Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: CronoDAS 12 March 2009 07:49:31PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: Vivi 13 April 2012 02:27:58AM 0 points [-]

If I recall, that trope corresponds to prior points stating that humans are driven by evolutionary heuristics to assign agency based causality to a random probability distribution. However, the laconic does summarize that fallacy rather well. Narrative examples such as tropes do tend to ease comprehension. +1 Karma

In response to Universal Law
Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 April 2007 06:26:09PM 19 points [-]

But the new law doesn't look like the old law plus a special clause exempting the exception. It looks like a single, universal, mathematically simple, coherent statement, and it is then very clear that the old law was simply the approximate behavior of the new law under certain special conditions, the way that Newton's old laws of motion are simply the approximate behavior of Special Relativity under conditions in which the relative motion of particles is very slow compared to lightspeed.

The universality of the law is not a sophistry; the universe really does look that way.

Comment author: Vivi 11 April 2012 03:18:30AM 0 points [-]

I wish that I had slept properly. My comprehension skills have dwindled to the point that I am completely unable to grasp even the simplest statements. Perhaps this material is too advanced for me. I need to study science before returning to this forum. I need to stop being a willingly blind and childish idiot.

In response to Hindsight bias
Comment author: Vivi 31 March 2012 04:39:05PM 2 points [-]

A small error in this sentence:

A third experimental group was told the outcome andalso explicitly instructed to avoid hindsight bias, which made no difference

The conjunction should be "and also".

Comment author: TheOtherDave 26 March 2012 12:31:58AM 1 point [-]

Note that the user you're responding to hasn't posted on LW since 2008, so is unlikely to read your reply.

Comment author: Vivi 26 March 2012 02:18:31AM 0 points [-]

Valid point. Thank you.

Comment author: TimS 26 March 2012 12:46:52AM 2 points [-]

Over time, this caused morality to be biologically hardwired into the gene pool.

The sheer diversity of moral theories actually applied by some human society at some point in history makes this claim extremely difficult to accept.

It's likely that most moral positions are consistent with decision theory (i.e. Tit-for-Tat wins many iterated Prisoner's dilemma tournaments). But that doesn't require that morality be "baked in" by evolution. The generalized view of organisms as adaption-executors seems sufficient to explain why basic decision theory bears some resemblance to the relatively uncontroversial moral positions.

Comment author: Vivi 26 March 2012 02:17:48AM *  0 points [-]

I was unclear. I apologize. I misrepresented a general inclination to perform conventionally "good" acts as moral and ethical convention. Thank you for your scrutiny. I will ensure to accurately represent my views in the future. Also, "Dilemma" should be capitalized if "Prisoner's" is.

Comment author: Anna2 19 April 2007 05:48:16AM 0 points [-]

Benquo, question #6 was too easy.

Bruce thank you for your point 8, it made me think.

Hal: Individual morality looks at the net impact on oneself as well as the group.

Thanks. Your answer regarding question 4 made me think.

Robin: It is striking to me that people who want to think more carefully about moral issues seem to feel little inclination to read the academic literature on this subject. There are in fact specialists who consider these issues; why reinvent the wheel?

Sometimes even the specialists need to be reviewed:)Maybe law and moral have many things in common?

If anybody has a moment, I am curious to know how morals can exist without faith?

Anna

Comment author: Vivi 25 March 2012 11:49:24PM *  0 points [-]

Sigh, from your last comment. I presume that you are of a religion? Anyway, if you want the Darwinian origin of morality, here it is:

Protohumans that had adapted an altruistic nature had a higher likelihood of survival than those that did not. Over time, this caused morality to be biologically hardwired into the gene pool. I'm not quite sure what you mean by faith, however. If you mean belief, that is, a concept not proven by evidence, then I don't see the correlation between faith and morality. If you mean religion, then I disagree. That would suggest that humanity is by nature amoral, which I do not believe. If you'd prefer factual evidence, then I will add that there is no correlation between a lack of religion and immoral behavior. I think history has shown us that fear is not a good source of morality. Edit: Religion tends to be a detriment to societal morality. In a vein similar to racism, unfounded beliefs will inevitably cause conflict. The moral benefits are only observed in a microcosm.

Comment author: elinws 17 January 2012 05:09:24PM -1 points [-]

Sorry I was unclear and yes, I indulged myself on the development because I think it is so neat.

To clarify the conclusion I am proposing that diet may be the key to social structure in both the baboon and gibbon case – high quality food -> non-hierarchical and pacifist – low quality food -> hierarchical and aggressive.

Since diet part of the experience of the animal is it nature or nurture or something in else? Does the diet trigger a genetic reaction or is it that with secure access to high quality food there is no reason for hierarchy and aggression?

And yes, it should be, “The pair sing together in the mornings and evenings to proclaim THEIR territories” not "there territories". Thank you.

Comment author: Vivi 18 January 2012 01:34:24AM 1 point [-]

But, food only euthanized the aggressive baboons in the previous example. That does not reflect a high quality diet.

Comment author: elinws 14 January 2012 09:45:30PM 1 point [-]

There is really very little separating nature and nurture.

An example from gibbon research - gibbons are the textbook example of monogamy amongst primates. They mate for life, eat a high quality diet (fruit and insects with some leaves and other greens). The pair sing together in the mornings and evenings to proclaim there territories. The female takes care of infants until they are weaned and then the male takes over rearing offspring. Before the infant is weaned they are the color of the mother then when their father takes over they become the color of their father. At puberty males stay black like their father and the females become golden like their mothers. Within the family females tend to be dominant and males tend to defend the family against outsiders but they aren't strongly hierarchical.

That said there is a group of gibbons that no longer have the same high quality diet their diet is primarily leaves and greens. Their social structure is one or two dominant males with a group of subordinate females. Thus their social structure resembles that of baboons rather than other gibbons.

So, does high quality diet lead to sexual equality and pacifism or are these just anecdotes?

Comment author: Vivi 15 January 2012 08:24:24PM 1 point [-]

This is rather misleading. You have not accounted for other variables that may have influenced gibbon behavior. Moreover, this anecdote does little to support your initial point, which seems to have been forgotten altogether at the conclusion. You neglected to elaborate on gibbon diet, which I assume is your main example. The information that you have given on their development seems unnecessary. Also, you misspelled several pronouns, and neglected to show possession. I still see no relevance in your comment.

Comment author: Vivi 07 November 2011 11:46:49PM *  2 points [-]

I'm rather impressed that MLP has pervaded practically every other form of social media. Truly an impressive meme. Anyway, I gathered that Twilight's first fallacy was reverse causation. Pinkie sense does not make something happen, something makes Pinkie sense happen. But, in a universe where Magic A is Magic A, maybe Pinkie Pie does influence the probability of an action. Time for the Schrodinger's Pony experiments!

Comment author: atorm 10 October 2011 11:41:01PM *  39 points [-]

Kill the greys!

Comment author: Vivi 07 November 2011 11:44:21PM 1 point [-]

Ugh.

View more: Next