All of Vivi's Comments + Replies

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

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.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

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".

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.

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 t... (read more)

3TimS
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.
2TheOtherDave
Note that the user you're responding to hasn't posted on LW since 2008, so is unlikely to read your reply.

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

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.

-2elinws
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.

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!

True. The implied belief that magic existed was exploited and played for laughs a bit more. I suppose that was a poor joke.

So Eliezer is simultaneously dead and alive?

Wouldn't that be a case of belief in belief though?

8sketerpot
If marchdown actually believed it, then yes, but I don't believe that he believes in that belief.

I once asked a friend a similar question. His answer was, "Everything."

Arguing over minor semantics may also lead to a conflict as described.

That's not semantics, it's syntactics.

hehehe

(Get it? Cause that is a minor semantic issue.)

Kill the greys!