On Jan 30, 2008 10:49 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nature doesn't even have survival as its 'goal', what matters is only > > survival in the past, not in the future, yet you start to describe > > strategies for future survival. > > Goal was in quotes for a reason. In the future, the same tautological > forces will apply. Evolution will favor those things that are adapted to > survive/thrive.
'Goal' was in quotes my reply too. Yes, *nature* will favor such things (I think it's inaccurate to say 'evolution' about this mess humans made of it). But why should it concern *me*? > > Nature is > > stupid, so design choices left to it are biased towards keeping much > > of the historical baggage and resorting to unsystematic hacks, and as > > a result its products are not simply optimal survivors. > > Yes, everything is co-evolving fast enough that evolution is not fast enough > to produce optimum solutions. But are you stupid enough to try to fight > nature and the laws of probability and physics? We can improve on nature -- > but you're never going to successfully go in a totally opposite direction. As survival is a subgoal of many other things, it is very important, but when you made sure that nothing threatens you too much at some point, you don't keep on working hard on *maximizing survival*. You have other things to do. We will become what *we* make of ourselves, according to *our* criteria, not what we were 'supposed' to become. Starting point is now, with all these hacks built into us. > > When we are talking about choice of conditions for humans to live in > > (rules of society, morality), we are trying to understand what *we* > > would like to choose. > > What we like (including what we like to choose) was formed by evolution. If it was formed by a magic fairy, with exactly the same end result, would it change what we like? > Some of what we like has been overtaken by events and is no longer > pro-survival but *everything* that we like has served a pro-survival purpose > in the past (survival meaning survival of offspring and the species -- so > altruism *IS* an evolutionarily-created "like" as well). Mark, my point is that while in the past evolution did the choosing, now it's *we* who decide, so it's just a statement of fact that what we want to choose is what *we* would like to have, and to this end we should think hard about what it is that we would like, with all our mental and physical hacks. Another question is that we might like to change ourselves, to get rid of most of this baggage, but it doesn't follow that in the limit we will become pure survival maximizers. > > These reinforcers used to > > line up to support survival in the past, but so what? > > So . . . I'd like to create reinforcers to support my survival and freedom > and that of the descendents of the human race. Don't you? Yes, that's what one of my reinforcers keeps telling me, but others hurry up to push it aside, as soon as there are no predators in sight. By the way, if we want to survive, but we change ourselves to this end, *what* is it that we want to keep alive? Simplest strategy is to cease to exist as stable pattern altogether, so that you won't be in danger of destruction. You'll also have zero information content, but if one doesn't specify what must survive, it seems as fare a solution. Most of the universe took this road. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=91840359-8a24d5
