RichardKennaway comments on Open Thread, Jun. 15 - Jun. 21, 2015 - 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 (302)
Everything :) It is not a good answer if we are about inventing something very new, but my secret hope is reinvent something very old, something that really fits out biological natures but was lost during civilization, and thus solves a lot of problems at once, a lot of problems that all stem of not living in an ancestral env. So I am thinking about somethng as fun as soccer, as fit making as deadlifts, as proud making as boxing and as sexy feeling as tango. Because I am hoping when we are not having fun, are not being fun, being timid or not feeling it will turn out it all comes from not living an ancestral life yet that can be simulated.
I understand it is a bit unlikely, as evolution does not optimze for having made a perfect golden age. But there is a small chance humans did i.e. 100K years ago with similar brain sizes but far simpler env, far fewer variables, they figured ways to live happy, fit, sexy, proud etc.
I mean how else can soccer be so much fun or dancing so sexy etc. if they do not tap into something in the brain that is really old? I don't think they simply overstimulate circuits made for something else, maybe yes, but that is not the only option, the other option is that there were some ur-activities they all derive from.
So there is a hope that this is only a reinvention, hence the "everything".
Even if it not a reinvention, optimizing for "everything" can still be salvaged if we show most elements are synergistic.
Finally, it is about what they are optimizing for, not me. Hence the question what is trending.
I doubt that such a paradise has ever existed. Happy? Fit? Sexy? Proud? Maybe "fit" can be estimated from the fossil record (what does it say?) but for the rest, how would we know?
I don't find it very probable either, it is just a hope, that if people of similar brain sizes were not overwhelmed by a hugely complex social environment they could figure out a few things we so far didn't.
I mean... do we have any explanation how could people 2500 years ago figure out things we often find insightful even today, such as Buddhism? I would say, it was simply because had a simpler environment and thus could dig deeper in a few things. Could reflect more. Perhaps.
Not sure what exactly needs explanation here.
How could people 2500 years ago have insights about life? I guess the same way they do today.
Why do we find those insights interesting? Probably selection bias: those insights that were too culture-dependent were already forgotten, only the more universal ones remained.
Yeah, some people had life simple enough, so they could spend their time meditating about stuff. For example those born in royal families.