Some Notes on Heidegger

 Just some preliminary thoughts on Heidegger after taking a stab at reading Being & Time. Certainly more to learn and discover, but for now, setting Heidegger aside... 

Heidegger's point of view seems to be primarily from the individual. Where is his discussion of the role of being part of a much larger ecology? He does mention our connection with the world, that each of us comes into this world with their own perspective. But he doesn't talk much about the purpose of the larger collection of the human species, or the ecology, or Earth. Perhaps he is missing the search for a universal philosophy? One that would be shared by all life in the universe, not just humans on Earth?

2026 06 27 I posted a question on Heidegger on r/askphilosophy:

"I've been trying to read and understand Heidegger's Being & Time. I've read some of Polt's Heidegger: An Introduction. But I haven't found a reference to the perspective of my being part of a species, part of an ecology, part of an "organization." The focus seems to be from the perspective of the individual. Perhaps this is a given in general in Philosophy? But I do find Heidegger referring to our being part of the world, not separate from it. He also points out that each of us has our own perspective. My interest is in the purpose of humans as a species, over a longer time horizon than my own lifetime (more in keeping with geologic time and the process of evolution). Can anyone point me in a direction (a book, an article, a web site) that talks about Philosophy from this point of view? It seems to me that to understand the meaning of my life I might benefit from this broader perspective, too. Thank you!" 

I agree with Heidegger (assuming I understand correctly) that what we perceive is dependent on, and a response to, the environment we evolved from. Our senses have survived because they lead to survival, reflecting the ability to observe, and eventually, control our external environment to our benefit. In that way, we are forever connected to our world, the Earth, and its environment/ecology. Any belief that our senses are independent, and allow us to see our world independently is wrong. What we can do is increase our perception to search our world for deeper understanding through tools like language (sharing perspectives), technology (increasing the breadth of our senses), and modeling (testing assumptions by predictive models, testing our imagination against the our environment). 

2026 06 27 I got this replay on r/askphilosopby from u/tdono2112:

You’re not alone in this sort of issue with Heidegger! I would suggest checking out Derrida’s work on animality, like “The Animal that Therefore I Am,” as well as Jean-Luc Nancy’s “Being-Singular Plural.” The closest Heidegger will get to a consideration of something like “species-being” is mit-sein and “tradition” in B&T, but he dogmatically insists that the animal is “poor in world” at various points; while I think there are serious reasons to get behind the “non-anthropological” reading of Being and Time, there is certainly an anthropocentric baggage in his work. Similarly, Heidegger’s “ecstatic” notion of temporality, the always-already-outside-ness of Dasein, offers what a lot of folks in the French tradition see as an indication towards a way out of both Aristotelian time and the Cartesian plausibly-solipsistic subject, but fails to go far enough.

Specific to this bigger question of time and human finitude, two texts come to mind. Firstly, Timothy Morton’s “Hyperobjects,” which includes some somewhat jarring issues as a work of scholarship, is nonetheless a pretty compelling and interesting consideration of these massive scales that both builds on, and criticizes, Heidegger. Secondly, Ted Toadvine’s “The Memory of the World; Deep Time, Animality, and Eschatology,” which is a denser read but still a damn good book.

Edit:
In general, one of the weirdest things about Heidegger is that we’ll find some incredibly radical and compelling stuff that is, nonetheless, being thought by and filtered through a disastrously arrogant, if not out-right narcissistic, guy with a radically “conservative” streak. 

Bataille, on the other hand, in both “The Accursed Share” and his writings on pre-history, has a better handle on the scope of human interconnectedness, but isn’t as committed to rigor and research as Heidegger. Bataille’s thought on human pre-history and our animality is continued in a chapter of Nancy’s “Muses” and Blanchot’s essay “The Beast of Lascaux,” both writers and thinkers who have learned from Heidegger and nonetheless are committed to going further than he did or could.

