Nietzsche As Biological Visionary?

[jaguar43]

Mastery is a process not an end, obviously nothing can be mastered. Perfection doesn't exist in the universe. You misunderstand me.

Again your view of Nietzsches will to power is wrong and twisted. You think will to power is metaphysical and exists outside us- I am trying to explain it is a psychological concept that exists within us. Psychology has its basis in biology as the mind is inseperable from the body. The body is inseperable from its environment. Our perceptions of change in space and time are a major function of our psyche. If will to power is understood as a psychological concept then it must incorporate perceptions of change in space and time.

You change the definition of the will to power. Will to power doesn't include the external world. But only the individual. If it did include the external world then the will to power would no longer exist because the very definition of the will to power means that the will is not subordinate to the world. The question is what determines human progress and in what way does it determine human progress. For Nietzsche the will to power was the fundamental reality which did not include environmental conditions or time or development. If it did, then the "will" would cease to exist.

To say that, well the will is part of the individual, and therefore the individual is part of the world. Doesn't change the facts of the situation. The will has a very specific meaning in which it did not subordinate to nothing in the world, whether time, environments, or development.

Is that supposed to be an insult? I will take it as a compliment.
You act like I am supposed to be embarrassed for having right wing views? I don't support any political party in particular rather whichever one offers the most freedom and is least oppressive. It is obvious that the far left is at present the greatest danger to western society and to its peoples individual freedoms.

No, its suppose to show that your commitment to Nietzsche isn't really because of his philosophical theories as a whole. Rather as a way to justify your political ideology.

 

[jaguar43]

I don't know how that makes you think the studies are most likely false in nature. You're just deferring to Peat. I'm sure he wouldn't like to see that more than someone disagreeing with him on a forum bearing his name :p

Would you say appearance is all down to the placenta too? What about the myriad of other features that children share with parents?

As for the ashkenazi jews, it seems like you're being selective. Some studies have found no results (looked at all jews), but most find they have above average IQs. This fits nicely with the observation that jews are over represented in intelligence demanding fields.

Ray Peat cites Oliver Gillie in that paragraph I posted saying that he has good research into the fraud associated with twin studies. I am sure that Ray Peat thinks very poorly of twin studies. Because he said that twin studies are mostly fraudulent.

What you forget is that children share almost the exact environment as their parents. Which can make it seem that there are inheritance of genes but really what is inherited is the environment. which can be change.

 

[Dopamine]

You change the definition of the will to power. Will to power doesn't include the external world. But only the individual. If it did include the external world then the will to power would no longer exist because the very definition of the will to power means that the will is not subordinate to the world. The question is what determines human progress and in what way does it determine human progress. For Nietzsche the will to power was the fundamental reality which did not include environmental conditions or time or development. If it did, then the "will" would cease to exist.

To say that, well the will is part of the individual, and therefore the individual is part of the world. Doesn't change the facts of the situation. The will has a very specific meaning in which it did not subordinate to nothing in the world, whether time, environments, or development.

I think we just have very different interpretations of Nietzsches work- I don't want to rehash the same points over and over because it is pointless and not getting through.

No, its suppose to show that your commitment to Nietzsche isn't really because of his philosophical theories as a whole. Rather as a way to justify your political ideology.

All knowledge is a means towards an end. That includes your knowledge and dedication to Peats left wing political ideology and socialism:
Your ideology from the same thread you quoted me on:
"I don't support Clinton. I think Bernie Sanders was the best candidate for the presidency."

 

[jaguar43]

I think we just have very different interpretations of Nietzsches work- I don't want to rehash the same points over and over because it is pointless and not getting through.

I think you are conceding because you know I am right. My explanations about the "will to power" are accurate. Ray Peat said the same thing twice, once in the email exchange and the other in the article on vision and acceptance website. Instead of taking it as a possible way of learning something new, you deny the reality of Nietzsche's theories.

All knowledge is a means towards an end. That includes your knowledge and dedication to Peats left wing political ideology and socialism:
From the same thread you quoted me on:
"I don't support Clinton. I think Bernie Sanders was the best candidate for the presidency."

