— SteveStewartWilliams (@SteveStuWill) August 14, 2016
Not a total idiot, apparently.
The average evopsych hypothesis is so bad because back in the Paleocene cavemen got no fitness benefits from good scientific guesses.
— Siberian Fox (@SilverVVulpes) July 21, 2016
I consider that we are still monkeys; we just came down from the trees rather recently, and it’s astonishing how well we can do. The fact that we can even write down partial differential equations, let alone solve them, to me is a miracle. The fact that we ourselves at the moment have very limited understanding of things doesn’t surprise me at all. […] If you go far enough in the future, we’ll be asking totally different questions. We’ll be thinking thoughts which at the moment we can’t even imagine. So I think to say that a question is unanswerable is ludicrous. All you can say is that it’s not going to be answered in the next hundred years, or the next two hundred years… To say there are unanswerable questions makes no sense. But if history comes to a stop, if we descend into barbarism or if we become extinct, then the questions won’t be answered. But to me that’s just a historical accident.
1.15 trillion generations of biological descent, compressed to blog format by Tim Urban.
The problem is that we evolved to be targeted, shallow information consumers in unified, deep information environments. As targeted, shallow information consumers we require two things: 1) certain kinds of information hygiene, and 2) certain kinds of background invariance. (1) is already in a state of free-fall, I think, and (2) is on the technological cusp. I don’t see any plausible way of reversing the degradation of either ecological condition, so I see the prospects for traditional philosophical discourses only diminishing.
What if the evolution of cybersecurity results in the evolution of a new kind of agency?
Any line of thought raising a question this serious has to be worth following. (It is.)