[extropy-chat] Analyzing the simulation argument

[Samantha Atkins]

On Feb 15, 2005, at 11:59 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
> --- Eliezer Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>> The important thing is that the simulation argument is the
>>> meme virus by which we can infect theists worldwide with
>> transhumanism.
>>
>> Infect people with a non-personally-believed meme!  What a
>> wonderfully euphemistic way of saying, "lie".
>
> Oh please Eli, you are not THAT pollyannish. Besides, how do YOU know
> its a lie if you can't prove it to be false? So, no, it isn't a lie. It
> is presenting a transhumanist worldview in language that a theist can
> understand and accept because it works in their memespace.
>
> What you are really saying is that it is too contrary to the immature
> and insecure atheism that you cling to too tightly for a truly rational
> man, for you to be able to communicate with people in a different
> memespace in a way they can understand and accept. You being a bad
> salesman of something you don't believe in with all your heart is a
> different thing from the idea being a lie.

This is skirting close to personal attack.  Back off  this energy.


>
> I would have thought that a self-declared "Bayesian master" such as
> yourself would have seen the obvious odds inherent in the SA and
> admitted that your atheism is not so much of a sure thing as you had
> once believed.

For me at least atheism is needed to keep from being sucked into 
mysticism and superstition as I seem wired to all too easily do.   
Sitting on the fence because there may be a super intelligent being 
that cooked this up is an invitation to never learn to become fully 
free of a lot of dangerous krap.  That something *may be* is a poor 
excuse for acting as if it is so.   It certainly in no way justifies 
lame attacks on those who do not believe it is so.

> - samantha