~ eek! Three posts in “recent comments”, going to get banned. ~
Paul_Gebheim: The mind doesn’t have to get evolutions’ coincidentally-correct knowledge injected immediately at conception, so that re-interpretation wouldn’t save Eliezer_Yudkowsky’s point. The brain is slowly built up over time with assistance from the genetic code, the proteome, and microorganisms in the environment, and that interaction could very well give the brain non-Bayesian knowledge. And before you say, “but that’s still mutual information with the environment!”, yes it is, but it’s the equivalent of accepting a belief on faith that happens to be true, or drawing a map of somewhere you’ve never been that happens to be accurate.
Tom_McCabe: “Evolutions would tend to give humans brains with beliefs that largely matched the world, else they would be weeded out.” This is not really true;
Okay. So evolutions don’t give organisms’ brains any knowledge. And Eliezer_Yudkowsky’s point is that much weaker.
~ eek! Three posts in “recent comments”, going to get banned. ~
Paul_Gebheim: The mind doesn’t have to get evolutions’ coincidentally-correct knowledge injected immediately at conception, so that re-interpretation wouldn’t save Eliezer_Yudkowsky’s point. The brain is slowly built up over time with assistance from the genetic code, the proteome, and microorganisms in the environment, and that interaction could very well give the brain non-Bayesian knowledge. And before you say, “but that’s still mutual information with the environment!”, yes it is, but it’s the equivalent of accepting a belief on faith that happens to be true, or drawing a map of somewhere you’ve never been that happens to be accurate.
Tom_McCabe: “Evolutions would tend to give humans brains with beliefs that largely matched the world, else they would be weeded out.” This is not really true;
Okay. So evolutions don’t give organisms’ brains any knowledge. And Eliezer_Yudkowsky’s point is that much weaker.