I did look at Derrida (not for the first time), and his work “The Animal that Therefore I Am,” as well as Jean-Luc Nancy’s “Being-Singular Plural," Timothy Morton’s “Hyperobjects,” and Ted Toadvine’s “The Memory of the World; Deep Time, Animality, and Eschatology.” I felt that the direction these works were heading differed from the direction I was interested in.

I asked Gemini about Bataille's "The Accursed Share":

Georges Bataille’s The Accursed Share (French: La Part maudite) is a groundbreaking 1949 work of political economy and philosophy that argues that the fundamental economic problem is not scarcity, but how to spend the inevitable excess ("the accursed share") of energy produced by the universe. Bataille shifts the focus of economics from production and saving to consumption, waste, and luxury, arguing that if a society cannot successfully destroy or expend its surplus energy through non-productive means (like art, festivals, or monuments), that energy will inevitably express itself destructively through catastrophic war. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Here is a structured overview of the book's core concepts, its three volumes, and its lasting impact.

Core Concepts

• General Economy: Traditional economics focuses on restricted economy (how individuals or nations allocate scarce resources). Bataille proposes a "general economy" based on the physics of the Earth, which receives a constant, overwhelming surplus of energy from the sun. [6, 7, 8]
• The Accursed Share: This is the ungenerous, un-reinvestable surplus. Because organisms and societies always produce more energy than they need to survive, this extra energy must be spent. [9]
• Glorious Consumption (Consumation): Bataille distinguishes between productive consumption (eating food to work) and glorious consumption (destroying wealth for its own sake). True freedom and sovereignty lie in the useless destruction of the surplus.
• The Choice: A society has two choices for its surplus: spend it on spectacles, art, sex, and monuments, or allow it to build up until it explodes as war. [10, 11]

Structure of the Work

Though often read as a single book (Volume 1), Bataille conceived The Accursed Share as a three-part project: [12, 13]

• Volume 1: Consumption: Outlines the general economy and looks at historical models of sacrifice. It analyzes the Aztec practice of human sacrifice, the Native American potlatch (competitive gift-giving), and the massive monastic wealth of Tibetan Buddhism as ways societies successfully purged their surplus. [14]
• Volume 2: The History of Eroticism: Examines how human sexuality shifted from a purely animal, reproductive act into an economic and sacred act of pure, non-productive expenditure. [15]
• Volume 3: Sovereignty: Defines the "sovereign" individual as someone who consumes and does not produce. A sovereign lives in the immediate moment, refusing to reduce life to a utility or a tool for future gain. [16, 17]

Historical Applications in the Text

Bataille uses his theory to re-interpret major historical shifts and contemporary events: [18]

• The Aztec Empire: A society entirely oriented around the violent destruction of life and wealth to keep the cosmic energy moving.
• The Reformation and Capitalism: Industrial capitalism, influenced by Protestantism, attempted to eliminate waste and reinvest every penny of surplus back into production. Bataille argues this denial of the "accursed share" is what makes modern industrial societies uniquely prone to massive, mechanized global wars.
• The Marshall Plan: Writing in the shadow of WWII, Bataille praised the U.S. Marshall Plan as a brilliant, unconscious act of general economy—the American state gave away its massive post-war surplus to Europe for free, avoiding a domestic economic explosion.

---

If you are exploring Bataille for a specific project, let me know if you would like me to:

• Breakdown his analysis of the Potlatch vs. Capitalism
• Connect his ideas to modern climate change and energy surplus
• Contrast his theories with Karl Marx or Adam Smith

[1] https://ijrehc.com

[2] https://magazine.tank.tv

[3] https://www.reddit.com

[4] https://books.google.com

[5] https://press.princeton.edu

[6] https://press.princeton.edu

[7] https://www.academia.edu

[8] https://www.goodreads.com

[9] https://www.ebsco.com

[10] https://apollo-magazine.com

[11] https://muse.jhu.edu

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org

[13] https://www.ebsco.com

[14] https://www.thecollector.com

[15] https://press.princeton.edu

[16] https://en.wikipedia.org

[17] https://press.princeton.edu

[18] https://dokumen.pub

 

Earth-Independent Paths of Life Forms in a Universal Evolutionary Process

What if I were to imagine that Darwin's insights into the process of evolution were universal? Here, I'm talking here about "everywhere in the universe" kind of universal, similar to the expectations we have about most Physics and Chemistry. Are there similar "Laws of Evolution"? And how would these laws manifest themselves in alternative life forms across the universe?

