= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
prase comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - 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 (343)
Forming and holding any belief is costly. The time and energy you spend forming delusions can be used elsewhere.
An example would be helpful. I don't know what evidence you are speaking about.
What is the difference between respecting physical laws and not violating them? Physical laws (and I am speaking mainly about the microscopical ones) determine the time evolution uniquely. Once you know the initial state in all detail, the future is logically fixed, there is no freedom for additional laws. That of course doesn't mean that the predictions of future are practically feasible or even easy.
Consequentialism doesn't require either. The choices needn't be principially unpredictable to be meaningful.
Perhaps. But do not see why that should present an evolutionary disadvantage if they do not impact survival and procreation. On the contrary it could present an evolutionary adavantage. A species that deluded itself inot believing that its has been the chosen species, might actually work energetically towards establshing its hegemony and gain an evolutionary advantage.
The evidence was stated in the very next line, the Darwinian evolution, something that is not required to describe the evolution of non-biological systems.
Of course, none. The distinction I wanted to make was one between respecting/not-violating and being completely determined by.
Nothing to differ there as a definition of determinism. It was exactly the point I was making too. If biological systems are, like us, are completely determined by physical laws, the apparent choice of making a decision by considering consequences is itself an illusion.
In which case every choice every entity makes, regardless of how it arrives at it, is meaningful. In other words there are no meaningless choices in the real world.
Large useless brain consumes a lot of energy, which means more dangerous hunting and faster consumption of supplies when food is insufficient. The relation to survival is straightforward.
Sounds like a group selection to me. And not much in accordance with observation. Although I don't believe the Jews believe in their chosenness on genetical grounds, even if they did, they aren't much sucessful after all.
Depends on interpretation of "required". If it means that practically one cannot derive useful statements about trilobites from Schrödinger equation, then yes, I agree. If it means that laws of evolution are logically independent laws which we would need to keep even if we overcome all computational and data-storage difficulties, then I disagree. I expect you meant the first interpretation, given your last paragraph.
Peacock tails reduce their survival chances. Even so peacocks are around. As long as the organism survives until it is capable of procreation, any survival disadvantages don't pose an evolutionary disadvantage.
I am more inclined towards the gene selection theory, not group selection. About the only species whose delusions we can observe are ourselves. So it is difficult to come out wth any significant objective observational data.
I didn't mean Jews, I meant human species. If delusions are not genetically determined, what would be their source, from a deterministic point of view?
Peacock tail survival disadvantage isn't limited to post-reproduction period. In order to explain the existence of the tails, it must be shown that their positive effect is greater than the negative.
I don't dispute that (probably large) part of the human brain's capacity is used in the peacock-tail manner as a signal of fitness. What I say is only that having two brains of same energetic demands, the one with more correct cognition is in advantage; their signalling value is the same, so any peacock mechanism shouldn't favour the deluded one.
This doesn't constitute proof of the correctness of human cognition, perhaps (almost certainly) some parts of our brain's design is wrong in a way that no single mutation can repair, like the blind spot on human retina. But the evolutionary argument for correctness can't be dismissed as irrelevant.
If delusions presented only survival dsiadvantages and no advantages, you are right. However, that need not be the case.
The delusion about an afterlife can co-exist with correct cognition in matters affecting immediate survival and when it does, it can enhance survival chances. So evolution doesn't automatically lead to/enhance correct cognition. I am not saying correctness plays no role, but isn't the sole deciding factor, at least not in the case of evolutionary selection.