I don't deny I said that. Nor do I deny your intention on perceiving me as someone who has a left-wing political ideology. Because it's true. I will admit it.

But, then again there is the little thing called the Ray Peat Forum. I think some people miss that little point. If Peat does have a left leaning stance on politics and this is the ray peat forum. Then who is really in the right in this situation.

 

[Dopamine]

I think you are conceding because you know I am right. My explanations about the "will to power" are accurate. Ray Peat said the same thing twice, once in the email exchange and the other in the article on vision and acceptance website. Instead of taking it as a possible way of learning something new, you deny the reality of Nietzsche's theories.

I am conceding because you haven't even read Nietzsche and you think you understand his philosophy. I am arguing against a wall.

I don't deny I said that. Nor do I deny your intention on perceiving me as someone who has a left-wing political ideology. Because it's true. I will admit it.

But, then again there is the little thing called the Ray Peat Forum. I think some people miss that little point. If Peat does have a left leaning stance on politics and this is the ray peat forum. Then who is really in the right in this situation.

Not Peat by default... unless you follow him brainlessly.

 

[Regina]

I am conceding because you haven't even read Nietzsche and you think you understand his philosophy. I am arguing against a wall.



Not Peat by default... unless you follow him brainlessly.

 

[Regina]

Welp, you know that my bias is about finding Practical solutions first and foremost , and about applying those solutions to myself and those who happen to be directly involved with me.

IQ is clearly measuring something. Whether or not that something is to going to be manifested in useful ways is entirely contingent upon the individual. IMO, the way the tests are setup measure "processing speed" and "pattern recognition". Accordingly, the Doctors I have met who have verified IQs of 180+ are extremely good at memorising and conceptualising information ... but then go ahead and do what I see to be stupid activities like cutting people up , or endlessly obsessing over Blood Markers as if it were the be-all-end-all information to a person's current state of health.

Sidenote: I like to make fun of the doctors relying on Serum / Urine / Saliva / whatever-methodology of doing point-in-time snapshots of biomarkers , likening it to the practice of sacrificing a Dove before going to war, and reading its innards to "Ask the Gods if the omens are favourable for victory in battle".

Then, when the battle is won, more often than not via Practically obtained Tactics and Strategies, the general goes back and thanks the Gods for the good omen.

That is basically what a lot of these extremely smart Doctors are doing , and attributing their treatment protocols (most unsuccessful) to things like better blood markers, and "balancing PUFAs in the blood", and many other post-hoc rationalisations which their "high IQ" allows them to reason about .

Still doesn't change the main goal of actually helping people recover from illness, to which the tactics for doing so are largely discovered by trial and error (and "intellectual discourse" is basically collective trial-and-error).​

Therefore, I do not know, and given my position, to do not attempt to universalise the consequences of such data on IQ and Intelligence in general. All I do is give the people who happen to be come into contact with me something that is useful, and that is mostly a closed-door private affair (as you would know )

----

Mae-Wan Ho had some good ideas. I liked the fact that she presented a whole bunch of data, and was willing to eagerly make connections between that data to form novel hypotheses.

I agree with her, in the sense that it is clear that trying to find a "gene for intelligence" is futile, because what we have termed "intelligence" is such a high level trait, and restricted purely to cognitive abilities.

As far as I am concerned, I revert to a lower-level definition of "Intelligence", which is for an entity to be able to take in information from the environment, and then modify its future behaviour based on past information, to obtain better outcomes for the specific problem domain. As such, an artificial software Neural Network that becomes better at playing Chess over time is more intelligent at playing Chess.

Sidenote: this definition applies to the word "Stupid" as well, which if strictly defined, means that future behaviour actually leads to worse outcomes, with the failure to realise this and/or the inability to adapt behaviour to attain good outcomes.​

Again, I am concerned with successful practical outcomes .... If when playing a musical instrument, the musician is capable of using their "body intelligence" to "feel the notes better" (which is my experience) and allow for better accuracy, then that musician possesses an intelligence that allows them to be successful in that particular endeavour. The same goes for something like writing a computer program, and I've worked with programmers "way more intelligent" than me, who were capable of (in their words), "seeing the shape of the program, and knowing that certain patterns were wrong".

