Hacker News Reader

Can the reasoning not be:

1) Our brains are evolved prediction engines

2) It is more beneficial and urgent to predict danger (e.g. approaching predator) than benefit (e.g. approaching prey)

3) There are always more negative outcomes than positive ones (entropy)

4) (1), (2), (3) => the more powerful the prediction engine, the more negative scenarios it will consider

Or: The world could truly be a fundamentally awful place, and smarter people are just closer to comprehending the true nature of reality.

Yes, but awful relative to... our brain's presets, which are an artifact of the world it evolved in. So in my view, there's nothing fundamental about it. Kant would say that the true nature of reality (noumena) are unknowable because our only connection to the real world is our sensory inputs, organized into perceptions within our brain (phenomena).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com