Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jhedwards 2001 days ago
In George C Williams' book Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges, he starts the book with some philosophical problems for biologists. One of my favorites is that he points out a sharp distinction between the "codical" domain and the domain of "interactors".

Interactors are the physical organisms that interact with each other and the environment. The codices are the information stored in the genes. He makes this point to emphasize that the world of information has its own rules that are different from the rules of physical bodies, and that the interactors seem to exist merely to ensure the continued propagation of the information.

1 comments

This is how Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed are real, not because all the stories about them are true or that they are actually divine. But because they are actual self propagating ideas promoted by real physical people.
Neat! I haven't seen this idea out in the world much, but a book called "Object Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything" kinda runs at this from a neat science-rooted philosophy perspective. It basically says that any philosophical framework needs to have just as much to say about fictional beings as it does physical, since fictional constructs certainly affect us.

I'd just never run across that idea before that book, but is there a specific place you came across it? :)

>I'd just never run across that idea before that book, but is there a specific place you came across it? :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa

This is dancing on the edge of reality and metaphysics, I think the subject is fascinating since so much of our world is dominated by narratives.. real or imagined.

Interesting. In some circles of psychology and mythology, such as in reading Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, there is an importance given to fiction because stories will affect people's lives in a profound way. The way I understand this view is that any information - whether objectively observed, or subjectively interpreted - which is meaningful deserves to be honored and understood.
Aren't you just redefining the word "real" there to mean "the idea exists" instead of "a physical person existed"?

But by that definition, Han Solo and Bilbo Baggins are also "real". At what point do we simply use a different word for "physically exists"?

Almost, Star Wars and LOTR are not really self propelling ideas that guide populations of people. The information is there, it's just not nearly as memetic.

Although I would say that Star Wars has inspired a lot of space exploration, it's not nearly as viral as something like Christianity.

Also religion is going through evolution, Christianity or Islam is just the result of many trial-error previous long forgotten religions which were less fit and were replaced by religions that spread faster. For example, it seems like mono-theistic religions were simpler and easier to understand - this is one shared trait between the most of the current "live" religions.