How we will ever measure this in terms of generic metrics, I do not know, nor do I concern myself heavily with that. I tend to let the practical outcomes sort themselves out, and then seek to avoid any actions that would reliably cause harm to a person.

....

tyw,
Impressive responses!

 

[tara]

When the organism is traumatized, it hardens, and stops developing, and wants to impose its moral hardness everywhere; assertiveness is the antithesis of perceptive life, and devises ways to negate it. - Ray Peat

RP's SCIENTIFIC articles are awesome, but when he starts getting all philosophical and flowery, its a big turnoff. WTF does that ^ even mean? Whether you agree with Nietzsche or not, at least nietzsche is offering something digestable.

This quote makes sense to me. Excessive (dis)stress tends to lead to reduced differentiation and rigidity. Blind growth not flexible curiosity and creativity. It seems like a generalisation that covers both the more obviously physical metabolism and structure, and also how we live our lives more generally - accumulated harm including psychological, grief, fear can make it increasingly difficult for many people to keep thinking openly, curiously, cooperatively etc.

and that's why the Western world, particularly Europe and the United States houses the greatest measure of philanthropy in the world

... having ripped off (colonised etc) the rest of the world so extensively, it occasionally returns a fraction of the wealth it acquired, sometimes with strings attached to maintain the power imbalance ... (and yes, I am a Westerner too, and am aware that I have had unearned privilege from this dynamic)

As far as I am concerned, I revert to a lower-level definition of "Intelligence", which is for an entity to be able to take in information from the environment, and then modify its future behaviour based on past information, to obtain better outcomes for the specific problem domain.

I think there's something to be said for this kind of defn.
I tend to think that intelligence in a wide sense is pretty difficult, and maybe not terribly useful, to measure as a general quality.
We might be able to measure and compare whether Jill or Jane is better at solving a specific kind of problem/test on a particular day.
But how can one objectively and meaningfully put rankable numbers on the intelligence of people who have applied themselves to learning to dance, or to build houses, or to survive in a dangerous ghetto/family, or to preaching, or to abstract mathematics, or to making small dollars cover the month's needs, to playing the stock market, to character acting?
Most numerical measures of intelligence have cultural assumptions baked into them that favour people who have particular training.

 

[jaguar43]

I am conceding because you haven't even read Nietzsche and you think you understand his philosophy. I am arguing against a wall.




Not Peat by default... unless you follow him brainlessly.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.- Socrates

 

[ilikecats]

All of this is good but... I'm trying to become the ubermensch over here! And I'm failing epicly at it! Any advice?

 

[DaveFoster]

... having ripped off (colonised etc) the rest of the world so extensively, it occasionally returns a fraction of the wealth it acquired, sometimes with strings attached to maintain the power imbalance ... (and yes, I am a Westerner too, and am aware that I have had unearned privilege from this dynamic)

That's a pretty human thing; there's the caste system in India, the Aztec system of hierarchy with commoners, nobles, and priests, Chinese slavery, etc. etc. I'm cherry-picking; white people aren't evil. People just exploit others when they're in an environment of scarcity.

If you're talking about colonizing in particular, many nations weren't advanced enough to build ships to cross intercontinental waters during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

Here's some example of non-European colonizers:

 

[jaa]

Ray Peat cites Oliver Gillie in that paragraph I posted saying that he has good research into the fraud associated with twin studies. I am sure that Ray Peat thinks very poorly of twin studies. Because he said that twin studies are mostly fraudulent.

What you forget is that children share almost the exact environment as their parents. Which can make it seem that there are inheritance of genes but really what is inherited is the environment. which can be change.

What you forgot is my mention of adopted twin studies where twins have the similar outcomes despite being raised by different households. Now some of this can be due to culture (specifically the shared culture of parents who adopt children), but that certainly hints at genetic influence for the broad definition of intelligence.

Again, I'm not taking the extreme position that environment does not matter. It does. But genetics is part of that environment. Just as one pre-person's adult height probability distribution is different than another's due to genetic influence, and that can be skewed by post birth factors like nutrition, but there are still bounds on it. It is reasonable to assume intelligence acts the same way. You seem to be taking the extreme position that genetics does not affect intelligence in any way. That goes against what we see with other traits, against observational and measured data, and against the scientific consensus. Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence to overcome the more common sense notion.

