The things animals do in general are not necessarily necessary for their survival, but they are usually necessary for the good health of the ecosystem they are part of.
That seems strange. That’s not how evolution usually works.
Movement is the first action of the universe. Memesis is the second. (Chaos is the third).
Have you had long discussions with ChatGPT? This sounds like the sort of thing a person suffering from AI psychosis might say.
“AI Psychosis”. Is ad hominem a thing here in less wrong? Or is it more of an Edinburgh thing?
Yes, actions that benefit the ecosystem in fact benefit the species and are in fact rewarded. Digging holes to hide food: reward for individual plus reward to ecosystem. If the ecosystem survives, you survive. If the ecosystem dies, you probably die with it. Like it happens with the amazon rainforest. they cut/burn the trees, the animals die too.
Peacocks, just like the frilled-neck lizard, for example, use their feathers as a defense mechanism. As a deterrent, to scare away predators. The feathers make it look bigger, or like there might be many animals around. It also serves a purpose for mating.
“AI Psychosis”. Is ad hominem a thing here in less wrong?
It felt similar. So more intended as a hypothesis than an insult, but sure. I can see how you saw it that way.
Yes, actions that benefit the ecosystem in fact benefit the species and are in fact rewarded. Digging holes to hide food: reward for individual plus reward to ecosystem.
You seem to be mixing up several different claims here.
Claim 1) Evolution inherently favors actions that benefit the ecosystem, whether or not those actions benefit the individual. (false)
Claim 2) It so happens that every action that benefits the ecosystem also benefits the individual.
Claim 3) There exists an action that benefits the ecosystem, and also the individual.
I don’t feel that “benefits the ecosystem” is well defined. The ecosytem is not an agent with a well defined goal that can recieve benfits. What does it mean to “benefit the planet mars”? Ecosystems contain a variety of animals with that are often at odds with each other.
What quantity exactly is going up when an ecosystem “benefits”? Total biomass? Genetic diversity? Individual animals hedonic wellbeing? Similarity to how the ecosystem would look without human interference?
If the ecosystem survives, you survive.
That is wildly not true. Plenty of animals die all the time while their ecosystem survives.
If the ecosystem dies, you probably die with it.
Sure. You might escape. But probably. Yes.
The problem is, the overall situation is like a many player prisoners dilemma. Often times the actions of any individual animal will make a hill of beans to the overall environment, but it all adds up.
Cooperation can evolve, in social settings, with small groups of animals that all know each other and punish the defectors.
A lot of the time, this isn’t the case, and nature is stuck on a many way defect.
That seems strange. That’s not how evolution usually works.
Have you had long discussions with ChatGPT? This sounds like the sort of thing a person suffering from AI psychosis might say.
Really?
By the way, how many r’s are in raspberry?
BTW, reason doesn’t need personal attacks nor insults. It stands by itself.
:/
“AI Psychosis”. Is ad hominem a thing here in less wrong? Or is it more of an Edinburgh thing?
Yes, actions that benefit the ecosystem in fact benefit the species and are in fact rewarded. Digging holes to hide food: reward for individual plus reward to ecosystem. If the ecosystem survives, you survive. If the ecosystem dies, you probably die with it. Like it happens with the amazon rainforest. they cut/burn the trees, the animals die too.
Peacocks, just like the frilled-neck lizard, for example, use their feathers as a defense mechanism. As a deterrent, to scare away predators. The feathers make it look bigger, or like there might be many animals around. It also serves a purpose for mating.
You can just google things.
It felt similar. So more intended as a hypothesis than an insult, but sure. I can see how you saw it that way.
You seem to be mixing up several different claims here.
Claim 1) Evolution inherently favors actions that benefit the ecosystem, whether or not those actions benefit the individual. (false)
Claim 2) It so happens that every action that benefits the ecosystem also benefits the individual.
Claim 3) There exists an action that benefits the ecosystem, and also the individual.
I don’t feel that “benefits the ecosystem” is well defined. The ecosytem is not an agent with a well defined goal that can recieve benfits. What does it mean to “benefit the planet mars”? Ecosystems contain a variety of animals with that are often at odds with each other.
What quantity exactly is going up when an ecosystem “benefits”? Total biomass? Genetic diversity? Individual animals hedonic wellbeing? Similarity to how the ecosystem would look without human interference?
That is wildly not true. Plenty of animals die all the time while their ecosystem survives.
Sure. You might escape. But probably. Yes.
The problem is, the overall situation is like a many player prisoners dilemma. Often times the actions of any individual animal will make a hill of beans to the overall environment, but it all adds up.
Cooperation can evolve, in social settings, with small groups of animals that all know each other and punish the defectors.
A lot of the time, this isn’t the case, and nature is stuck on a many way defect.
It does seem to be mostly mating.