Actually, what you name The Prime Directive is not a directive, but is made of two separate uncontrollable instinctive reaction sequences genetically coded in the sub-neural networks of the limbic system of all species, that are meant to insure individual and species survival.

See Section "7. The Origin and Function of Emotions" (page 370) of this paper titled "The Mechanics of Conceptual Thinking":

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.102028

Best Regards

André

Andre thanks, but genetically coded by what? it takes a super intelligent scientist to encode the gene! We can just pass it off.. It was there from day one otherwise no survival could have existed.

Dear Michael,

I do not speculate on how it got established, progressively evolving as species complexified in the course of time.

But being a programmer myself, I can recognize well optimized programming when I see some, the most complex living structure having resulted in the universe being our neocortex, a correlator of unbounded power, with specialized verbal areas meant to allow us to understand anything.

Best Regards

André

Dear Emmanouil,

Irreducible complexity is obvious in the countless individual processes that keep our bodies alive and operating.

Another example is the manner in which a very specific biochemical cascade production of protein G in the retina allows amplifying the energy of even a single photon for it to become detectable.

Ref: Bear M.F, Connors B.W. and Paradiso M.A. (1996) "Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain", Williams & Wilkins, USA. Chapter 9

Best Regards

André

The fact that the universe we ”understand” is a logical structure implies logic rules. If inimitable complexity leads to a logical conclusion then perhaps the enumeration itself is a prime directive. A grasshopper knowingly goes to its death to obey the prime directive. A tree Sacrifices it fruits to be fruitful. dearh is the opposite to the prime directive. Even a crocodile gently picks its young to protect it. The prime directive aligns with our state of being and morality. It offers love, tenderness, societal tendencies. Evolution offers hate anger and localization. But even when localized, the governing tendencies of species is to obey the prime directive and procreate. In nature it is a self evident truth. There is no self evident truth associated with evolution. There is no property of a species that can be pointed to as aligned with evolution. The very driving force of evolution is the prime directive.

I once taught a course in Intelligent Design (ID). There are more issues with ID than Evolution. Example, evolution has made predictions (that fossils between species would be found, genes, etc), ID makes no predictions that humans can use to better ourselves. Example, the much touted mouse trap analogy, there is a intermediate step - the necktie clip. Even if one "believes" in ID, it is not useful whereas evolution is useful.

The prime directive is survival. The route to survival involves female characteristics and male characteristics to form the next generation. More generally, the female character is to nurture : to live with hope, love, and mercy in a competitive world. The male characteristic is to protect and provide : to live with understanding, truth, and justice in a changing world. For a person to live with wisdom which is to live with nurturing and providing/protecting in a world with limited resources.

The opposites of the cardinal requirement such as beauty (bad) and hate (very bad) as opposites for love causes destruction.

I submit that evolution was intelligently implemented to achieve the prime directive. Every aspect of what we deem appreciable beauty stems from a need to procreate. Flowers have a beautiful symphony of scent and colors to achieve their directive, man goes through the hoops to achieve that objective. Yes there are fossils that show that evolution is factual, but that does not dispute with the prime directive.. One cannot encompass the prime directive in evolution, but one can encompass evolution under the prime directive. If evolution can explain nurturing, then the nurturing could not have been there from the beginning of evolution of a given species. It must have developed by some accidental genetic causation. Meanwhile it takes millions of years to develop such a causation and even billions due to its complexity, so how does that impact survival? Take away the nurturing of a species for its young and the species will die out in less than two generations. The aspects of love, nurturing, tenderness, care, and an innate understanding that TEETH are not meant to kill the young but the enemy and you get a primitive global evidence of something beyond evolution and that predates any evolutionary successes. That which is the most complex of all properties..emotions seems to be there from the get go.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjknLHp39ngAhUCs54KHSUzC-0QwqsBMAF6BAgBEAc&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKYp_Xi4AtAQ&usg=AOvVaw16iT7ghllAQCZE4pOM84DX

Dear Michael,

You wrote: "There is no self evident truth associated with evolution. There is no property of a species that can be pointed to as aligned with evolution."

Absolutely right. But there is a property across all species that is aligned with evolution.

It is the constant increase in complexity of neural networks in the brains of succeeding species across the whole sequence of species that came and went, ending in the current human neocortex, whose myelination of the verbal areas has been genetically delayed until 7 years of age to allow easy learning of language in youth.

