= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nick_Tarleton comments on Open Thread: February 2010, part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (857)
Evolution is stupid and optimization processes are complicated. Do you not think that's an adequate explanation?
The question is, Why did evolution get thus far and no further? Can you give an account that simultaneously explains both of the observed bounds? I suppose that some would be happy with "Shear difficulty explains why evolution did no better, and anthropics explains why it did no worse." But I don't find that especially satisfying.
Evolution managed to make an optimisation process in our heads, but not one in anything's genes. It had had a lot more time to work with genes as well. Why?
It is possibly worth noting that I am not talking about optimising proteins but the network that controls the activation of the genes. Protein folding is hard.
It may be that getting optimization into our heads was the easiest way to get it into our genes (eventually, when we master genetic engineering).