[ExI] A science-religious experience
efc at disroot.org
efc at disroot.org
Fri Feb 21 00:04:08 UTC 2025
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>
> Hello Jason, I wouldn't be so quick to equate ideas with beliefs. Just to give
> you an example:
...
> belief is a more personal and emotional acceptance of the concept.
>
> I agree with all of that. It would have been clearer had I simply said beliefs
> and not brought ideas into it.
Yes, I think that makes sense.
> > One needs beliefs to operate rationally in the world. To decide and set goals
>
> Are you sure? What about computers and robots?
>
> To the extent the robot acts rationally in deciding what to do (that is, in
> taking in data and processing it to decide a course of action) then it must
> act in accordance with maximizing some goal or utility. The belief in what
> goal(s) are worthy, or what constitutes utility are either arrived upon by the
> robot or assigned by the programmer.
But wouldn't it be stretching it a bit, saying that the robot must believe in
its goals? The goals are hardcoded into the entity, so no belief is necessary.
I think the key here is in belief. There is something in it that just rubs me
the wrong way. Maybe a way to clarify might be to restate it, but not to use the
word belief?
> It is only when an entity need never act in the world that it's free to
> operate without any beliefs.
I think from a theoretical point of view, that an entity being in the world or
not is irrelevant, I think the key word here is "act". If you act, there's a
motivation for acting, and you could unravel that, to what I _think_ might be
something you would define as a belief, and which I might call an idea,
assumption, or biologically coded goal, and those for me, are different in kind,
than belief.
Again, I think the religious overtones I get with the word belief, stop me from
understanding you completely and clearly... perhaps?
> Rational goals and values can be based on pleasure for instance. Granted, you
> could say that this implies my belief that pleasure is good, but a biologist
> could counter with that we are hardwired as biological beings to seek out
> pleasure, and not because we believe pleasure to be good. We experience pleasure
> to be good. Based on that, we can live rationally, based on ideas which we think
> might increase our level of pleasure.
>
> A belief that pleasure is good.
> A belief that pleasure is its own goal.
> A belief that a certain action is likely to lead to pleasure.
Experiencing pleasure can be measured. Pleasure is also a feeling, that is...
pleasurable, regardless of your belief about it. I would argue, that I might
then be said to have choosen a goal, or I might have the idea that this feeling
should continue. But calling it a belief I think is too strong a word,
especially since I experience it, and to some extent can measure it.
Compare that with belief in god, and finding god as a goal, and I think the word
belief here does us a disservice.
When it comes to values being something we choose, you are right, but I'm not
happy with equating them with beliefs, as per the example of ideas vs beliefs.
> So even acting purely by a hedonistic instinct requires these beliefs to be instilled.
>
> More complex behaviors, such as those humans demonstrate, giving to charity, risking oneself for a greater purpose, deferring
> gratification, seeking justice or retribution, etc. require more complex systems of belief.
I'd say more complex ideas, I still define belief to be something about concepts
which are transcendental or beyond proof. For the material side of things, I
like to talk about ideas, an hypothesis, a goal.
> Likewise, choosing life as a foundation for operating rationally in the world,
> could be said to emanate from the will to live, which biology has coded into us.
>
> Some beliefs may be arrived at rationally, others may be inborn, but any
> goal-directed action requires at least one belief (that one outcome is
> preferable to another).
If it is inborn, why would it be a belief and not a biological fact?
Goal-directed actions, based on biological facts, seem to me, not to be based on
beliefs, but just on inborn hard coded preferences such as the will to live. In
most healthy humans, the will to live is inborn, and I would find it strange to
talk about that being a belief in life.
> Note however... that this most certainly does _not_ exclude basing ones values
> and purpose in life on transcendent beliefs such as god. That is also a
> perfectly viable way to live ones life.
>
> > Note that science never offers beliefs, nor does it proscribe any goals.
> > Beliefs must be acted upon with a presumption that they are true. Science can
> > provide evidence, but never justifies the acceptance of a belief as true.
>
> This is the truth. It is a method, and ideally, is therefore not able to
> proscribe any goals. It can only be used as a tool. Be that to bring us closer
> to the kingdom of god (a goal rooted in belif) or to enhance life, or to enhance
> pleasure (goals rooted in the biological organism) or to procreate etc.
>
> > The most rational person sees science as a tool to refine one's religion, as a
> > never ending pursuit of truth.
>
> I do not see science as a tool to refine my religion. I have no religion. I have
> ideas about values, that are to some extent rooted in pleasure, as in long-term
> contentment (let me just add to avoid common misconceptions of hedonism).