The result is conceptual thinking that we alone are endowed with:

https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2019.102028

This leads to conclude that evolution was intelligently implemented to achieve conceptual thinking, The prime directive per se being only meant as a means to achieve this goal as more complex species followed less evolved species.

Best Regards

André

André Michaud

The development of complexity is part of emergence and evolution models. It goes from the very basic components of the universe to us.

I'm a hunter, I have seen prey and dogs show considerable evidence of conceptual thinking and future forecasting.

Dear John,

You wrote: "The development of complexity is part of emergence and evolution models. It goes from the very basic components of the universe to us."

I would say, "from the first life forms to us".

As for conceptual thinking, have you ever heard of a dog conceive of and drawing a perfect circle?

I would really like to see someone succeeding in explaining the concept to a dog, provide it with the drawing means and ask it to proceed to draw one.

Best Regards

André

Andre, The very driving force you site for evolution is the generation of multiplicity so selections can be made from such multiplicity. Complexity alone does not resolve logical outcomes. The universe is logical and so we expect complexity to still be governed by logic. Critters in the universe must be logically consistent to understand their environment, they cannot be quantum in nature. That logical consistency is what we strive to interpret as theory. Yes we evolve toward complexity, but each complexity becomes an island (species) of its own that strives to obey the Prime directive. Be fruitful..Within each such island, are driving forces that have nothing to do with other islands (species) , unless they can use other islands (species) to procreate (parasites, diseases, viruses, blood cells, human cells, all of biology). All living things strive to find habitats where procreation is maximized for their species.You never find such critters trying to maximize their ability to be the fittest at the expense of procreation. They try to maximize their ability to be the fittest procreators and not necessarily to dominate other species. Cows left in a field will maximize their efforts to procreate rather than eat. All animals (males especially) fight to the death to be the ones to procreate. You may say that is elimination of the weakest in the species, but in general, the driving force is to be the ones to procreate. Nothing in evolution provides for that drive. It is not in the genes, it is inherent even in the non-thinking parasites. In evolution, nature (animals included) is the diminishing force for species and it is based on their fitness to procreate. Even an unfit weak- lion can kill its rivals cubs so it can be the one to procreate its weaker species. The very driving force you site for evolution is the generation of multiplicity so selections can be made from such multiplicity. Virus evolve so that they can multiply...Be fruitful and multiply!

Dear Michael,

From what I observed it is coded in the genes. In all living species, even the simplest, the complex and precise processes leading to procreation are driven by code sequences in the genetic code, even for the non-thinking parasites.

Best Regards

André

There you go it is inevitably implanted as a directive perhaps by design. Otherwise why? Why not in rocks.

Yes. I also think it is implanted as a directive, perhaps by design as you say, which we do not have much data to ascertain. But I doubt that the directive to reproduce endlessly has no other function than reproduction itself.

This was already achieved by the first forms of life (goal achieved if reproduction was the only purpose). Seems to me that more is at play with the complexification of succeeding species leading to us with the most complex brains.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W7QZnwKqopo

André Michaud

Having concepts has little to do with drawing. The dogs, cats, etc. have to have a concept of how to approach their prey. They don't just go down to the store.

Dear John,

Of course I see what you mean. But in context of this thread about evolution and its prime directive as singled out by Michael, I was talking about conceptual thinking stemming from the generalizations that articulated languages allow us to make, that allow us to understand our environment to a level that no other species not having articulated language can achieve, which seems to me, as it also seemed to Pavlov, Chauchard and Eccles, among many others, as the most advanced push of the evolutionary process.

Best Regards

André

A property that is common to all species and is scientifically factual is the amazing tendency to do all that is necessary to procreate. The very essence of being is preserved by ‘this ordered it supersedes all other theories because it is fact.

So is species complexification over the course of time.

Ref: John C. Eccles. How the Self Controls its Brain, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1994.

"Complexification" occurs as species assimilate more and more characteristics. A simple complexification is the First law of thermodynamics..Entropy increases.. So the entropy of species also increases. For example at the base level, amoeba multiply by dividing..They don't grow bigger and bigger..they must obey the Prime Directive. If they follow evolution, they may have just maximized their use of resources and grow bigger and bigger until they consume the world. It is inherent in them to multiply! So is the inherent ability of our cells to multiply..Be Fruitful and Multiply.. Almost all known so called "evolutionary" trends are related to this Directive! From flowers honing in on their best chemical flora so humming birds can help them multiply to even the ingenious Venus fly catcher proving flowers that do not capture insects just so they can multiply. These flowering plants actually cease the business of catching insects for a while so they can generate nectar flowers that attract the same victims to help them procreate.

