= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
BenP comments on Conflicts Between Mental Subagents: Expanding Wei Dai's Master-Slave Model - 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 (79)
This model is missing a plausible evolutionary explanation for how U and C may have evolved. That's a pretty gaping hole because if we don't constrain U and C to being plausible under evolution then they can be given whatever motives, responsibilities, etc. that are convenient to fit the model to existing data (see Psychohistorian's epicycle comment).
What do you mean? Do you mean the genetic explanation (as in "it was a mutation on the long arm of chromosome 20?") or do you mean the evolutionary pressures that were behind it?
I tried to explain the evolutionary pressures behind it - eg a person who couldn't signal would be unsuccessful, a person who signaled but never acted on those signals would be unconvincing. If you think those pressures wouldn't be sufficient, why not?
I don't have a play-by-play genetic explanation, but neither do a lot of well-established things.
yep