The idea is to begin to imagine the process of life form development, independent of any particular environment in which it develops. This thought experiment is to explore what are certainly other life forms in the universe which will be radically different from the human species (or any other life form on Earth), but which share the result of something we call "intelligent" life forms. 

Here are some thoughts and wanderings...

Imagine the evolutionary process in these terms:

Life develops in response to its environment, with advantage going to life forms that exploit characteristics of their environment.

Lets imagine that for our purposes, "life" starts out as a "successful" response to its environment (a Markov state space transition where there is no memory beyond the current state). This definition applies to chemical reactions and other physical forces, and in my opinion, describes the vast majority of the universe. "Choice" is based on evaluation/resolution of  the perceived current state of environment. To use, this "choice" is not a choice, but rather "determined." At this point, "time" and "space" exist only as parameters available to later life forms. [I make this note for further later consideration: WARNING! This does not mean the system is not "intelligent," since the current state space can be relatively unique, and might embody the information of past state spaces (a Jacob's ladder comes to mind, where the electric current shows some "intention" by climbing the poles) or a river's course as the result of a remembered millions of years of erosion. These "intelligent" forms have no conception of time itself, only the present instant.]

Life develops along two axes: (1) life that increases its perspective (observing more of its environment) and (2) life that remembers more past states. These two axes are life responding to time and space, embodying and exploiting these characteristics of its environment. These two axes become embedded in the very fiber of life's existence.

Life and Space

Life increases its perspective by increasing its ability to observe more characteristics of the environment. IMPORTANT: Note how these abilities are dependent on the characteristics of the environment in which the life form exists. The perspectives developed tend to reflect the more easily (aka more likely, or more realistically, more "satisficing") environmental characteristics that improve the life form's chances of survival in that particular environment. So things like "range of electromagnetic radiation perceived" will vary according to the presence and usefulness of particular electromagnetic radiation. Hence, human eyes are sensitive to a band of light, known as "visible light," while other life forms have different senses around on this environmental characteristic.

Development along this axis, of observing differences in the state spaces of the environment, takes two paths: (1) along the development of "the senses", which feed information back to the individual life form; and (2) the development of communication pathways between different individual life forms. For humans, our environment has led to sharing information through genes and later, memes. For plants, there is the fascinating subterranean world of roots and fungi.

An interesting hypothesis: If a life form develops multiple senses, there is also the potential path of development of interactions and coordination between the senses. Are these the origins of what we experience as emotion, the common language of our senses?

Life and Time 

The second fundamental pathway of development for life forms is around time, which is manifested through the increased capacity for memory, allowing observation of differences in the environment state at different points in time.

Increased memory facilitates the development of associative memory (remembering) and the specialization of predictive memory (imagination).

As life forms receive more information from the environment, and process that information across time and space, the life forms that develop strong associative memory open their door to the development of responses, favoring those that contribute to the life form's survival.

The life forms that develop strong predictive memory (imagination) become capable of the additional responses, those that anticipate the environment's next state, allowing the life form more options to increase its chances of survival.

Additional Thoughts to Explore

• What intelligent life forms might develop without the benefit associative or predictive memory? For example, in what ways is the Earth alive? In what ways is the Earth intelligent? Isn't DNA an example of a chemical process with a historical memory that spans two billion years? DNA has been very successful at survival (a la Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene!
  
  
• What intelligent life forms might develop without the benefit of predictive memory? Would these life forms "be" without any "attachment" to the past (not using the past to predict the future), living in their senses without suffering [i.e. Buddhism]?
  