 

[jaguar43]

What you forgot is my mention of adopted twin studies where twins have the similar outcomes despite being raised by different households. Now some of this can be due to culture (specifically the shared culture of parents who adopt children), but that certainly hints at genetic influence for the broad definition of intelligence.

Again, I'm not taking the extreme position that environment does not matter. It does. But genetics is part of that environment. Just as one pre-person's adult height probability distribution is different than another's due to genetic influence, and that can be skewed by post birth factors like nutrition, but there are still bounds on it. It is reasonable to assume intelligence acts the same way. You seem to be taking the extreme position that genetics does not affect intelligence in any way. That goes against what we see with other traits, against observational and measured data, and against the scientific consensus. Your extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence to overcome the more common sense notion.

Ray Peat mentions that argument in the quote I posted. Here what he has to say.

That argument neglects the closer similarity of the intrauterine conditions experienced by twins, for example the sharing of the same placenta, and experiencing more concordant biochemical interactions between fetus and mother. - Ray Peat

What you miss is that the prenatal environment of the twins, which being the same, would probably have very strong effects on certain "traits" that are expressed in it's life time. That doesn't prove the genetic theory, rather it's proves that epigenetic/lamarckian point of view. Because prenatal imprinting

My so call extraordinary claims have already been proven. Marian Diamonds work prove the foundation for intelligence being cultivate in the environment. Various studies show how certain activities produce brain growth as well.

 

[tara]

I'm cherry-picking; white people aren't evil.

I didn't say white people are evil (I don't believe we are). I also didn't say Europeans have been the only colonisers in the world (they haven't). I was adding some context/counter evidence to your claim that the Western world was particularly philanthropic:

... the Western world, particularly Europe and the United States houses the greatest measure of philanthropy in the world, and we have for the duration of modern history.

 

[DaveFoster]

I didn't say white people are evil (I don't believe we are). I also didn't say Europeans have been the only colonisers in the world (they haven't). I was adding some context/counter evidence to your claim that the Western world was particularly philanthropic:

I see; so you're saying that without exploitation of Native North and South American, African, and East Asian land/resources, we would not have the greatest measure of philanthropy.

 

[tara]

I see; so you're saying that without exploitation of Native North and South American, African, and East Asian land/resources, we would not have the greatest measure of philanthropy.

No, I'm saying that the net philanthropy of the western word towards the rest of the world has been negative for the last couple of centuries.

 

[DaveFoster]

No, I'm saying that the net philanthropy of the western word towards the rest of the world has been negative for the last couple of centuries.

I can think of no way to quantify that than to agree that Europeans committed widespread violence because they had the means to. Is a soldier less of a killer than an active pilot of a B-52? I'd say the intent is the same, but the latter has a greater impact.

 

[jaa]

What you miss is that the prenatal environment of the twins, which being the same, would probably have very strong effects on certain "traits" that are expressed in it's life time. That doesn't prove the genetic theory, rather it's proves that epigenetic/lamarckian point of view. Because prenatal imprinting.

How do you have epigenetics without genetics?

My so call extraordinary claims have already been proven. Marian Diamonds work prove the foundation for intelligence being cultivate in the environment. Various studies show how certain activities produce brain growth as well.

Great! It should be very easy to explain then. I'm all eyes.

 

[DaveFoster]

How do you have epigenetics without genetics?

If I understand Peat's work correctly, he would argue that there's fundamentally no difference between neurons among mammals (and even cells may be differentiated into other cells, particularly stem cells.) The argument is this: based on resource-scarcity, a specific mammal has adapted to partition a certain amount of energy to each respective organ system.

With the neurological system, intelligence is very costly and takes many generations to develop a coherent network, and then again many generations to expand upon that network and incorporate new Darwinian "blueprints," or genes.

