= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The universe presumably isn't optimised for intelligence, since most organisms are baceria, etc, and isn't optimised for life, since most of it is barren. See Penrose's argument against the Anthropic Principle in Road to Reality.
we don't know whether there is a concisely describable objective function that we are the optimum of
I think Wei_Dai was trying to suggest an objective function beyond our ken.
If i asked the question "why did humans form a hibernative monophasic sleep cycle? most people would say because at night we slept in caves and shelter to escape the dark and we evolved to sleep that way" even though that's not the case with out genes at all. People often attribute things that are entirely behavioral to evolutionary reasons and that's what i think the quotes trying to illustrate.
Baby's start out sleeping Polyphasically but soon adapt a natural night/day cycle due to the humans around them (mirror neurons, reinforcement, lighting). Now i dont know if this proposed experiment would-be very feasible or ethical but most people discount it because they "understand" evolution.
Discounting other theories unjustifiably, or overusing a particular theory past it's explanation is one sin. Not understanding a theory is another however. I think that many people who draw such false conclusions still base them on a pretty clear understanding of the core of evolutionary theory, i.e. mutation, gene exchange, selection, reproduction.
Not really. I have a reaction like that to non-Euclidean geometry, but I don't know many things it can be used for.
I meant to say, is that feeling of "ooh, shiny!" not easily appreciable value in itself?
See, there you're just confirming the original quote.
I understand that I am incorrect, my own self-doubt was not made sufficiently clear. I do not however agree with the fatalism that I perceive in the initial quote. To me it seems to suggest that understanding evolution is impossible. I guess this is not necessarily the appropriate place to look for information on evolutionary theory, but nonetheless I do not agree with the suggestion of unassailability of understanding, if that is what's going on.
In response to
Rationality Quotes August 2011
"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." Jacques Monod, in On the Molecular Theory of Evolution (1974) Repost, but i just found it :)
This may be fatally sophomoric, but I really don't understand what is so particularly hard to understand about the theory of evolution. Differentiation, Inheritance, Mutation, and Fitness produce a feedback loop of increasing Fitness. The particulars of it's implementation on Earth are far more complicated, but the underlying theory is beautiful in it's elegance and simplicity.
My sample is biased (geeks), but it seems to be mising "What makes them go 'Ooh, shiny!'"
Is that not "What has value that is easy to appreciate"?
In response to
Ego syntonic thoughts and values
Whatever you think of the ethics of their decision, you can't help admire the thought processes.
Tossing a coin would arguably be better. I expect I wouldn't have any kind of trouble with that arrangement if played against someone similar to myself in that respect. With someone sufficiently like myself, I can imagine even discussing the question of whose life should be retained and coming to an agreement (I'm not sure about the potential for a severe psychological backlash from this method of decision-making, but it's probably a less significant consideration than the difference between a better and worse choice for who to save).
(This is an isolated remark unrelated to the topic of the post.)
The problem with flipping the coin is that it already asks you to make an uncomfortable judgement about the values of John and Lisa's lives. You have already said "Our lives' values are comparable enough to merit coin-flipping". Acting out of the view of the partner gives the sort of mutual plausibly deniability that allows you to both percieve that the partner values your more than themselves.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I imagine you intended to link to consilience the concept, not the book. Then again you may just be trying to be subtle.