension of this reality scientists are recording so well, but understanding not for poop.

Then Muthukrishna’s Earth analogy turned out surprisingly weak. Shocking for a person of my history.

Actually, the sense of Earth as a globe, along with the gut feeling of it floating in a void, is reinforced through all sort of experiences, from up in the mountains, on the great flat lands of Earth, near and upon water. Especially to people who live through the star lite night all their lives. All it took was a mind that was curious and the patience to observe and remember.

(14:10-15) that was disappointing for someone of my persuasion - To me it seems a product of living inside rooms for most of their lives. I live outside much of the time and home is 600sq ft of cabin, my side of the bed is about a foot from three big windows facing south, it’s not just tracing the sun from rise to set, it’s more complicated and cinematic than that - always has been for people actually living in it. I’ve spent extended periods living primitive, as in camping with it’s unique housekeeping needs and choirs, being out in it, bugs and all, water, food, wood hauling, heck poop hauling - and simply being out in the natural world going about its thing, a visit ready to head back to town and home. We are products of our environment.

Consciousness as an interaction.

At around 18:00 very interesting about chimp learning and human learning

We “ape”, better than Apes “ape”. It’s key.


{but through all of this M.M. never brings in the environment, or how it’s the interactions that form us, it remains a sterile thing of the mind.}

24:00 ability to reason

24:48 Grounded cultural reality based reasoning…”

Explaining human uniqueness

26:00 - Language as explanation for humans is wrong.

30:55 “we have a bootstrap problem

31:15 bipedalism

34:00 fire culturally transmitted (1.5 ish MYA)

47:30 Here my hero Sean, falls into trap of imagining, “once we reach some sort of equilibrium, …” (Michael points out “there are no equilibrium”)

1:02 Wealth Creation vs. Wealth Appropriation


I liked that, Sean Carroll I can trust not to waste our time. Muthukrishna was fascinating, though his apparent belief or at least approval of galactic expansion,
well less said the better.
Michael Muthukrishna did have some great info and good story telling.

Lausten does any of that make sense?

Really? Like what? Do you know how to take measurements to determine the earth is going around the sun?

Not much of it. I would have to listen again to bookmark the places that contradict your claims of “he never brings in”.

What do you think he means by energy? Cherrios? Red Bull?

Watching the moon and planets and Milky Way and stars move through the skies.
Especially when it’s in your face every day (er. night) of your being.

Meditating on a grand vista of a receding horizon at sunset, than watching the shadow of Earth cross the sky and darkness fall, with stars appearing and putting on their show, then to recede into day time again. Noticing stars disappear into the sunset, not to appear again for month and then in the Eastern night sky. Add a little sailing knowledge. . . .

I’m not talking about Cheerios or Red Bull or available energy.
Although now that you bring it up, did you notice how that part of the discussion was also in a sterile mind-space? Why do I say that? Because there was, not one mention of Earth or carrying capacity, or any of those current real-time aspects of our real-world of “energy for human utilization” conundrum.

Are you telling me that isn’t a flaw?

Mind you, what he had to say about energy was probably fairly accurate and interesting, I’m don’t fully get his interpretation, but it’s my first couple listens, some of it made sense, other bits not so much. All of it was lacking that bottom up organic evolutionary paradigm.

Yes, listen to it again, but focus on his introduction and big picture.

But it really comes through in his introduction, particular between 10:00 - 15:00. You show me where I missed him tying into life on Earth being incredibly interactive, interwoven. That Earth’s environment and our interactions with other animals are what drove our development, what formed us.

None of that dimension distracts from the materialistic evidence, instead it holds the key to enhancing our understanding.

Humans did that for more than a hundred thousand years, starting when there was no “indoors”. If you could explain how you look at that motion and figure out the solar system, with no help from any previous generation, you’d have a point. But you can’t. What we do have is early attempts, complicated formulas about why the “wanderers” reverse direction now and then. Then more observers that built on that. We have records of eclipses that we’re pieced together. You’re saying your observational skills are better than that accumulated knowledge?

I was just joking around, but this is worse than I thought.

During my internet browsing , I often run across an expression that is compatible with your perspective. It is after all, based on sound reasoning…

Evolving mirror-neural network.

No, you are jumping to that conclusion.

I’m saying that the sensation of Earth moving through space, and the reality of roundness, exists.

I’m saying that description given in the talk, was over simplified.

It’s that simple.

Of course you can, as can I. Look at that list of expert authors and books that have helped develop my idea these past years. It’s all right there, the hints of consciousness being an interaction; the mind ~ physical reality divide; to the absolutely interactive nature of our evolution; our connections to the natural world.

Just like that wild 3D artwork, where you just see a wild design, but blur your eye’s a bit and it suddenly turns into a textured wonderland. Hey never thought of that analogy before, I think it’s extremely apt for what I’m driving at.

This is what I’m talking about!

The inability to recognize anything out of “human reasoning”, that is our mindscape.

No, it’s not only “sound reasoning” that we have - we have simple observation and experiences that the Earth tosses at us.

The earliest humans didn’t reason a sharp implement would slice up a carcass and then proceed to experiment until they developed a sharp rock. It’s much more realistic to imagine, first finding a sharp rock and discovering what a great tool it is.

But those insights can’t be gleaned from a confined life within modern structures and transportation modes.

I see organic transitions, that’s all I’m talking about.

I’m not knocking the importance of the scientific method of accumulating observations and data and constructive honest debate and record keeping, until they reveal all sorts of secrets just outside of our natural senses.

Besides this Earth observation tussle is a toss off - the real key to what I’m trying to get across is the missing dimension of appreciating how much the physical outside influences what’s happening inside of us.



Did you listen to Muthukrishna’s story?

It’s more complicated and interesting than word association.

… and an invitation to a more interesting discussion into humanity’s predisposition for cultural learning and what that means.

And that is the way I look at mathematics. We find (discover) natural values and equations, codify them, and then test the truth in the equations.

Humans did not invent mathematics, we discovered it and used it as a tool to solve problems.

It always comes down to solving problems from single cells to entire populations.

True enough



1 Like

We like our niches. And that is a good thing.
As Roger Antonsen says; “learn to see things from different perspectives”.

Write, that is not cool. You’ve shared that video half a dozen times. Why not take an hour and listen to Micheal Muthukrishna’s talk, and come up with an interesting take on that, or reflect on his intro and what I was trying to explain about that?

Write, this is not cool.

I’m saying it doesn’t. If it did, there would be accounts of it through history. The best humans did was predict where the sun, moon, and stars would be and they related environmental changes to that. Planets were just weird stars.

After Kepler and everyone else, people like Buckminster Fuller popularized the idea of feeling what science had explained.

I posted this a while ago

I know I have shown this before but that is to show this for new visitors.
I believe this little clip is worthwhile viewing for anybody and I don’t expect newbies to wade through years of posts to find something interesting.

As to Muthukrishna, I browsed his site and I could not connect his focus to what I am Investigating. He talks about culture and how that evolves.

I am into the mechanics of data processing via microtubules. That’s Penrose!