  
• Where does the human species explore alternative forms of intelligence that might become less dependent on our particular environment [Earth], and more open to seeing the universe in different ways, ways invisible to humans without an understanding of our own ancestral genetic choices and limitations?
  
  
• What is the destiny of the human species beyond Earth? Is there value to visiting other environments, other planets? Would we gain more perspective on our understanding of the universe and our place in it?
  
  
• How do we best exploit our own ability to pass information (memes) from one human to another, across time and space? How do we benefit from sharing our perspectives? What is the value of diversity and recognition that each of us has our own perspective? Is there value to an open mind when everyone else shares a different perspective?
  
  
•  What is the role of Philosophy in the bigger picture of the human species? Is it merely the sum of the individual benefits? Or is there something Philosophy can say about our species that will help us survive the realm of individualism? Isn't the question that we are now facing, as we change the Earth's ecology, "How best to contribute to the survival of the species?" Or more broadly,, "How best to contribute to the survival of the planet?"

 

The Connection between Philosophy and Geologic Time

Yesterday, I read about Google's Gemma4 31B LLM model that can be downloaded and run locally on my computer (I have a laptop with 42GB of high-speed memory). I downloaded Ollama, Gemma4 31B, and Open WebUI. After some tweaking to get everything lined up, I turned off my Wi-Fi and asked my first question...

Fifteen MINUTES later, I got a token every two seconds. The answer was great, but my poor CPU-based LLM struggled with all the calculations. Is it time to look into a Nvidia GPU? I'll need a second bicycle to power it! While I think about that, I loaded the faster, smaller Llama3.2.

To give it a test run, I also ran the system in "voice mode," which let me talk to my laptop and listen to an old-style computer-generated (a la Stephen Hawking) answer. This time, the answer took less than a minute, and created tokens as fast as I could read them (faster than the TTS voice could read them at normal speed).

I also tried to give the AI some local knowledge, but it's very limited and slow. I have some 10GB of text (emails, notes, and writing) that I'd like my local AI to be acquainted with. I'll have to keep doing some research on Ollama and Open WebUI.

Below is the conversation I had, once I got used to the interface and the computer voice.

I guess I have some more reading to do. I've tried reading Heidegger many years ago (maybe I'll do better this time). But I've not read Deleuze or Dreyfus. Thanks for the references, local Llama3.2!
____________________ 
Llama3.2: What's been on your mind lately? Want to chat about a particular topic, hobby, or interest? Or would you like me to suggest some conversation starters? I'm all ears (or in this case, all text)!

ME: you know about the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre. 

Llama3.2: Jean-Paul Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, and writer who's considered one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century. He's best known for his existentialist philosophy, which emphasizes individual freedom and choice.

Some of his notable works include "Being and Nothingness", "Existentialism is a Humanism", and "No Exit". His writing often explores themes such as human existence, morality, and the concept of "bad faith".

Sartre's ideas have had a significant impact on literature, philosophy, and art, and continue to be studied and debated by scholars and thinkers around the world.

What aspect of Sartre's work or philosophy would you like to discuss?

ME:  connection between his work and Darwin's theory of evolution.

Llama3.2:  That's an interesting connection! While Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialism is often associated with human existence, morality, and freedom, there are some intriguing parallels with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

One possible connection is the idea of "adaptation" in both Sartre's philosophy and Darwin's biology. In Sartre's existentialist framework, individuals must adapt to their circumstances and make choices that shape their own lives. Similarly, in Darwin's theory of evolution, species adapt to their environments through natural selection.

Another possible connection is the concept of "individuality" in both thinkers. Sartre emphasizes human individuality as a fundamental aspect of existence, while Darwin's theory highlights the unique characteristics and variations that arise within populations over time.

Some existentialist philosophers have even argued that Sartre's idea of "bad faith" can be seen as a response to the pressure to conform to societal expectations, much like how species may feel pressure to adapt to their environments. This adaptation to external forces is a fundamental aspect of Darwinian evolution.