> Science for me, is a tool that can help us promote this goal, and ideally, do
> that for as many people as possible.
>
>
> Surely you hold some beliefs, including those that you can't justify with
> science or reason.
Sadly we are irrational creatures, so I am 100% certain of it. ;)
> 1. A belief in an external reality beyond your consciousness (non solipsism)
No, for me that is a fact, per G.E. Moores here's a hand. I also like to shift
the burden of proof. Since all evidence points towards and external world, and
since no one in the history of philosophy has produced proof of something else,
for me, the external world is what is. Should proof present itself, that we are
in fact luminous soul beings, or simulations, I would revise my idea or
hypothesis.
But for me _personally_ calling it belief would be the last thing I would do.
I get the feeling that the heart of this discussion rests on two different
definitions of belief?
I fully acknowledge that science cannot tell us about the values we should
choose. But I do not acknowledge that those values have to be belief. For me
they can be ideas, principles, and are open to revision or change, given
evidence, new states in the world etc. Which are only some of the things that
set them apart from belief for me.
Then there is also the special case of the hard coded preference for life, which
to me, is a biological fact, and does not require belief (in healthy cases, of
course if the system gets damaged sad things can happen).
> 2. A belief that you will experience future events in your life (rather than
> "you" being confined to this singular moment in time)
I'd call that a fact, based on empirical experience. Sure, someone might come up
with an iron clad proof of why this does not happen, we are a simulation, time
is an illusion, and all events happen at the same time, and the arrow of time is
just our way to make sense of them, but so far nothing has been presented to
give me the idea that time does not exist.
> 3. A belief that physical laws that have held will continue to hold (a belief in empiricism)
This for me, follows the same logic as the material world. These are just
different examples of the same thing. I do not need to believe in a material
world, it is just a fact, as much as it is a fact that my hand is here, and thus
there is at least one external thing.
Prove me wrong, or even better, prove a different dimension and I'll gladly
revise my position.
No one with a radical belief in god let's proof get in the way. I think for me, that is
a good illustration of my uses of the word belief on the one hand, and
hypothesis, idea, stance, goal on the other.
For brevity I removed the rest of the examples.
> You choose to not call these religious beliefs, but they are nonetheless
> beliefs you accept as true and operate according to the assumption of their
> truth. An assumption not justified by science.
I think I have to disagree. They are not beliefs. I don't have to assume
anything about acting, the future or the material world. Since it is "the"
material world, it happens regardless of what I assume or do.
Instead I reverse the burden of proof, and let it rest on the person who argues
the point to show that something else exists, or how I am wrong.
> These beliefs are instilled so deeply in us that most of the time we don't
> even realize them, but they form the operating system underlying nearly all
> human action.
If there is something instilled so deeply we do not notice them, and or even
worse, never do, then as far as we are concerned, they do not exist.
This reminds me of our discussion about the insides of black holes, and how you
infer what is there, while I admit that we can never, truly know, if we are
strict about it.
I get the feeling that this might be heading towards the same territory.
It is perfectly reasonable to be agnostic about a lot of this, and to act in the
real world, and to wait for proof of something else, while maintaining a
position of a real world, without having a belief in the real world.
After all, if belief would be so strong as you claim it to be, it "eats up"
everything, and we just end up with no truth, and beliefs about everything, even
the words on our screen, so I do not think this strong doubt and definition of
beliefs is really useful.
> If some new scientific discovery came up that caused us to rethink or question
> one of these core beliefs then the rational among us might consciously try to
> update their core belief. It is in this sense that science is the tool by
> which we can update our beliefs.
I agree that science is a tool, that allows us to update our ideas and
strengthen our hypothesis about various events, it increases our understanding,
and allows us to navigate the material world better.
>
>
> > As Einstein put it: "Science without religion is lame, religion without
> > science is blind."
>
> I don't understand this.
>
>
> My interpretation of this quote is that religion defines the goals, without
> which there is no motivation for progress "science is lame" -- as in it can't
> walk forward. But without the light of science, religion is aimless and
> doesn't know which way foreword is "it is blind".
Thank you. I disagree with the wording, and the strength of the statements, but
I do agree with you about science as a tool or a process, that let's us learn
about the world.
I disagree that belief or religion is necessary for this, and that an
all-encompassing, deep seated definition of belief becomes untenable and "eats
up" all truth, and then all discussion beacomes meaningless.
I must also thank you Jason. I really enjoy your ideas and discussing them. Even
though you just stole 30 minutes of planned sleep from me, it was still worth
it. ;)
Best regards,
Daniel
> Jason
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
>
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > I think I know, but it is almost impossible for most people to understand.
