[ExI] A science-religious experience

[efc at disroot.org]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> 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.

I think that is a a step in the right direction.

>       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."

Hm, I think it would make sense to say that a robot might act rationally, in
line with its programming. In the same way, perhaps a human can be said to act
(somewhat) rationally in responding to feelings and (some) instincts, which are
deeply ingrained rules, that do not require betting on them to be true. They are
not even processed at the conscious level.

If I program something, I essentially code instructions about how the program
(or the robots) should behave in certain situations. In the same way, evolution
I guess programmed drives, instincts and some goals, into our organism. One day,
self-consciousness appeared, the mind overtook the body, and changed a lot. I
guess what I am saying is that there are different levels. On some level, a bet
that a thing is true is not necessary, it is just a cause and an effect in the
organism, such as pain for instance. If betting would be part of the process,
the response would be less useful for us.

On a higher level, betting things are true, can definitely be true. I think the
key difference here between the scientists and the "betters" is the continuous
feedback loop between reality and the bet of the scientists, that make them
revise or change their bets, or discard their bets completely.

I think perhaps the essence of this discussion are these types of nuances, and
depending on how you spell them out, I think some common ground can be found. I
think the original choice of word, belief, maybe caused some unnecessary
confusion?

>       > 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.

Agreed!

> 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.

I'd say yes and no. The reason is that in your example, there is a feedback loop
between the real world and the organism and the effect of the medicine. I agree,
if I do not care, I can remain agnostic on whether a specific medicine has an
effect or not, if I try it, I will gain knowledge about the world, it either did
or did not, and as far as that medicine goes, I am no longer agnostic, but have
performed an experiment on myself.

If, however, we move from a medicine to god, (and here I'm thinking of the
classical, postulated bearded man in the sky) there is no way to ever prove it
based on how it is defined, so there I would forever remain an agnostic.

Another scenario, is the scenario of time. Regardless of my position as an
agnostic or not, I have no choice but to exist in time, and to exist in the
world. I can of course choose to end it, but barring that, I am naturally
exposed to it regardless of if I want it or not. Time passes, the material world
exist in the same way it existed yesterday. That opens avenues for the agnostic
about the world. I exist in it, I don't actively cause it to happen to me, I
think this is an interesting difference.

I can act throughout my day, without having to bet that it is true that I act
throughout my day, because I do not choose to make time pass or the world to
exist.

> I understand. Hopefully you have no such reservations over my new phrase.

I like it much better!

>       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).

Hmm, I again get the feeling that this would align beautifully with the
hypothesis/idea crowd. The only difference being the feedback loop with
experience. When it comes to lacking that feedback loop, I do think people can
remain agnostic about it, since it won't affect their life in anyway if there is
no feedback loop of experience.

Eternal doubt I think has proven to be a dead end, so I personally am content to
trust my senses that the real world is true, until someone proves it is not, or
shows me what else would be there instead of the real world. Uncertainty, is a
good thing and should be embraced.

>       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.

I was thinking about finding or experiencing union with god as a goal, which is
something at the core of the lives of many mystics. But I think this is perhaps
a dead end, since with your revised definition, I think we'er doing much better.
This example will only lead to confusion.

> Is there another more convenient word you would use for those "ideas you bet are true"?

A testable hypothesis?

>       > 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.

True. I think I mentioned it somewhere that a healthy human system has a will to
live, that is hard coded. So imagine children, they just "act" and live, and
enjoy life, and I would find it implausible that they consciously would bet on
life being preferable to death. For many grown up humans I would argue the same.

I do acknowledge that for sick humans, or philosophers ;) this question is
consciously pondered from time to time. But our minds have gained control over
our bodies and instincts. But my point is that there is a basic instinct to life
that is hard coded, that would be an example of a "directive" that does not
require us betting on it to be true.

>       >       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?

I refrain from betting. Regardless of if I want to or not, I'll get the answer
eventually, so there's no need for me to think about it, and I can safely
disregard the question. =)

> Do you bet there is no God?

I really don't care, since I regardless of if that were true or not, (ceteris
paribus) it would make no difference what so ever in my life.

> Do you bet there are no universes but this one?

If no information can flow, and no proof ever be found, it is nothing to me.

> Do you bet robots could be conscious?

I think robots could become conscious, depending on the definition of
conscisousness of course. Philosophical issues aside, I believe, in time, that
we'll be able to create something indistinguishavle from consciousness.

> Do you bet you are not in a simulated world?

Absent proof, do not care, and refrain from betting.

> 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

I agree. I think agnosticism is a good choice here.

> 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.

Oh yes, we are partly irrational creatures, so bugs will always creep into our
reasoning caused by hard coded instincts, that saved us ages ago, but are no
longer relevant, or due to emotions, or lack of knowledge etc. But as long as we
know, we can improve and change our models.

>       > 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 don't agree. I think a material universe, is the easiest and most natural
explanation. I have never seen or encountered anything that has shown that a
simulation is in progress, so I'm afraid I disagree here.

