So, to the title; a raven is an example of an organism that has evolved, and the idea of a writing desk is likewise, a physical representation of an idea that has evolved over time.

The raven evolved as a result of a biological process of self organization ( a consciousness ). Whilst the desk evolved as a result of human consciousness. Also a process of self organization. Am I in the ball park?

Could be. Like any good theory, it is only useful if it allows one to make testable predictions.

So, if an idea is like an evolving organism, what does this allow us to predict? That ideas adapt to fit their environment? That idea evolution is blind and without direction, but tends towards greater complexity?

That ideas adapt to fit their environment - good one :smile:

Those were examples of the sorts of predictions we should be able to make. One is not ‘right’ per se, and there are no doubt other sorts of predictions we should be able to make as well that could be useful in understanding then how ideas affect groups of people, and how they might evolve in given environments. I think sociologists would have a few words to say on the matter.

I’m interested in the nature of ideas. I have a theory that ideas can be modelled as organisms and evolve according to the process of survival of the fittest. — Roy Davies

You mean meme theory, as hypothesised by Richard Dawkins and ran with most notably by Daniel Dennett, two thinkers very much in the public eye?

It's a really good idea, makes a lot of sense, and has great power to explain.

But it's cultures, not minds. Memes are units of culture.

Yes, the meme concept is where my thinking started in this area. Yes, culture is the collection of minds and thus it is this collection that evolves ideas. But they don’t always go in a positive direction. In a certain culture of minds, ideas like nazism can grow very well. So, how can we ensure a fitness function that evolves ideas in a positive direction?

It makes sense to contextualize ideas in evolutionary terms. After all, ideas either make or break us and that being the case ideas would naturally align themselves with the evolutionary goal of survival. Someone, I can't recall who, once said that to believe falsehoods amounts to significantly reducing one's chances of living a full productive life. True ideas then are the equivalent of physical adaptations like agility, speed, strength, intelligence, etc.

That’s an interesting point. Though I don’t know about ideas being ‘true’ or not. Some very destructive ideas can exist in a society and thus keep it going, at least for a while.

I tend to think of ideas have a value to the society or group of minds in which it exists. That value is relevant only to that society at that time, but there I don’t know if there is absolute truth.

That’s an interesting point. Though I don’t know about ideas being ‘true’ or not. Some very destructive ideas can exist in a society and thus keep it going, at least for a while. — Roy Davies

By true ideas I mean those that are aligned to truths/facts about our world. As an example germ theory is an idea that's true in the sense it seems to be close enough to the actual truth about diseases to allow us to prevent/cure illnesses.

False ideas are the kind that's constructed around falsehoods and are particularly harmful. For instance belieiving your local shaman's diagnosis of your illness as the work of evil spirits is assuredly going to make things go from bad to worse for you.

However, I'm certain that I've failed to do justice to the complexity involved.

I agree. The concept of conjecture and refutation means that an idea is only as good as its ability to stand up to being refuted. A good idea also has to be refutable in its design.

I agree. The concept of conjecture and refutation means that an idea is only as good as its ability to stand up to being refuted. A good idea also has to be refutable in its design. — Roy Davies

I don't know. It's too early to tell whether it's true that all falsehoods are bad and that all truths are good, good and bad in re survival that is but as someone once said, "the truth will out" and that's going to be an embarrassment at best and a death sentence at worst.

I think the problem is suggesting that an idea is 'good' or 'bad'. Going back to the evolution of ideas, whether an idea survives or not is not about its goodness or badness, but whether it supports the idea's survival or not. Evolution's fitness function doesn't determine if an organism is 'good' or 'bad', just whether it will survive in the environment long enough to reproduce.

Ideas might contribute to the successful existence of the entity thinking it, and thus be a positive influence on the entity and idea together, but there are many ideas that can be thought that won't have a noticeable effect on the entity's survival, but may themselves survive or not depending on the environment they find themselves in. An example would be ideas related to a religious cult that self reinforce each other inside the cult, but that outside, would seem ludicrous. From the outside, we would think these are 'bad' ideas and ultimately, the environment they exist in will come to an end. Like an evolutionary enclave.

Ideas might contribute to the successful existence of the entity thinking it, and thus be a positive influence on the entity and idea together, but there are many ideas that can be thought that won't have a noticeable effect on the entity's survival, but may themselves survive or not depending on the environment they find themselves in. An example would be ideas related to a religious cult that self reinforce each other inside the cult, but that outside, would seem ludicrous. From the outside, we would think these are 'bad' ideas and ultimately, the environment they exist in will come to an end. Like an evolutionary enclave — Roy Davies

Possible. Very possible.