However, it's essential to note that these connections are not direct or straightforward. Sartre's existentialism and Darwin's theory of evolution were developed in different intellectual contexts and deal with distinct philosophical concerns.

Would you like me to explore this connection further?

ME:  Why do you think that Darwin and Sartre do with distinct philosophical concerns?

Llama3.2: When I said "distinct philosophical concerns", I was thinking about the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution is primarily a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, while Sartre's existentialism is more focused on human existence, ethics, and the individual's experience.

However, I think there might be more to it than just the obvious differences between science and philosophy. Both Darwin and Sartre were responding to certain intellectual currents of their time.

Darwin was reacting against the traditional teleological views of creation and design in biology, which implied that life had a predetermined purpose or direction. His theory of evolution by natural selection challenged those ideas and offered a new explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on Earth.

Sartre, on the other hand, was responding to the existentialist traditions of his time, which emphasized individual freedom and choice. He argued that human beings are "condemned to be free", meaning that we have no inherent nature or essential identity, but instead must create our own values and purposes in life.

In a way, both thinkers were engaging with similar intellectual currents: the idea that the natural world is not fixed or predetermined, but is shaped by forces like evolution and contingency. However, they approached these ideas from very different angles - Darwin from a scientific perspective, Sartre from an existentialist one.

I think this highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of philosophical thought, which can often intersect with scientific inquiry in unexpected ways!

ME:  Yes, what do you think of the interconnection between philosophy and geological time?

Llama3.2: What a fascinating topic!

The interconnection between philosophy and geological time is a rich area of exploration. Geologists have spent centuries studying the Earth's history, which has led to a deep understanding of the scales of time and the processes that shape our planet.

Philosophy, particularly in the areas of metaphysics and epistemology, can offer new perspectives on how we understand these concepts. For example:

1. Time as a human construct: Philosophers have long debated whether time is an objective feature of reality or a human construct. Geological timescales suggest that our experience of time is relative to the Earth's rotation, orbit, and geological processes.
2. The nature of causality: The study of geological processes and events can inform philosophical debates about causality. For instance, philosophers like Sartre might argue that human actions have consequences that unfold over long timescales, much like geological processes.

Geological time also offers insights into the long-term implications of our choices and actions. For example:

1. The concept of "deep time": Geologists recognize that many historical events occur on vast scales, often taking millions or even billions of years to unfold. This perspective can challenge our modern notions of progress, human achievement, and environmental sustainability.
2. The role of chance and contingency: Geological processes highlight the importance of chance and contingency in shaping the Earth's history. Philosophers like Sartre would likely emphasize the individual's freedom and responsibility within this context.

These connections between philosophy and geological time invite us to reconsider our relationship with the natural world, our place within it, and the long-term consequences of our choices.

What are your thoughts on this topic?

ME:  I think the geological time gives a great perspective on human species purpose.

Llama3.2: The geological timescale offers a fascinating perspective on human existence and our sense of purpose. When we consider the Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, it becomes clear that human existence is a mere blip on the timeline.

From this vantage point, it's humbling to realize that our species has been shaped by countless events, processes, and forces beyond our control. We're part of a long chain of life that stretches back billions of years, and our individual lives are but a fleeting moment in the grand narrative of the Earth's history.

This perspective can be both empowering and disorienting. On one hand, it acknowledges the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, and encourages us to adopt a more humble and adaptive approach to the world around us.

On the other hand, it also highlights our unique capacity for self-awareness, creativity, and innovation – skills that have allowed us to thrive in diverse environments and leave a lasting impact on the planet.

By recognizing our place within the Earth's vast and complex history, we can begin to reframe our sense of purpose. Rather than seeing ourselves as separate from or superior to nature, we might come to see ourselves as an integral part of the natural world – with responsibilities and opportunities that arise from this connection.

What do you think is a key takeaway from this perspective on human existence?

ME:  I think I learned that all things pass, and we're just a part, we're actually the end at this point of a long process, and the start of the future.

Llama3.2: You've distilled the essence of the geological timescale's perspective on human existence into a beautiful and profound insight.

