Thomas comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong

236 Post author: Yvain 30 May 2010 09:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (343)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: prase 08 June 2010 09:24:38AM 2 points [-]

... the apparent choice is simply the inability, at current level of knowledge, of being able to predict exactly what choice will be made.

That's true. And there is no problem within it.

Evolutionary survival can say nothing about emergence of sentient species, let alone some capacity for correct cognition in that species.

If the cognition was totally incorrect, leading to beliefs unrelated to the outside world, it would be only a waste of energy to maintain such cognitive capacity. Correct beliefs about certain things (like locations of food and predators) are without doubt great evolutionary advantage.

If the popular beliefs and models of the universe until a few centuries ago are incorrect, that seems to point in the exact opposite direction of your claim.

Yes, but it is a very weak evidence (more so, if current models are correct). The claim stated that there was at least some capacity for correct cognition, not that the cognition is perfect.

There exist beings with a consciousness that is not biologically determined and there exist those whose consciousness is completely biologically detemined.

Can you explain the meaning? What are the former and what are the latter beings?

Comment author: Ganapati 09 June 2010 12:08:08PM 1 point [-]

If the cognition was totally incorrect, leading to beliefs unrelated to the outside world, it would be only a waste of energy to maintain such cognitive capacity. Correct beliefs about certain things (like locations of food and predators) are without doubt great evolutionary advantage.

Not sure what kind of cognitive capacity the dinosaurs held, but that they roamed around for millions of years and then became extinct seems to indicate that evolution itself doesn't care much about cognitive capacity beyond a point (that you already mentioned)

Can you explain the meaning? What are the former and what are the latter beings?

You are already familiar with the latter, those whose consciousness is biologically determined. How do you expect to recognise the former, those whose consciousness is not biologically determined?

Comment author: Thomas 11 June 2010 08:12:25AM *  0 points [-]

they roamed around for millions of years and then became extinct

I don't think one should compare humans and dinos. Maybe mammals and dinos or something like that. Many dinosaurs went extinct during the era, our ancestors where many different "species". Successful enough, that we are still around. As were some dinos which gave birds to Earth.

Just a side note,