Comment author: dougcosine 23 May 2011 06:40:13AM 1 point [-]

It appears as though activating anti-kibitzer causes the lesswrong, Singularity Institute, and Future of Humanity logos appear in the wrong places in the header.

Comment author: bigjeff5 14 February 2011 12:00:31AM 2 points [-]

The phrase "Science has nothing to say about a parent's love for their child" means only that there is no "scientific explanation" for a parent's love.

Not yet, anyway, at least with regards to the specific mental mechanisms that create the feeling. If you take a "ten thousand foot high" view of the subject, evolution explains love perfectly - love is what drives humans to be monogamous (though not perfectly, for various reasons) and it also drives us to protect our young. This is beneficial for the survival of the species, and it is one of the reasons humans are arguably the most successful creatures on the planet in terms of survival. Nearly every mammal exhibits similar behavior, with variations depending on their specific adaptations, so it is quite reasonable to say they likely experience a feeling very much like what we call love.

That's the point. There is nothing that science is not involved with, and there are researchers right now attempting to find why we love (and there has been a lot of progress in the area - I've seen some really cool documentaries on the subject).

Comment author: dougcosine 16 March 2011 04:34:24PM 1 point [-]

jsabotta didn't make claims about whether a scientific explanation of parental love exists; he stated, correctly I think, that your beliefs about the existence of such an explanation have no bearing on whether or not you deny Martine Rothblatt's founding of United Therapeutics to seek a cure for her daughter's pulmonary hypertension.

"You're also denying Martine Rothblatt's founding of United Therapeutics to seek a cure for her daughter's pulmonary hypertension." I'm not sure what Eliezer means by this statement. Is he talking about denying that Martine Rothblatt founded United Therapeutics? Is he talking about denying that she founded it to seek a cure for her daughter's pulmonary hypertension? I think that there must be some other interpretation because I don't see how denying either of those things would result from denying that science can explain parental love.

bigjeff, I don't see how you can claim that love "is one of the reasons humans are arguably the most successful creatures on the planet in terms of survival," if "Nearly every mammal exhibits similar behavior." How can our position as the "most" successful species be a result of a characteristic that we share with so many other animals? The reason we are most successful needs to be something that distinguishes us from all other species, our intelligence, for instance.

In response to comment by LP on Universal Fire
Comment author: [deleted] 01 August 2009 02:54:08AM 7 points [-]

The laws of physics are constant between planets. Everywhere in the universe, in fact.

In response to comment by [deleted] on Universal Fire
Comment author: dougcosine 13 January 2011 01:58:48AM 7 points [-]

I think that when LP said, "world," he meant the fictional universe of Norse mythology, not a different planet.