[ExI] us

Wed Nov 9 00:20:18 UTC 2022

It's really kind of sad that most people don't look intellectually at their
own religion.  Maybe it just serves a purpose of giving them a public face
of respectability and opportunities to meet people.   But don't ask them to
think!

Contrarywise, I once taught an adult Sunday school class and one member
told me that he had thought all week about what I said last week.  What a
compliment!  bill w

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 3:14 PM Gadersd via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> We are using the same word “complexity” to refer to different ideas. You
> seem to be referring to the conventional idea of complexity while I’m
> referring to a mathematical definition. Occam’s razor applies exclusively
> to the mathematical version, although many people erroneously believe that
> Occam’s razor refers to the conventional concept of complexity. It’s really
> apples and oranges.
>
> I understand your point though. People are more willing to accept ideas
> that are simpler to understand at the outset. It’s easy to wrap an
> extremely convoluted idea into a bag and label that bag God without looking
> inside. All bags seem simple if one doesn’t look inside and see all the
> baggage.
>
> On Nov 8, 2022, at 3:46 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> Of what I can understand from your post, which is not a whole lot, you are
> correct from your point of view.
>
> But from the point of view of the average person, God is quite a simple
> thing:  an old man in a beard who lives in Heaven.  Most don't think past
> that, certainly not to the depth your post displays.  By extreme contrast,
> the many thousands of studies stemming from evolutionary theory are Greek
> to the average person, and therefore are invincibly complex.
>
> bill w
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 1:56 PM Gadersd via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> People are not obeying Occam’s razor by believing in creationism. The
>> rigorous mathematical formulation of Occam’s razor, the true Occam’s razor,
>> has nothing to do with how easy an idea is to understand. The basis is
>> rather on algorithmic complexity, roughly speaking how many symbols of code
>> or symbols of a mathematical language is required to fully express the
>> idea. To fully define the idea that God created the universe requires
>> defining the brain of God and its intelligence, desires, prejudices, etc.
>> that leads to the creation of the universe in such detail that the whole
>> process could be simulated on a computer. The known laws of physics are so
>> astronomically less complex (the equations fit on a postcard) than the
>> brain/consciousness of God that by Occam’s razor belief in God in absurd.
>>
>> People generally misunderstand the principle behind Occam’s razor. Think
>> more along the lines of how would I explain this idea to a computer rather
>> than how do I explain it to a person. I’ve programmed evolution simulations
>> and the complexity is actually quite low (can be done in a day or so under
>> a 100 lines of code). I would balk at the idea of trying to program the
>> brain of the Abrahamic God in a computer. It would presumably be at least
>> as complex as a fully developed human brain.
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2022, at 2:24 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>> That does not surprise me.  Most Americans believe in God and do not
>> understand science even if it is explained to them in depth. That leaves
>> them little choice.  'God did it' is nice and simple and Darwinism is
>> highly complex.  Ask a Darwinian to explain his views and you get very
>> complicated answers.  People are obeying, ironically, Ockhams' Razor.  bill
>> w
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 12:05 PM Gadersd via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx
>>> According to the poll 40% of Americans believe in creationism.
>>> Ideologies tend to stick, especially powerful ones such as religion. That
>>> an idea as absurd as creationism has that much support reveals a lot
>>> regarding human susceptibility.
>>>
>>> On Nov 8, 2022, at 12:51 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> My strong sense of rationality eventually detected the cognitive
>>> dissonance, but for most it never happens and the ideology sticks for life.
>>> Gadrsd
>>>
>>> I certainly would like to see data on that.  Opinions persisting for
>>> life, I would reckon, would only describe those whose score on the Openness
>>> element of the Big Five was in the very closed section of the curve.  No
>>> way an Open person will believe childhood opinions without change, often
>>> great change.  bill w
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 11:37 AM Gadersd via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household. The
>>>> indoctrination techniques definitely worked on me and I am generally a very
>>>> rational person. When I was young I couldn’t; explain why evolution and
>>>> other scientific theories were wrong, I just knew they were because the
>>>> source of truth (Bible) implied those theories were wrong. I didn’t even
>>>> notice the contradictions in that worldview until I was in my teens even
>>>> though I was mathematically minded. It is exceptionally difficult for
>>>> children raised in a particular ideology to see the contradictions within
>>>> that ideology. My strong sense of rationality eventually detected the
>>>> cognitive dissonance, but for most it never happens and the ideology sticks
>>>> for life.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that it is much easier for teenagers and adults to shirk off
>>>> new ideologies and brainwashing since they already have a worldview in
>>>> place to default to, which I think explains why the brainwashing didn’t
>>>> work on the GIs. That’s why you have to get them when they’re young, really
>>>> young.
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 8, 2022, at 9:50 AM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We attained our neurological maturity around age 25.  Before that, just
>>>> how dumb were we?  Were we very impressionable?  Able to be led around by
>>>> older and wise others?  Or were we just a little bit of an independent
>>>> thinker all along?
>>>>
>>>> Here's a phrase from today's paper?  "..she was part of a larger
>>>> movement of teachers indoctrinating students with liberal ideology..."
>>>> Repub Ryan Walter said "There is no place for a teacher with a liberal
>>>> political agenda in the classroom"  Conservative OK?
>>>>
>>>> (the teacher in Oklahoma has provided students with a link to a library
>>>> that let them read banned books)
>>>>
>>>> Now I don't know how much you know about brainwashing and
>>>> indoctrination.  I don't know much.  But I do  know that extensive studies
>>>> were done after GIs returned from North Korean prison camps where they had
>>>> been subjected to brainwashing, some of them for years.
>>>>
>>>> Results:  they found no GI who was brainwashed by any definition.  The
>>>> techniques simply did not work.  GIs pretended to go along with the program.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the GIs were not neurologically mature.
>>>>
>>>> Just how susceptible are our children to indoctrination?  Me?  I am a
>>>> born contrarian and skeptic.  But I don't know how I would have been
>>>> affected by such a program, though I suspect that nobody and nothing could
>>>> have just wiped out my opinions and replaced them at any age.
>>>>
>>>> So I think this whole thing is sort of a straw man - few if any are
>>>> attempting indoctrination, and few are fully affected, and most of those
>>>> kids will develop different opinions before they leave school.
>>>>
>>>> Remember 'Don't trust anyone over 30?'  Teachers are like parents -
>>>> they get ignored and what the peer group thinks is far more important.
>>>>
>>>> We received 'sermons' on all kinds of topics from parents and teachers
>>>> and pastors throughout our youth.  How much stuck?  Of that that stuck, how
>>>> much of it was thoughtless. believed just because we were told?   bill w
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20221108/d0a91d6e/attachment.htm>