Peat would argue the opposite I believe: he would offer that intelligence is an ingrained function of a cell, and it's manifestation in the neurological system, which interacts with the organism to navigate its environment, is the result of a high ratio of energy partitioning to that system. The genetic portion of the organism constructs the architecture of the building that allows the body (or builder) to lay the bricks into place (growth and development). Theoretically, if the architecture could be manipulated, then one would not need to specify the strict operations of the neurological system; rather, the cells would conform to a structure based on an innate intelligence. In other words, if one could deliver glucose to the cell, and remove limits on the genetic code for a greater aggregation of cells, then the structure would behave like a computer with more computational capacity.

Peat's view of the cell is spiritual in this way, in the sense that matter possesses a tendency to congregate and form complex structures, whether atomic, genetic, biological, social, political, cosmological, and so on.

However, not just the availability of glucose and physical capacity for cells, but their interaction with the environment is part of the developmental process of intelligence. Much like a computer, you need the software with the hardware; however, the hardware of a Mac II CPU or an Intel i-7 is fundamentally the same, albeit with different capacities. The circuitry is synchronous and silicon-based.

In very simple terms, the genetic code does not command the formation of intelligence, but rather dictates its direction of formation in a given environment. It isn't a guide to teach the mechanic how to build a car, but to teach which car to build for the appropriate environment.

 

[jaa]

If I understand Peat's work correctly, he would argue that there's fundamentally no difference between neurons among mammals (and even cells may be differentiated into other cells, particularly stem cells.) The argument is this: based on resource-scarcity, a specific mammal has adapted to partition a certain amount of energy to each respective organ system.

With the neurological system, intelligence is very costly and takes many generations to develop a coherent network, and then again many generations to expand upon that network and incorporate new Darwinian "blueprints," or genes.

Peat would argue the opposite I believe: he would offer that intelligence is an ingrained function of a cell, and it's manifestation in the neurological system, which interacts with the organism to navigate its environment, is the result of a high ratio of energy partitioning to that system. The genetic portion of the organism constructs the architecture of the building that allows the body (or builder) to lay the bricks into place (growth and development). Theoretically, if the architecture could be manipulated, then one would not need to specify the strict operations of the neurological system; rather, the cells would conform to a structure based on an innate intelligence. In other words, if one could deliver glucose to the cell, and remove limits on the genetic code for a greater aggregation of cells, then the structure would behave like a computer with more computational capacity.

Peat's view of the cell is spiritual in this way, in the sense that matter possesses a tendency to congregate and form complex structures, whether atomic, genetic, biological, social, political, cosmological, and so on.

However, not just the availability of glucose and physical capacity for cells, but their interaction with the environment is part of the developmental process of intelligence. Much like a computer, you need the software with the hardware; however, the hardware of a Mac II CPU or an Intel i-7 is fundamentally the same, albeit with different capacities. The circuitry is synchronous and silicon-based.

In very simple terms, the genetic code does not command the formation of intelligence, but rather dictates its direction of formation in a given environment. It isn't a guide to teach the mechanic how to build a car, but to teach which car to build for the appropriate environment.

Thanks a lot for that explanation Dave.

I agree that one's interaction with the environment can have an effect on intelligence. From being exposed to ideas, to proper nutrition at key development times, to avoidance of substance abuse, etc. But I think this is akin to how a lot of environmental factors led Michael Jordan to develop his basketball skill. There's a genetic component (height, eyesight, muscle tissue, etc.) that determined how great a basketball player he could be.

I really dislike the "Peat would argue the opposite I believe: he would offer that intelligence is an ingrained function of a cell" line of reasoning. Where is the evidence for this? How is a cell intelligent? How can we test it? I worry that it may be the case of using a word in a way that doesn't mean what people usually mean when the use the word.

Peat's view of the cell is spiritual in this way, in the sense that matter possesses a tendency to congregate and form complex structures, whether atomic, genetic, biological, social, political, cosmological, and so on.

Is matter intelligent? Or cells? I'd like for matter to be intelligent, but I don't see any evidence for it and it just seems like wishful thinking. How are atoms following natural laws intelligent?

I've read your last paragraph a few times and it seems to me we're saying the same thing. Genetics largely shapes the architecture of the brain(or a probability distribution of potential brains that environment factors can skew) and the architecture governs potential the same way Michael Jordan's genetics governed his potential greatness as an nba player.