I’d like to hear specific critiques – what do you see as the biggest issue with this perspective? This dialogue intentionally explores a potential blind spot in evolutionary thinking, and if the downvote is because it clashes with conventional views, reconsider whether that alone is a sufficient reason. Dismissing ideas purely for deviating from established narratives risks circular reasoning – sharing objections would make for a more productive discussion.
Does this make sense? Could a fundamental principle – alongside the genetic principle – have existed from the very beginning of life, one that later became embodied in the brain?
There’s no such thing as a “fundamental principle”. Principles, by definition, are not fundamental. There are fundamental laws, but those are physical laws, not biological laws. Moreover, “the genetic principle” isn’t a standard concept in biology, so it’s unclear to me what you’re referring to here.
If you’re interested in an example of how to write a well-received post that deviates from a established narrative (in this case, “primordial soup”), you may enjoy my book review of The Vital Question.
In case you’re more interested in the philosophical dialogue angle, here’s an example of a well-received dialogue.. This one in particular goes against the dogma of this website. (It’s anti-Bayesian.)
I’d like to hear specific critiques – what do you see as the biggest issue with this perspective? This dialogue intentionally explores a potential blind spot in evolutionary thinking, and if the downvote is because it clashes with conventional views, reconsider whether that alone is a sufficient reason. Dismissing ideas purely for deviating from established narratives risks circular reasoning – sharing objections would make for a more productive discussion.
There’s no such thing as a “fundamental principle”. Principles, by definition, are not fundamental. There are fundamental laws, but those are physical laws, not biological laws. Moreover, “the genetic principle” isn’t a standard concept in biology, so it’s unclear to me what you’re referring to here.
If you’re interested in an example of how to write a well-received post that deviates from a established narrative (in this case, “primordial soup”), you may enjoy my book review of The Vital Question.
In case you’re more interested in the philosophical dialogue angle, here’s an example of a well-received dialogue.. This one in particular goes against the dogma of this website. (It’s anti-Bayesian.)