I mean, sure, in principle it could totally do that, but presumably all the copies of such erratic systems got eaten by tigers instead of successfully passing on their genes.
There’s the question of the absolute effort needed in order to get the abstract reasoning system to work reliably each time, versus just wiring them into a balance where the non-abstract system dominates most of the time when the abstract system gets things wrong. Evolution will pick the easier and faster solution.
I’m not sure whether you’re saying that personal identity is an evolutionary kludge (like the appendix or something), or whether it’s absolutely required in order for any abstract reasoning system to function properly.
...just wiring them into a balance where the non-abstract system dominates most of the time when the abstract system gets things wrong.
Agreed, but IMO this non-abstract system doesn’t have to be the personal identity system; it could just be pure reflex, or a limited set of heuristics. We already have plenty of reflexes, after all.
The former.
Ok, that makes sense. Do you have any evidence that this is indeed the case ? Do we know when and how personal identity evolved ?
Agreed, but IMO this non-abstract system doesn’t have to be the personal identity system; it could just be pure reflex, or a limited set of heuristics.
Possible, but the personal identity system does seem to be the thing that we actually ended up with.
Do you have any evidence that this is indeed the case ?
It would seem to be the most straightforward explanation that fits the facts, but of course that’s not conclusive evidence and my speculation about the evolutionary origin of our current state of affairs might be completely off. But even if the origin story was wrong, we do still seem to be running with an architecture that prioritizes anticipated experiences in its decision-making and depends on a personal identity component for that to be meaningful: the reason for why it evolved this way will just be different.
Ok, that makes sense to me: we’ve got this personal identity thing, it may not be optimal, but then, neither is bipedal walking, and we’re stuck with both.
I guess the next question is, how would we test whether this is true ? Has anyone done it already ?
There’s the question of the absolute effort needed in order to get the abstract reasoning system to work reliably each time, versus just wiring them into a balance where the non-abstract system dominates most of the time when the abstract system gets things wrong. Evolution will pick the easier and faster solution.
The former.
Agreed, but IMO this non-abstract system doesn’t have to be the personal identity system; it could just be pure reflex, or a limited set of heuristics. We already have plenty of reflexes, after all.
Ok, that makes sense. Do you have any evidence that this is indeed the case ? Do we know when and how personal identity evolved ?
Possible, but the personal identity system does seem to be the thing that we actually ended up with.
It would seem to be the most straightforward explanation that fits the facts, but of course that’s not conclusive evidence and my speculation about the evolutionary origin of our current state of affairs might be completely off. But even if the origin story was wrong, we do still seem to be running with an architecture that prioritizes anticipated experiences in its decision-making and depends on a personal identity component for that to be meaningful: the reason for why it evolved this way will just be different.
Ok, that makes sense to me: we’ve got this personal identity thing, it may not be optimal, but then, neither is bipedal walking, and we’re stuck with both.
I guess the next question is, how would we test whether this is true ? Has anyone done it already ?
Can you write a model and run it, or is it all pure logic?
Just logic so far.