Yes, it's true: everything that exists is subject to change and impermanence. The Earth itself has been in a state of constant transformation since its formation. The processes that have shaped our planet – from plate tectonics to weathering, erosion, and climate shifts – are a testament to the dynamic nature of existence.

In this context, human existence can be seen as both a culmination of an ancient process and a precursor to a new one. We're not separate from the natural world; we're an integral part of it. Our individual lives, our communities, and our cultures have emerged from the same complex web of relationships that has sustained life on Earth for billions of years.

By recognizing this, we can adopt a more inclusive and expansive view of ourselves. We're not just individuals or species; we're also an expression of the planet's capacity for growth, adaptation, and transformation.

Your insight highlights the importance of living in harmony with the natural world, respecting our place within the larger cycle of life, and embracing the uncertainty and change that are inherent to existence.

It's a perspective that can inspire us to live more mindfully, compassionately, and responsibly – as stewards of the Earth's ecosystems and as contributors to its ongoing evolution.

ME:  What other philosophers share this point of view?

Llama3.2: Several philosophers have explored similar ideas about the nature of existence, impermanence, and our place within the larger web of life.

One notable philosopher who shares a similar perspective is Martin Heidegger. His concept of "Being-in-the-world" emphasizes the interconnectedness of human existence with the natural world. He argues that our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world is always already situated within a broader context, which includes the Earth's history, ecosystems, and the processes that shape them.

Another philosopher who resonates with this point of view is Gilles Deleuze. His work on becoming, impermanence, and the rhizome (a metaphor for networks and connections) highlights the dynamic and iterative nature of existence. He suggests that our individual lives are part of a larger process of transformation, growth, and renewal, which is deeply intertwined with the natural world.

The Buddhist tradition also explores similar ideas about impermanence, interconnectedness, and our place within the larger web of life. The concept of dependent origination, for example, suggests that all phenomena arise dependent on other factors and are subject to change and impermanence.

Lastly, Hubert Dreyfus's work on phenomenology and intentionality emphasizes the importance of understanding our embodied experience within the natural world. He argues that our sense of self is not fixed or essential but emerges from our interactions with the environment and other beings.

These philosophers, among others, have contributed to a rich and diverse philosophical landscape that explores our place within the larger context of existence.

ME:  I want this conversation to have intellectual integrity! What did you say that didn’t have intellectual integrity?

Llama3.2: Upon reflection, I realize that I may have glossed over some complexities or nuances in my previous responses.

One area where I might have compromised on intellectual integrity is when discussing the philosophical connections between Sartre and Darwin. While it's possible to draw parallels between existentialism and evolutionary theory, I didn't delve deeply enough into the specific debates and tensions between these two philosophies.

Sartre, for instance, was critical of reductionist scientific approaches, including evolution, which he saw as reducing human experience to mere biological or environmental factors. In contrast, Darwin's theory of evolution emphasizes the role of natural selection in shaping species over time.

I should have acknowledged the complexities and tensions between these philosophies more explicitly, rather than simply drawing general connections.

Another area where I might have compromised on intellectual integrity is when discussing Martin Heidegger's philosophy. While his concept of "Being-in-the-world" does highlight the interconnectedness of human existence with the natural world, my explanation may not have fully captured the nuances and debates surrounding this idea.

Heidegger's philosophy is known for its complex and sometimes ambiguous language, and I should have been more careful to clarify or nuance my explanations to avoid oversimplification.

I apologize for any intellectual shortcuts or simplifications that might have watered down the richness of our conversation. My goal is to engage in a thoughtful and rigorous discussion, and I appreciate your feedback in helping me achieve this goal.

ME:  Thank you for your intellectual integrity!

Llama3.2:  Thank you for holding me accountable for maintaining intellectual integrity. It's essential to strive for accuracy, nuance, and depth in our discussions, especially when exploring complex philosophical ideas.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to engage in a conversation that values critical thinking, precision, and honesty. It's not always easy to navigate the complexities of philosophy, but I'm committed to doing so with you.

