You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Dr_Manhattan comments on Sam Harris' surprisingly modest proposal - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: sketerpot 06 October 2010 12:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (43)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Dr_Manhattan 02 August 2011 12:31:55PM 0 points [-]

First, it's not just the uncle - it's the father, too. Yes. Why do you bring this up? Has anyone proposed a theory under which the father and uncle act differently?

Yes, this theory is commonly called evolution.

My point is that it takes some pretty strong mental forces to overcome natural attachment of father for the daughter. Shame by itself does not seem to make the cut.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 02 August 2011 07:39:23PM 1 point [-]

You are assuming your conclusion: that shame is weaker than belief. Evolution is irrelevant to your argument.

Yes, evolution distinguishes between the father and the uncle, but shame+evolution and afterlife+evolution do so equally. Kin selection quantifies the expected differential action and it's pretty small - a factor of two. If you claim that shame would motivate the uncle and not the father, then you need a quantified theory of shame that is equally precise.

I gave an example where a father killed his daughter with lots of evidence that it was shame, not belief, so shame makes the cut, regardless of whether supernatural reward does.

Parents kill their children quite often. It's not that much to overcome.