So, how can we ensure a fitness function that evolves ideas in a positive direction? — Roy Davies

A good idea also has to be refutable in its design. — Roy Davies

Please elaborate, with solutions.

For the latter, I suggest reading Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge" if you haven't already done so. He says it way better than I ever could. All good hypotheses are formed in this way, take for example, Newtons equations. These are all clearly put and testable, and thus one can attempt to find ways to refute them - situations where they might break down, such as sub-atomically, which Einstein did. This doesn't mean Newton's equations are wrong, but now their area of correctness is more carefully defined.

:up:

For the former - that is indeed the question. One would have to first decide what a positive direction is. For example, for the good of society? For the good of the planet? For the good of my country? For the good of my religion? Unfortunately, sometimes 'for the good of X' also means 'not for the good of not X'.

It would be like driving evolution. So, I want a dog that has floppy ears and fluffy fur. Selective breeding can probably attain that result in time. Therefore, I guess we need to start with a goal, as in business, decide where you want the end result to be, and work back from there. Now, of course, we would have to debate about what is desirable in terms of ideas. A totalitarian state would have quite different views than a democratic one, but even different democracies will differ in their desire for, say stability vs chaos.

Selective breeding of ideas is exactly what those that use facebook to influence political systems are doing now.

Therein, by the way lies another interesting debate as to whether a stable and safe society (as one might wish to attain) breeds apathy and depression?

It would be difficult to apply Popper's standard to philosophy.

How do you feel about panpsychism. A panpsychist world would be similar to a Buddhist world, I believe.

Could be. Like any good theory, it is only useful if it allows one to make testable predictions. — Roy Davies

Hey, I think that if you want to make testable hypotheses about the evolution of ideas, it'd be required to find a measurable representation of ideas. I mean, an idea must be first measurable by some parameter before you can study how such parameter (an the idea) evolves, how it is transmitted from generation to generation (vertically) and from person to person (horizontally), and how it changes by its interaction with other ideas. You must also be able to quantify variation in order to understand how variation is introduced into ideas. So, the parameter(s) that you choose to measure ideas must be such that you can determine its/their rate(s) of change with respect to time or any other variable that may affect the evolution of an idea (i.e population number, age, generation).

Good points. I’ll need to think about that a bit, but I think you are now getting into the next stage of my rather loose theory, which is most excellent. I am also still trying to define exactly what an idea is. Coming at that from a neural network / cognitive science point of view, an ‘idea‘ is a neural response to a set of inputs. So, an idea could be a very low level response to a sensory input, eg the ideas that are triggered by the smell of bacon, such as vague memories of happy childhood breakfasts.

Indeed. Popper talks about what I would think can best be described as how to value practical ideas. The scientific process, and in essence it is an attempt to remove human bias from the process of idea evolution. Humans tend to see patterns that are not always there, and tend to want to believe they are right. Scientists are human, so the process of conjecture and refutation is about mitigating that.

But an idea represented by an art installation, say? Or a piece of music? Or a philosophical concept (eg panpsychism)? Hmm, conjecture and refutation certainly doesn’t make sense there.

Writing desks can't write, and ravens can't rave.

So, if we consider human minds to be the environment in which ideas breed and grow, then I wonder what the measure of fitness is for an idea? — Roy Davies

The measure of fitness is survival.

Dumb ideas are like dandelions that seed themselves in poor disturbed soil minds and spread like gossip. Social forms are like trees that stabilise the soil mind and enrich it with falling leaves implications and ways of living. Philosophy is like a cow that eats ideas and shits all over them and also enriches the soil.

The idea that ideas are like organisms in the environment of mind is an analogy that can be pushed too far.

The measure of fitness is survival. — unenlightened

Yes, but what is the rule that ensures survival? In natural systems, it is survival of the fittest, but in an artificial system, one has to create the fitness function to match the desired outcome. So, for example, when using genetic algorithms to grow neural networks, the fitness function is defined to grow the networks to perform as desired. So, if we had to define a fitness function for growing ideas within humanity, or for that matter, a fitness function for growing AIs to benefit humanity, what might it say?

I'm sure it is, but one has to push an analogy beyond its limits in order to define the border.

Philosophy is like a cow that eats ideas and shits all over them and also enriches the soil. — unenlightened

I think this has to be the quote of year... Though perhaps one could even say that "Philosophy is like a cow that eats ideas, chews over them again and again like it chews its cud, digests them, and shits them out thus enriching the soil to grow new ideas."