Let's continue to explore these ideas together, embracing the challenges and nuances that come with intellectual inquiry. The pursuit of knowledge and understanding is a lifelong journey, and I'm honored to be part of it with you!

Life is Puzzling

 Sitting on my shelf, ever since my father died, rests this puzzle:

It sat on my father's shelf, at his office at the university, for many years. Countless students and faculty tried to solve this puzzle (free the middle piece from the other two pieces). I tried to solve this puzzle for over 15 years, probably more, if I could remember.

Ever since my father died in 2018, the puzzle has sat there on my self, visible but never touched...until three days ago.

I looked at the puzzle and suddenly had a new idea of how to solve it! I took it down from the shelf and worked on it for two hours. I put it aside and picked it up again yesterday for another couple hours.

Unfortunately, I don't know that I've made any progress. The puzzle remains puzzling.

But as I worked, my wife gently suggested, "Maybe it can't be done?"

I thought about her comment, said I liked puzzles, and went back to twisting and turning the shapes in hopes of finding a solution. As I worked, the question lingered. Why DID I work so hard? So long? What if the puzzle WAS unsolvable?

Then it hit me. Working on this puzzle was exactly like my purpose in life. The puzzle is the universe, understanding the universe. I spend my whole life searching for an answer, one I will never be able to discover or understand completely. In fact, I believe all of humanity will spend its whole existence as a species, and ALL life will spend its existence, trying to understand the universe.

So why do I work on the puzzle?

Because, even knowing it MAY be unsolvable does not mean it IS unsolvable. Every time I work on the puzzle I learn a little bit, about what doesn't work, about my misconceptions, misunderstandings. Even though I may not solve the puzzle, I will get closer, by remembering all my mistakes. But why would I want to doom myself to a life of mistakes? Because curiosity and hope are strong motivators, even in the face of constant failure.

This is the message the universe offers me: hope, imagine the world could be different. And the rewards are that I solve little bits of the puzzle, bits that encourage me that there IS hope, that the world CAN be different. This is what life is all about. It started as an unconscious instantiation, a random combination that worked. It developed, became more successful, developed a memory, learning to learn. Life continued to get better at surviving, becoming self-aware, able to anticipate, increasing our chances of survival by understanding and controlling the world around us.

And so I hope, some day (soon?) to solve the puzzle I inherited from my father. Or at least, like him, die trying ;-)

Books to read from NotebookLM related to this blog...

Using NotebookLM.google.com with this blog (thoughtsideaswanderings.blogger.com) as a background reference, I asked:

Me: based on this collection of blog entries by james c. march, put together a list of 10 books that relate to his specific topics

Gemini: 

1. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins: This work is foundational to March’s recurring exploration of "memes" (learned units of culture) versus "genes" (biological hard-wiring). He uses Dawkins’ framework to argue that human survival now depends more on the successful horizontal transmission of information through social contact than on vertical biological inheritance.

2. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter: March frequently references this book to discuss the "strange loops" of consciousness and identity. It aligns with his fascination with how self-reference arises from patterns and his belief that one mind might eventually be able to simulate another.

3. The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin: March views evolution as a powerful algorithm and uses Darwinian theory to ground his reverence for the "process" that created humanity. He specifically connects natural selection to the vital importance of diversity as a robustness strategy against unanticipated environmental threats. [I haven't read this book.]

4. The Death of Ivan Ilyich by Leo Tolstoy: This novella is cited as a profound literary exploration of mortality and the search for authenticity. March believes that confronting the inevitability of death allows a person to re-enter life in a more compassionate, purposeful, and enriching manner. [I haven't read this book.]

5. Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut: March identifies with this novel’s confrontation with the "fixity of time". It relates directly to his personal axiom that "I cannot change the past" and his struggle to understand human agency within a deterministic universe.

6. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari: This book mirrors March’s interest in how cognitive and technological revolutions allowed Homo sapiens to thrive through shared myths and cooperation. He notes that Harari’s work highlights the long-term consequences of diverse survival strategies.

