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.
Vivi
Karma: 21
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”.
Valid point. Thank you.
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 that humanity is by nature amoral, which I do not believe. If you’d prefer factual evidence, then I will add that there is no correlation between a lack of religion and immoral behavior. I think history has shown us that fear is not a good source of morality. Edit: Religion tends to be a detriment to societal morality. In a vein similar to racism, unfounded beliefs will inevitably cause conflict. The moral benefits are only observed in a microcosm.
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.
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!
Ugh.
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?
I once asked a friend a similar question. His answer was, “Everything.”
Arguing over minor semantics may also lead to a conflict as described.
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