From Wikipedia - Lynn Margulis (March 5, 1938 – November 22, 2011[1]) was an American biologist and University Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.[2] She is best known for her theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles, and her contributions to the endosymbiotic theory, which is now generally accepted for how certain organelles were formed. She is also associated with the Gaia hypothesis, based on an idea developed by the English environmental scientist James Lovelock.

I first heard about Margulis in my Introduction to Plant Biology class. Like any good scientist, she put her neck out there and stirred up some controversy; her death is a loss to everyone.

Voices from Oxford: 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origins of Species event
  • In where Lynn Margulis socks it to Richard Dawkins and his militant Neo-Darwinist views with a simple reply based on evidence.
  • Richard Dawkins: If you take the standard story for ordinary animals, what’s wrong with it, you’ve got a distribution of animals, you’ve got a promontory or an island or something so you end up with two distributions there, just geographical, and then on either side of this promontory you get different selection pressures so this one starts to evolve that way, this one starts to evolve that way and what’s wrong with that? It’s highly plausible, it’s economical, it’s parsimonious. Why on earth would you want to drag in symbiogenesis when it’s so unparsimonious and uneconomical?
  • Lynn Margulis: Because it’s there.

anonymous asked:

care to explain your url and all the "godbuilding" stuff you're always posting?

I would love to!

First off, Godbuilding;

Godbuilding is a Marxist theory of religion and the occult, which was invented primarily by the theorists Anatoly Lunacharsky and Alexander Bogdanov.

Essentially, Godbuilding is based upon viewing religion/mysticism primarily in terms of the psychological and sociological effect that it has, and further, how symbolism and ritual could be used in the service of Marxist political goals. It’s the primary theoretical underpinning that i use in my occult working.

I’m particularly interested in the Anatoly Lunacharsky quote, “For the sake of the great struggle for life… it is necessary for humanity to almost organically merge into an integral unity”. This symbiogenesis into a greater super-organism is the ultimate goal that my occult workings strive toward, a goal for which global communism is only the first small step.

So basically, all those “godbuilding sigils” i’ve posted are symbols which i’ve been working with for those purposes.

My url, “leviathan supersystem”, is also related to this. It’s basically just a fancy term for large-scale social systems, which hints at the occult.

if you want there to be an omnipotent superintelligence, why not just let the natural processes of symbiogenesis run their course, and allow all of humanity to merge in to one single organism? this is literally the only scenario for the emergence of a superintelligence where the superintelligence has total shared interest with humanity (since it is humanity)

creating an AI superintelligence, by contrast, is a terrible fucking idea, doomed to horrific failure.

Recently I’ve been reading about the history of evolutionary algorithms, a computation method that uses Darwinian patterns (reproduction, natural selection) and modern genetic modes of organization (mutation, ploidy, recombination) to build optimization and learning programs. It’s a fascinating field, not least of all because it abandons, as John Koza argues in “Genetic Programming” (1992), it abandons the seven basic guiding principles of virtually all fields of science, mathematics, and engineering: correctness, consistency, justifiability, certainty, orderliness, parsimony, and decisiveness. Unlike the ‘brittle’ programming built on these parameters, evolutionary algorithms share the characteristics found in “natural” algorithms: they are “uncertain and non-deterministic… involv[ing] asynchronous, uncoordinated, local, and independent activity that is not centrally controlled and orchestrated. It privileges fitness and diversity, not parsimony. It doesn’t even have a single, conclusive conclusion to any given problem. And as a result, it is able to thrive in virtual environments that are prone to sudden, unannounced disturbances.

Recently, genetic algorithms (a specific variety evolutionary algorithm) have been in the news following the 'leak’ of a Chinese research paper on the use of genetic algorithms in the programming of UAVs designed to hunt foreign submarines, but their applications are numerous and varied, including everything from crime eyewitness sketch composition to satellite antennae design to traffic control. But what really caught my eye was the above chart, from a paper by Nils Aall Barricelli, a virtually unheard-of mathematician who was largely ignored during his lifetime but who was genuinely ahead of his time in biology, cybernetics, and computer science, and who was arguably the first person to use a genetic algorithm. In "Numerical Testing of Evolution Theories” (1962), he sought to test the emerging (and now widespread) theory of symbiogenesis, the idea that many complex lifeforms are the descendents of multiple, distantly-related lines of ancestry that at some point 'fused’ into single organisms (i.e. Eukaryotes are the descendents of both Archaeal and Bacterial lines), using something akin to fractals. Each column is a single generation of creatures, which 'reproduce’ according to a simple algorithm as the line beneath them. He identified emergent properties in the developing population, pointing out that the reproduction of some numbers was contingent on neighboring numbers. Some of these 'symbioorganisms’ allowed each other to reproduce. Others, which he identified as parasites, relied on other numbers for reproducing without actually helping any others. But it was in Figure 15 that he claimed to have identified actual evolution: in the left side of the figure around generation 60, from (1,-1) to (1,-3), “introduced by an external element (-3) entering the organism.”

It’s interesting to see computer scientists seeking to emulate the supposed 'messiness’ of biology, but even more hair-raising to see the seemingly absurd attempts of scientists like Barricelli seek to organize that messiness mathematically. But really, isn’t that what biology as a discipline is? The departure from natural history as a discipline was motivated largely by the desire to create a biological science like physics, a rigorous field that could evacuate observed phenomena of its particulars to arrive at its universal operational laws; to sift through the birds and the galls and the blood to finally see the “species”, the “populations”, the “niches,” abstracted categories that can be assessed mathematically. I’m not sure if it’s always a bad impulse, but it’s hard to ignore the sloppy scientific movements that have emerged from it: Francis Galton’s racial statistics, E. O. Wilson’s sociobiology… and maybe, the unconscious intellectual heirs of Barricelli.