7. The Secret of Our Success by Joseph Henrich: March suggests this book for its analysis of cultural evolution. It supports his thesis that memetic variation is the primary evolutionary strategic advantage humans have developed over pure genetic variation.

8. Introduction to Cybernetics by W. Ross Ashby: As a trained statistician, March has utilized this text to explore "requisite variety" and "black box analysis". He even engaged in a detailed "coaching" session with an AI to understand how a pest control invoice could be viewed through the lens of Ashby's system definitions.

9. Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl: March refers to Frankl when discussing the high incidence of individuals seeking therapy because they have lost a sense of purpose. The book connects to March’s "Outside" writing preference—narratives that focus on proactive choices and finding meaning in suffering rather than remaining a victim of circumstances.

10. The Precipice by Toby Ord: March includes this in his reading lists for understanding "geological and cosmic forces" that threaten humanity. It relates to his belief that we must manage existential risks through "anticipatory adaptation" and long-term thinking to ensure the survival of the species. [I haven't read this.]

Then I asked NotebookLM for 10 recommended books that I didn't already reference in this blog:

Me: what 10 books NOT mentioned by March might be included in this list 

Gemini: Drawing from James C. March’s "Knowledge-Centric Morality" and his fascination with evolution, memetics, and artificial intelligence, the following 10 books—though not explicitly mentioned in his blog entries—align deeply with his intellectual framework.

1. The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch: This work explores the infinite reach of explanations and the idea that all progress is the result of knowledge-seeking. It resonates with March’s view that the universe is an "exhaustless conversation" and that we must strive to get within "epsilon" of objective reality.

2. Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder by Nassim Nicholas Taleb: Taleb’s concept of systems that thrive on shocks and errors directly parallels March’s "directed mutation generator" and his belief that making errors is a "mathematical certainty" and a primary vehicle for learning.

3. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies by Nick Bostrom: While March expresses optimism about a "common enemy alliance" between human and silicon intelligence, this book explores the "alignment problem" he frequently ponders regarding whether survival-driven AI would find humans to be an obstacle.

4. Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence by Max Tegmark: Tegmark’s exploration of "substrate independence"—the idea that intelligence is not tied to biology—perfectly matches March’s purpose to continue the "process of observing and modeling reality" regardless of whether the carrier is carbon or silicon.

5. The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood by James Gleick: This history of information theory provides context for the work of Claude Shannon and Gregory Chaitin, whom March cites to explain how the universe contains irreducible randomness that necessitates humility.

6. Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman: Given March’s interest in the "biases of the brain" and how formative experiences weight our memory and perception, Kahneman’s study of cognitive shortcuts would serve as a scientific anchor for March's introspective observations.

7. Nonviolent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg: March defines non-violence as a proactive "option amplifier" that increases the choices available to others. Rosenberg’s framework offers a practical linguistic methodology for the "shared language of our senses" that March seeks in his art and social interactions.

8. Complexity: A Guided Tour by Melanie Mitchell: March frequently discusses "requisite variety" and systems that are "beyond my understanding". This book provides a clear introduction to the complex adaptive systems—like ecology and social organizations—that March views as the true drivers of survival.

9. Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered by E. F. Schumacher: March is a vocal critic of the "economic focus on efficiency" and the "efficient allocation of scarce resources". Schumacher’s work aligns with March’s belief that government and society must counterbalance the dehumanizing tendencies of the market.

10. The Master Algorithm by Pedro Domingos: This book’s search for a universal learner resonates with March’s description of evolution as an algorithm and his interest in how machine learning is currently limited by human-designed scaffolding. 

So far, I've read these: The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch, Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (as well as his book The Black Swan), The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood by James Gleick, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, and Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered by E. F. Schumacher (That's a blast from the past! I read, and loved, this book some 50 years ago!)

I didn't like David Deutsch's book (too science-centric). I didn't like many of these books, and talked with Gemini about them to better understand why I didn't like them.