...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 ?
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 ?