[ExI] A science-religious experience
Jason Resch
jasonresch at gmail.com
Fri Feb 21 02:34:44 UTC 2025
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 7:05 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
I think the word "belief" has too many extra connotations that are
confusing and obscuring our conversation. I think it may help you re-read
my email as if you had done a find/replace to change "belief" to "something
you bet is true".
I don't mean anything else beyond that when I use the word.
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.
>
If it's acting strictly according to it's programming (like a thermostat)
then I would say it's not acting rationally, it's just responding
mechanically, and/or just an instrument to express the things the
programmer "bets are true."
> 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?
>
Yes, let me use "bets is true" instead of believes.
> > 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".
Yes. Action is the key.
A fully impotent entity is free to remain agnostic on all topics and has
infinite time to collect and consider new evidence to update its
assessments on probable ideas.
For example, say there is some experimental medicine that may work or its
side effects may outweigh its benefits. If one doesn't have the disease
they can behave as a true agnostic, and continue to analyze new data as it
continues coming in. But if one gets the disease then they are forced to a
decision point: to make a bet on whether they think it's worth the risk or
not, given all the data presently available. It is a departure from pure
agnosticism once one takes action, by "making a bet" on what they think is
true.
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?
>
I understand. Hopefully you have no such reservations over my new phrase.
> > 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.
>
True. You can imagine something like a fruit fly that mates because it
finds pleasure in it, and not for any rational consideration or weighing of
evidence.
I raised this topic to answer Keith's question, of why I think humans act
according to things they bet to be true but can't prove. Namely, I think
this is a behavior required for rational thought generally: (developing
ideas that one would bet to be true, and while, in the face of that
uncertainty, taking action as if those ideas were known to be true).
> Compare that with belief in god, and finding god as a goal, and I think
> the word
> belief here does us a disservice.
>
I don't understand God as a goal.
> 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.
>
Is there another more convenient word you would use for those "ideas you
bet are true"?
> > 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.
>
For humans, the will to live is at least partially based on the bet that
life is preferable to death. For someone who is suffering, they may come to
the opposite conclusion, and that alternate bet they would make (that
different idea), could lead them to prefer to die.
> > 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. ;)
>
Do you bet there is no afterlife?
Do you bet there is no God?
Do you bet there are no universes but this one?
Do you bet robots could be conscious?
Do you bet you are not in a simulated world?
These are all in the realm of religious ideas, whether you take a pro or
con stance. The only escape from having bets on these ideas is pure
non-committal agnosticism: not willing to bet one way or the other. But it
is hard to truly avoid taking actions that expose your having a bias or
opinion one way or the other. For example, do you choose to freeze your
brain or not, do you oppose your child marrying a robot or not, do you pray
for a safe landing or not, etc.
> > 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.
>
All observations you take as evidence for the hypothesis of an external
reality is equally consistent as evidence for the hypothesis there are only
your conscious thoughts of external reality, or that we're in a simulation.
This includes observations of G.E. Moore's hands.
I thought you were agnostic. ;-)
> But for me _personally_ calling it belief would be the last thing I would
> do.
>
Let's just say that you bet there is an external reality.
> 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).
>
If it were truly hard coded, rather than based on ideas, then people
wouldn't commit suicide to escape pain or for the promise of a better
afterlife.
I am only aware of only one other species that commits suicide, dolphins.
To me this suggests that we are species whose "ideas we would bet as being
true," are capable of overriding biological drives.
> > 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.
We have no experience of experiencing more than one moment in time. We only
have memories of the past, with anticipation for experiencing future
moments.
But note that we can't empirically distinguish "empty individualism" (we
each exist as only a single moment) from closed individualism (we
experience all moments in our lives) from open individualism (we all
experience all moments of all lives).
If this question could be settled empirically, this wouldn't be an open
problem in the philosophy of personal identity.
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.
>
The question of what experiences are yours, I see as entirely separate from
the question of the reality or objectivity of the passage of time.
On the topic of time, special relativity essentially proves that there is
no objective present nor any objective passage of time. Relativity proves
the notion of "block time" in the philosophy of time.
> > 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.
>
The world can exist as a material world that works according to laws, but
how do we empirically test whether we are in a universe whose laws say:
1. The speed of light is c for all time.
2. The speed of light is c for the first 15 billion years, then becomes 2c
thereafter.
There are no observations that prove the laws are immutable. The best we
can do is verify that they haven't changed from the last time we measured
them.
> Prove me wrong, or even better, prove a different dimension and I'll gladly
> revise my position.
>
Your example proves only that there is an experience of a hand. But you
can't know if it's the result of a material hand, a dream of a hand, a
virtual reality game, a simulated reality, an implanted memory of a hand,
an Boltzmann brain false experience of a hand, etc.
If you think you can know with (near) certainty which of these explanations
is true, I would like to know how. You could answer the simulation
hypothesis, for example, using that method.
> 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.
>
I think in your mind you link the word belief together with notions of
being dogmatic and unshakable.
Hypothesis and idea are too neutral for what I am referring to which is why
I introduce the notion of betting (as in, you have a generally acceptance
of that hypothesis or idea being true). Stance is closer. Position is
another that might do. I think goal is distinct, since it is too tied in
with action, purpose, and perceived utility.
> 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.
>
To save money for retirement, one must bet that they'll one day experience
life as their future retired self. And if someone got a diagnosis of a
terminal disease that changed that bet, then they might start withdrawing
from their retirement account. The fundamental ideas we hold dear and would
bet on, are instrumental to explaining our actions.
> 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.
>
I'm not sure what idea you are asking to shift the burden on.
> > 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.
>
We can notice them, as I highlighted a few such examples. It's just that in
the day to day, we make decisions without thinking about the assumptions we
make which underly the rational basis for our actions.
> 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.
>
My position is we can't observe them (and return to report what we saw),
but we can be as confident about what's inside black holes as we are
confident about our physical theories describing them.
> 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.
>
The word to me sets no emphasis on the degree of confidence. It just has to
be assessed as having a greater than 50% chance of being true.
> > 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'm not sure I follow the breakdown you describe, but I am glad you found
my interpretation clarifying.
> 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. ;)
>
My apologies! I appreciate your very thoughtful and engaging emails as well!
Sleep well.
Jason
> 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
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> 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/20250220/a2d0343a/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list