= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate - 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 (186)
I agree, but that one kind is able to determine an optimal response in any universe, except one where no observable event can ever be reliably statistically linked to any other, which seems like it could be a small subset, and not one we're likely to encounter except
Certainly, there are any number of world-states or day-to-day situations where a full rigorous/sceptical/rational and therefore lengthy investigation would be a sub-optimal response. Instinct works quickly, and if it works well enough, then it's the best response. But obviously, instinct cannot self-analyze and determine whether and in what cases it works "well enough," and therefore what factors contribute to it so working, etc. etc.
Passing the problem of a gun jamming the Rationality-Function might return the response, "If the gun doesn't fire, 90% of the time, pulling the lever action will solve the problem. The other 10% of the time, the gun will blow up in your hand, leading to death. However, determining to reasonable certainty which type of problem you're experiencing, in the middle of a firefight, will lead to death 90% of the time. Therefore, train your Instinct-Function to pull the lever action 100% of the time, and rely on it rather than me when seconds count."
Does this sound like what you mean by a "beneficial irrationality"?
Also: I propose that what seems truly beneficial, seems both true and beneficial, and what seems beneficial to the highest degree, seems right. To me, these assertions appear uncontroversial, but you seem to disagree. What about them bothers you, and when will we get to see your article?
No. That's not really what I meant at all. Take nationalism or religion, for example. I think both are based on some false beliefs. However, a belief in one or the other may make a person more willing to sacrifice his well-being for the good of his tribe. This may improve the average chances of survival and reproduction of an individual in the tribe. So members of irrational groups out-compete the rational ones.
In the post above Eliezer is basically lamenting that when people behave rationally, they refuse to act against their self-interest, and damn it, it's hurting the rational tribe. That's informative, and sort of my point.
There is some evidence that we have brain structures specialized for religious experience. One would think that these structures could only have evolved if they offered some reproductive benefit to animals becoming self-aware in the land of tooth and claw.
In the harsh world that prevailed up until just the last few centuries, religion provided people comfort. Happy people are less susceptible to disease, more ambitious, and generally more successful. Atheism has always been as true as it is today. However, I wouldn't recommend it to a 13th century peasant.
This is not true a priori. That is my point. My challenge to you, Eliezer, and the other denizens of this site is simply: "prove it".
And I offer this challenge especially to Eliezer. Eliezer, I am calling you out. Justify your optimism in the prudence of truth.
Disprove the parable of Eve and the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Reply here.