A well-thought out use of the scientific method to prove, in a way, that nurture is more a more advanced tool for change than nature is.

Where's the scientific method in this article?

Question: Can algorithms affect matter?

Hypothesis: Algorithms can affect a lifeform's characteristics and behavior as much as genetics or more

Experiment: Test learning of behavior by birds to achieve greater fitness for long distance travel over water that supplements their genetic predisposition

Analyze: By substituting other birds with robots indisputably running algorithms, the learned behavior transfers to the bird not initially most efficient at long distance travel

Conclusion: Algorithms optimized the effectiveness of a bird's flight by correcting drawbacks in its behavior faster than genetic change would have

To me this reinforces the notion that through constructing positive habits and removing negative feedback loops I can override "default" behaviors that I believe are detrimental or simply not desired and replace them with heuristics that align with my overarching goals in life.

I know it's just an example but there is less drag the higher you go, unless you are thinking of some kind of ground-effect.

I am physically repulsed by the word "founder" when used to signify some sort of holy class of ascended beings.

Memes evolve too and have been dominant since about the invention of agriculture.

Hi Hoseja—

I am indeed talking about ground effect–that's why I included a link for "flying close to the surface reduces aerodynamic drag" which explains how it works.

I also specifically addressed how algorithms differ from memes in footnotes 4 and 14.

Curious to get your thoughts.

Perhaps human algorithms are more like proteins, assembling together according to their types.

This is the proper Kantian answer. Certain basic human capacities are innate (e.g. perceptual grasp of relative object size), but it is through socialization processes that these capacites are "assembled" into knowledge and meaning.

A Freudian take that applies more to behavior in the workplace is that certain drives are innate to the organism and require discharge lest tension builds up, and it is through learned "algorithms" that we find acceptable ways to relieve these tensions.

I’m not as convinced as you are that perceptual grasp of relative object size is innate. See recent research in Molyneux’s problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molyneux%27s_problem

The Trivium:

Input, Process, Output

Another name for algorithm is process. From the smallest objects to the largest, our universe follows this same pattern of as above so below.

Very Hegelian!

A long-winded post for the well-established idea that patterns and systems of thought can be passed between people and down through generations.

Maybe I’m missing something?

Are you referring to the Dawkins meme, or something else?