Thread

1. Waterluvian · 1789741014 · focus · HN ↗

   An onotlogical pivot I experienced in my late teens was recognizing that the taxonomy of life is not some immutable fact that we're uncovering. It's this Sisyphean task of providing structure to something that is everchanging. It's never complete, never correct, but it's often useful. In that way it's a lot like unicode!

   When thinking about the evolution of the taxonomy of life, I think about how there's really no good reason to imagine a lifeform as being a singular, physically connected organism. We structure it that way because it's useful. We see trees and we imagine each one is a lifeform, but there are entire forests of just one tree. I don't think it's too bizarre to structure a model that demonstrates communities of lifeforms (whether ants, slime mold, or humans) as being effectively one conscious being.

   1. card_zero · 1789741504 · focus · HN ↗

      That's very Popperian, I approve. And Hofstadter had anthills conceived as a unified consciousness, named "Aunt Hill" if I remember rightly.

      What, a downvote, did I get that wrong? I wish downvoters would speak up and explain themselves.

      OK, I searched GEB, it is in fact Aunt Hillary.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.