> >
> > Humans seem to have a bias against too much insight.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 7:43 AM efc--- via extropy-chat
> > <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:05 PM BillK via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 16:32, Darin Sunley via extropy-chat
> > > > <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > " This offers a solution to the problem of evil. Infinite computational gods can't destroy or change
> what is
> > out there
> > > > already, but they can provide continuation paths (afterlives) for those beings after they cease to
> exist in
> > their
> > > > universe."
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the most elegant argument for deism I've ever heard.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 6:10 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > > > >> Computational capacity provides only the power to explore and create (or rather, rediscover what
> already is
> > in the
> > > > infinite reality). Computational capacity doesn't enable one to destroy other universes which already
> are.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This offers a solution to the problem of evil. Infinite computational gods can't destroy or change
> what is
> > out there
> > > > already, but they can provide continuation paths (afterlives) for those beings after they cease to
> exist in
> > their
> > > > universe.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Jason
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but it's a pity that Gods don't exist.
> > > > It’s a divine evasion for the gods. ‘Don’t hold us accountable for
> > > > engineering suffering in the first place! We’ll compensate by granting
> > > > you paradise once you’re dead.’ What a generous bargain!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What can complicate these discussions is that there are two kinds of things here, each of which has variously
> been
> > called "god" by
> > > > different religions in different contexts:
> > > >
> > > > 1. All of Reality (e.g. Nirguna Brahman, Divine Ground of Being, God the Father) - that which is responsible
> for the
> > existence of all
> > > > universes (e.g., the set of all program executions existing in arithmetical truth)
> > > > 2. The Great Programmer(s) (e.g. Saguna Brahman, Demigods, Personal Gods, The Simulators, God the Son) - are
> > omnipotent over their
> > > > creations (e.g. their computer simulations over which the programmer has complete access and control)
> > > >
> > > > It's been said that the material universe is where God has lost control:
> > > >
> > > > "Matter is the border of the universal mind of the universal person that the universal (Turing) machine can't
> avoid
> > to bet on when
> > > > looking inward and intuiting the gap between proofs and truth.
> > > > This entails two processes: the emanation of God into Souls and Matter, and the conversion of the Souls,
> using Matter
> > to come back to
> > > > God (which is a sort of universal soul attractor)."
> > > > -- Bruno Marchal
> > > >
> > > > So if you are looking for who to blame for evil, it would be the "type 1" God which you can equate with all
> of
> > reality -- a reality
> > > > that is infinite and comprehensive, and necessitates that all possible universes exist. There is much
> evidence for
> > this type of
> > > > reality, it can be proven constructively by anyone who presumes arithmetical truths like "2+2=4" exist
> independently
> > of the minds who
> > > > think them or material particles that instantiate them.
> > > >
> > > > Type "type 2" personal gods have their own will and discretion regarding what universes to simulate, how to
> engineer
> > afterlives,
> > > > which beings to save, etc. But they can no more override what exists in all of reality, any more than they
> could
> > delete the fact that
> > > > 2+2=4.
> > > >
> > > > You could poetically say God's omnipotence doesn't override his omniscience. There is no power to forget for
> a mind
> > that knows
> > > > everything, including the knowledge of what it is like to be any of the beings that suffer or experience
> evil.
> > Moreover, for the type
> > > > 2 gods to find the beings to save, they must still simulate the universes where bad things happen. You, in
> your
> > current state (as
> > > > well as everyone in our future lightcone) wouldn't exist if WW2 didn't happen, we either would never have
> been born
> > or would have a
> > > > brain with different memories. So would it be better for WW2 to have never happened, if it meant the
> non-existence of
> > everyone who
> > > > now lives, and and will live in the future of the history of life on earth? Remember the set of all universes
> > contains all possible
> > > > histories of the multiverse, so the people in the WW2-happened-branch exist along with the
> WW2-never-happened-branch.
> > The naive
> > > > approach to addressing the problem of evil is to prevent bad things from happening, but note that in so
> doing,
> > requires wiping out
> > > > all the inhabitants of any universe-branch where something unfortunate happened. Does the goodness of all
> those
> > people in that
> > > > universe outweigh that one unfortunate thing to be avoided? The question becomes more complicated under the
> light of
> > the true cost of
> > > > correcting an evil.
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > >
> > > Another way is to deny the existence of objective email, and affirm our
> > > opinion about events. Sometimes our opinions align, sometimes the opinions
> > > of the majority align, sometimes the opinion changes. At the end of the
> > > day, we have particles, which is not something you can read "evil"
> into._______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
>
>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list