Samantha Sweetwater: “Life at the Center”

Samantha Sweetwater: “Life at the Center” | The Great Simplification #112

[ 3/April/24 ]

I view the world very differently from most others, so no surprise I have some issues, but up until about 59 minutes I could generally go along with something like most of it, but at around 59:20 Samantha gets into the idea of purpose within ecosystems – and I find that notion dangerous in the way she has formulated it.

I can sort of agree with aspects of it, in that cooperation in a foundational principal for the survival of complexity, so that there will be cooperative (and competitive) aspects to organisms within ecosystems, and such things can appear to be very close to the idea of purpose, and there does seem to be an important distinction, which becomes critical when it comes to talking about people.

My definition of life is “systems capable of searching the space of possible systems for the survivable”.

Search has an aspect of freedom, of going beyond the known and the explored, that is foundational to this definition of life; and the survivable aspect imposes degrees of responsibility appropriate to the degrees of freedom claimed.

Humans and our ability to use complex language, bring two things to life that did not exist previously. We bring entire new domains of algorithms of search, most of which are very much faster than the traditional genetic method of replication with variation and differential survival in different contexts doing most of the sorting.

Not only does language allow us to create new ways of doing things very quickly, and to rapidly transmit them to other members of our species; it also allows us to rapidly develop technologies capable of altering environments to meet our needs.

At another level, language allows for the emergence of new levels of systems/awareness; patterns of being that are not possible without language. Our usual awareness is one such, and seems to be bootstrapped into existence by a declarative statement in language, but that is a topic for a different discussion – as it too is deeply complex.

The huge “fly” in this “ointment”, is that evolution has strongly biased our neural networks to prefer simple certainty over complex uncertainty.

We have multiple levels of systems within our sensory systems and our neural networks that subconsciously simplify down the complexity that is demonstrably present in reality, such that what seems real to us as individuals is already a grossly simplified version of whatever reality actually is. We then go on to further simplify that. And we wonder why our scientists and engineers don’t often get things right first time.

On top of that we build language with nouns and verbs that invite us to classify anything remotely resembling our archetypes as being exactly those, which hides deep levels of subtleties and distinctions.

When it comes to the evident depths of complexity present in living systems, it is clear to me, from 60 years of study, that no human mind can possibly deal with all the complexity actually present in even the simplest of living organisms, let alone anything as complex as a human being, or an ecosystem. So we all, understandably, have to use our simplistic models; the huge issue is, that we tend to treat those simplistic models as “TRUTH” rather than accepting that they are simplistic models. The more simple and foundational the model, the less likely anyone is willing to challenge it.

So we, as humans, do not have a “purpose” in the complex ecosystems.

We do have a role in ensuring their survival, as our own survival is predicated on their survival in ways very few have much idea about at present, and that is another deeply complex subject.

We are an entirely new form of life, in a sense, that is based upon the old forms of life, but is capable of search across entirely new domains of systems and strategies and modes of thinking and being. Right now, we are not demonstrating sufficient awareness of the need for cooperation in diversity, to have a high probability of survival.

We are like children, with very simple ideas about the complexity of our existence.

If people understand evolution at all, it is usually in terms of competition, rather than looking much more deeply into the complexity actually present, and seeing the foundational role of cooperation in the emergence and survival of all levels of complexity. And that is really hard, there is a great deal of complexity present, and few people have either the interest or the capacity or the time to delve deeply into that complexity and emerge on the other side with useful simplifications.

Cooperation is foundational to the survival of complexity, all levels, all domains, demonstrably, and even at its simplest, that is complex. And for cooperation to survive, there must emerge evolving ecosystems of cheat detection and mitigation systems. Right now, it is arguable that cheating systems dominate most of the political, economic, educational and religious institutions on the planet. Some are clearly and obviously cheating at relatively low levels, others are cheating at much more abstract levels, and if it is not supporting cooperation in diversity, then it is cheating!

Samantha mentions games theory, and most of games theory is predicated on closed systems, and zero sum games. We are actually in an open system, and we are exploring boundary conditions far faster than any single human can possibly comprehend.

If we are to survive this, then the vast majority of people need to be able to appreciate that any level of competition that is not firmly based in cooperation is equivalent to cancer in our bodies – it may seem to be going very well for the cancer cells, right up to the point that everything dies. Our monetary systems are no longer fit for purpose, and are now actually generating existential level risk in the secondary, tertiary, and higher order incentive structures that they promote. Fundamental reform is urgently required.

So I deeply get the “spiritual” need for acceptance and cooperation; and it is actually deeply more complex than the idea of “purpose” typically embodies.

If we are to survive as a species, then we must be able to accept the need to cooperate in diversity; the alternative strategy of all out competition has such a low survival probability that it is, to all intents and purposes, zero. The incentives of the military industrial complex are a direct threat to all life on the planet, but they are not alone; the risks from big Pharma, or from big Oil, or big Finance, are almost as great.

We have to stop using systems that only value scarcity, and start assigning real value to the abundances that we actually need. And it is deeply more complex than that, and that is a very good place to start.