The prime directive is to survive. Spending resources for support of the weak fails to allow survival. Rocks have the same methods as life to survive - their names and processes are slightly different. Survive for them means grow bigger that gravity does. They become complex with layers as they become planets or suns.

Dear John,

If the prime directive was meant for life to evolve until conceptual thinking became possible, then once conceptual thinking has been achieved, support of the physically weak is no hindrance to the process since it does not prevent acquisition of conceptual thinking.

The real question then becomes: What is the purpose of conceptual thinking?

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

So if the evolution continues and doesn't stop at conceptual thinking, then support for the failures/weak with no hope of contributing is a hindrance.

Dear John,

I may be wrong, of course, but since that from my analysis, there already is no built-in limit to our neocortex ability to understand anything, given related data to correlate, my feeling is that we physiologically are the end of the line in this direction at least, meaning the no future species will ever appear that could understand more than we already have the potential to understand.

Failure to contribute does not imply inability to contribute. For all who have the potential to contribute, this only involves not contributing, irrespective of their potential. So, from this perspective, I think that the few who are actually unable to contribute are only marginal in the typically able crowd, and are no more a hindrance then the crowd of able-to-contribute but don't contribute.

But all of those who do not contribute can all the same beget offsprings who may eventually contribute, if not their direct offspring then further generations.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Humanity cannot yet create a universe. (trite but true). Nature continues to amaze. I like to think there is another step to take in our ability to understand.

I know there is another step to form a society - a world order. Humanity has tried many forms. But all have failed. Some have lasted a longer and grew to larger size. But the form for the world order still eludes us.

Notice I mentioned "with no hope of ever contributing". For example, a healthy baby must be supported. A person who is able and does not has failed. There are enough new people rising that the current failures are causing resources to be diverted from the advancement of humanity/society. As societies age, the population grows to maximum. During a warm period, food production can sustain the increase. he comes a cool period with decreased food production. Trying to keep all-including the infirm- alive results in a society collapse. It has happened many time before. We will be tried soon.

Contributors parent enough offspring to fill the available space of future generations. I tend to think that genes of early training by parents carries the parents characteristics forward. Losers beget looser mostly. The few exceptions do not justify the wasted resources.

Yeah. It's a bit harsh. But nature is harsh.

Dear John,

We will never be able to create a universe. Physical reality is what it is outside of our ability to cause it to exist or not. It simply "is", and here comes a species, us, equipped to potentially understand it all. The more data we gather and analyze, the clearer we understand, irrespective of innumerable sidewise useless shots in the dark.

Your experiment is such a data set that can be analyzed to provide clearer understanding. This is why I was convinced that it should be permanently put at the disposal of the scientific community by being formally published.

You wrote: "I know there is another step to form a society - a world order. Humanity has tried many forms. But all have failed. Some have lasted a longer and grew to larger size. But the form for the world order still eludes us."

We must (as a species) be patient on the long term. Korzybski compared the current social state of humanity to a child walking on all 4, and was looking forward to the day when humanity will become "adult" and stand up on its two feet.

I tend to agree with him. In general, I observe that many of our societies have become much less barbaric than barely 500 years ago. I see things moving in the right direction, generally speaking. The death penalty, for example, is regressing world wide, and so on.

You wrote: "Contributors parent enough offspring to fill the available space of future generations. I tend to think that genes of early training by parents carries the parents characteristics forward. Losers beget looser mostly. The few exceptions do not justify the wasted resources."

Well, the correlating ability of the neocortex of each individual who can learn to speak is the same for every individual. The properties of multi-layer neural networks are such that any individual can eventually become able to contribute. Such optimal use does not depend on genetics but on social and environmental circumstances that make it possible for any individual to become able to contribute.

The genetics defines the structure of the multilayer network, but only favorable social and environmental circumstances define the degree to which an individual will develop his ability to use it. Optimal use is what historically gave rise to every beneficial discovery that marked history.

We each are equipped with an optimally designed correlator, but since no user manual came with it, we must individually learn to use it optimally.

Best Regards, André