> I thought you were agnostic. ;-)

Well... maybe I'm a bad agnostic? ;) Jokes aside, I think I'm agnostic when it
comes to meta-questions, "outside" reality. I am not agnostic when it comes to
questions "inside" reality, because there is a feedback loop there with
experience.

So depending on the frame of reference, and I guess I'm either agnostic (see
above) or a type of materialist/physicalist open to revise my opinion about the
world in the face of new evidence.

Of course, as limited beings, there are naturally plenty of things we are all
agnostic about.

>       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 don't actually have to bet. External reality is what happens to me, regardless
of if I try or not. But I have no yet encountered any proof to the contrary, so
I feel justified in my agnosticism. Since external reality is the default that
happens to us, from a certain point of view, the person claiming that this
reality does not exist, instead of x, y, z, is the one who would then give
proof. Absent that proof, I don't see how it would commit 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.

That's why I said "if the system gets damaged". Sorry for being unclear.
Instincts misfire, the mind is getting more and more power over the body, and
sometimes, due to some freak mutation or illness, the system gets out of whack,
and such things happen. I would argue though, that these are niche cases, and
not the majority case.

> 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.

My interpretation would be that the higher the level of consciousness, the more
"unstable" the system, and the more prone it is to override.

>       > 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.

I don't have to believe it, it happens without me even trying. Sorry, I do not
have to bet on experiencing future states, it just happens.

> 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).

Could you elaborate? I find it pretty clear that I experience all moments in my
life and not a single moment or experiences everyones lives. Here I
misunderstand you a bit, I'm certain.

> If this question could be settled empirically, this wouldn't be an open
> problem in the philosophy of personal identity.

Maybe for some, it has? ;)

>       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.

This is interesting. I asked my friendly neighbourhood AI about this, and he
said (duck.ai Llama 3.3 70B) that:

"It's essential to note that special relativity does not entirely eliminate the
concept of an objective passage of time. While the measurement of time intervals
and the simultaneity of events may be relative, the theory still maintains a
notion of causality, which implies that cause precedes effect in all inertial
frames. This means that, despite the relativity of time, there is still an
underlying structure to the universe that governs the sequence of events."

Do you think this is true? And since I am not a physicist, I make no claim, but
just wanted to bring this to your attention.

>       > 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.

Good enough for me. Show me the proof, and we'll revise to 2c. If that situation
can never be achieved, and if we can never prove it, for me, it's nothing.

>       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.

I'm entirely satisfied with my conclusion and experience of the material world
supported by my body and empirical experience.

If you have proof of simulation, by all means... until then, I continue to act,
and regardless of my ideas or bets, the world still happens, and science marches
along.

> 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.

My answer, is that I don't need to. ;) Reality and the material world happens to
me. Science works, my stuff is in the same place when I wake up. So I only need
to continue my life, as planned, and should someone present me a proof that the
world is a simulation, I will calmly check it (if I can) and then I'd be living
in a simulated world.

At the end of the day, anything could be, god could exist, this world could be a
simulation, or none of us could exist, the words you write, might be a childrens
book etc. This ends up in solipsism which I think is a philosophical dead end,
which can safely be disregarded.

So my agnostic point of view, as far as meta-questions go, is that I let the
world happen to me, just as time is something that happens to me, without any
beliefs, or bets. Moores hand proof, for me, is beautiful in its simplicity, and 
that is why for me, the materialist view is the correct one, until proof to the
contrary appears.

But don't misunderstand me... from a philosophical point, I love the concepts
and the ideas, I find them creative and inspirational. But in terms of reality,
I find them unconvincing, as I also find doubting the most common sense
interpretations until proof shows up.

>       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.

True. It was a good call to change the word.

> 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.

Why don't you like it being neutral? That is why those came to me. Utility is an
honorable thing in the philosophy of pragmatism. Many swear by it! ;)

>       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.

Those are events in the world, and in the world, one set of behaviours, tools
and processes make sense. Simulation arguments, are arguments from "outside" the
world, and I think it is a mistake to mix the two.

>       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.

Sorry. What I mean is that given the fact that reality happens to me, if someone
wants to argue in favour of it being a simulation, I shift the burden of proof
to them, to prove that that is the case. If not, I do not see why I should
entertain the possibility, other than it being a fascinating idea, and a
pleasure to discuss or a cool plot device in movies.

>       > 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.

Well, I tried to explain myself a bit better, regarding those examples. Let's
see where it will take us.

>       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.

Degrees of confidence I think is a useful tool for everything inside this
material world. For questions outside this world, I think statistical thinking,
infinities and doubts easily leads us astray.

>       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 meant that if you doubt all of reality, you can also doubt meta-reality, and
eventually there is nothing but doubt, and this is not a productive way to
proceed.

>       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!

No worries! Today is weekend, so now the pressure is off! ;)

> Sleep well.

You too!

Best regards, 
Daniel


> Jason