Politics, social intercourse, public relationships were the major factors in our mind’s evolution. Look up “Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality”.
The concept bundling in politics (sky color, taxes, etc).
You see, the political views “evolved” more, than were invented, thought over, whatever.
Sometimes mammals seem to evolve something that seems more usefull to insects, fishes, or birds. And sometimes it really is (more usefull). And nowdays we may try to test it experimentally (genetic engenearing). But before making actual experiments, it isn’t all that bright to jump to conclusions. And even after we’ll prove the point, it isn’t wise to criticize evolution in just the same way as any other disigner job.
The way our cultures with their law systems work isn’t all that logical—from our viewpoint. They have all kind of odd evolutionary artifacts from the past—and from all the past attempts to “evolve future”. But these evolved sets of roules (quiddich with Snitch) - actually do work. And we don’t have good enoug models (as yet) to test more logical sets of roules without actual risk of bludshed. Currently, western (greece-roman) culture may dye our (low birthrate) just “for” its “test run” of granting rights to woman and childreen.
We aren’t individually sentient beings, sorry. Our subcultures are sentient. We may support our part of some subculture’s immage for years and even to try to improove it a bit… and that’s it. And our collective minds (repeat) evolved politically...
Your comment suggests you might have interesting ideas to share but unfortunately it isn’t clear enough. There are quite a few spelling errors and instances of confusing syntax. Your use of parentheses and scare quotes also muddles your meaning.
Politics, social intercourse, public relationships were the major factors in our mind’s evolution. Look up “HarryPotterandtheMethodsofRationality”.
If you intended to direct this comment at the author of the post, then I’m pretty sure he’s already heard of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. He wrote them :-)
Politics, social intercourse, public relationships were the major factors in our mind’s evolution. Look up “HarryPotterandtheMethodsofRationality”.
If you intended to direct this comment at the author of the post, then I’m pretty sure he’s already heard of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. He wrote them :-)
That’s golden. In fact I’d say that accidentally quoting your own work back to you as corroborating authority without even being aware that it is you has to beat imitation as a form of sincere flattery.
I just saw this and had to go and write a complementary response to the parent along the same lines. Then I looked at some of the sibling comments and found that a couple of them turn out to have been written by me in 2011. I retracted my new reply. (But still like the parent and the multiple messages that it conveys!)
Evolution favors the attitudes that make us most likely to produce viable offspring. If this is one’s own main goal, then I suppose logical fallacies should be accepted if they have a clear evolutionary basis and still seem likely to contribute to that goal. However, whether or not it’s efficient to place reproduction as one’s top priority depends on various circumstances, including emotions. From what I’ve read by Eliezer Yudkowsky, it seems like being accurate in his ideas is more important to him. In that situation, just because a belief helps us survive long enough to reproduce does not mean that it is “useful,” and “criticizing evolution” isn’t really what he’s doing. Evolution /isn’t/ a designer, and it /isn’t/ always completely efficient (not that any designer is), but even if it is completely efficient in this case, the efficiency is towards a goal he does not share, so it isn’t necessarily relevant to him.
Politics, social intercourse, public relationships were the major factors in our mind’s evolution. Look up “Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality”.
The concept bundling in politics (sky color, taxes, etc). You see, the political views “evolved” more, than were invented, thought over, whatever. Sometimes mammals seem to evolve something that seems more usefull to insects, fishes, or birds. And sometimes it really is (more usefull). And nowdays we may try to test it experimentally (genetic engenearing). But before making actual experiments, it isn’t all that bright to jump to conclusions. And even after we’ll prove the point, it isn’t wise to criticize evolution in just the same way as any other disigner job.
The way our cultures with their law systems work isn’t all that logical—from our viewpoint. They have all kind of odd evolutionary artifacts from the past—and from all the past attempts to “evolve future”. But these evolved sets of roules (quiddich with Snitch) - actually do work. And we don’t have good enoug models (as yet) to test more logical sets of roules without actual risk of bludshed. Currently, western (greece-roman) culture may dye our (low birthrate) just “for” its “test run” of granting rights to woman and childreen.
We aren’t individually sentient beings, sorry. Our subcultures are sentient. We may support our part of some subculture’s immage for years and even to try to improove it a bit… and that’s it. And our collective minds (repeat) evolved politically...
Welcome to Less Wrong!
Your comment suggests you might have interesting ideas to share but unfortunately it isn’t clear enough. There are quite a few spelling errors and instances of confusing syntax. Your use of parentheses and scare quotes also muddles your meaning.
If you intended to direct this comment at the author of the post, then I’m pretty sure he’s already heard of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. He wrote them :-)
That’s golden. In fact I’d say that accidentally quoting your own work back to you as corroborating authority without even being aware that it is you has to beat imitation as a form of sincere flattery.
“accidentally quoting your own work back to you as corroborating authority without even being aware that it is you”
It isn’t the Bible, or something… as yet. I didn’t think it may be taken this way.
It is a work—the same way that a famous piece of literature or the finger painting of a child is a work. Scripture doesn’t come into it.
Speak for yourself.
I just saw this and had to go and write a complementary response to the parent along the same lines. Then I looked at some of the sibling comments and found that a couple of them turn out to have been written by me in 2011. I retracted my new reply. (But still like the parent and the multiple messages that it conveys!)
“Harry*Potter*and*the*Methods*of*Rationality”-->”HarryPotterandtheMethodsofRationality”
“Harry\*Potter\*and\*the\*Methods\*of\*Rationality”-->”Harry*Potter*and*the*Methods*of*Rationality”
And, if mat33 is still confused, underscores work the same way that asterisks do.
“Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality”—also --> “HarryPotterandtheMethodsofRationality”
If you killed all other people apart from me (including yourself) I would still be a sentient being. Sentient and rather sad.
Evolution favors the attitudes that make us most likely to produce viable offspring. If this is one’s own main goal, then I suppose logical fallacies should be accepted if they have a clear evolutionary basis and still seem likely to contribute to that goal. However, whether or not it’s efficient to place reproduction as one’s top priority depends on various circumstances, including emotions. From what I’ve read by Eliezer Yudkowsky, it seems like being accurate in his ideas is more important to him. In that situation, just because a belief helps us survive long enough to reproduce does not mean that it is “useful,” and “criticizing evolution” isn’t really what he’s doing. Evolution /isn’t/ a designer, and it /isn’t/ always completely efficient (not that any designer is), but even if it is completely efficient in this case, the efficiency is towards a goal he does not share, so it isn’t necessarily relevant to him.