Allan_Crossman comments on Adaptation-Executers, not Fitness-Maximizers - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (32)
An expected fitness maximiser is just an expected utility maximiser, where the utility function is God's utility function.
I searched Google for "expected utility maximiser" and the 6th hit was your own website:
An expected utility maximiser is a theoretical agent who considers its actions, computes their consequences and then rates them according to a utility function.
The typical organism just doesn't do this. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that even a higher mammal does this.
I am not clear about your claim that Deep Blue thinks, but organisms do not. Are you ignoring animals?
I didn't say organisms don't think. I said they don't think about their fitness. They think about things like surviving, eating, finding mates, and so on, all of which usually contribute to reproduction in a natural environment.
The proof of this really is the way that a great many humans have indeed rebelled against their genes, and knowingly choose not to maximise their fitness. Dawkins, for example, has only one child. As a high-status male, he could presumably have had many more.