[ExI] A science-religious experience

[Jason Resch]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2025, 1:52 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Daniel said:
>  > 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.
>
> Bingo.
> I'm in favour of getting  rid of the word 'belief'. It does us no
> favours, and leads to confusion and miscommunication.
>
> A long time ago, I came up with an idea called 'relativity of
> importance', which has basically shaped my values ever since. Simple
> idea, I'm sure many others have had it too. Ask yourself "what's the
> most important thing you can think of?", then "Is there anything more
> important to you than that?", and keep asking that question until you
> come to a stop.
> Then you have a list, in order, of the things that are important to you.
> Then behave in accordance with it.
>

That's a nice idea!

Do you think it is possible to rationally justify an ordering? E.g., would
you expect two superintelligences to arrive at a roughly the same ordering?


> As Daniel said, values don't have to be fixed. So periodically reviewing
> your list is important, to see if some of your opinions on these things
> have changed. For me, this method determines my values, morals, ethics
> and guides my behaviour (provided I do behave in accordance with it,
> which is sometimes hard, I admit (and why that is is a very interesting
> subject in its own right. I can recommend a book called 'Why everyone
> (else) is a hypocrite' by Robert Kurzban to shed some light on why our
> behaviours are sometimes (or often!) contradictory (ISBN 9780691154398)).
>
> So while science itself can't tell us which values we should choose,
> logic can, if we decide to use it.
>
> Jason said:
>  > > As Einstein put it: "Science without religion is lame, religion
> without science is blind."
>  > My interpretation of this quote is that religion defines the goals...
>
> Einstein should have stuck to physics.
>


Einstein had a lot of insightful things to say about religion. But you may
not be receptive to it because of the word "religion". I share this with
the hope that you might consider the value in what Einstein has to say here:


"When considering the actual living conditions of present day civilized
humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious
commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful
disappointment at what one sees.
For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations among the
individuals and
groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an
orchestra. Everywhere,
in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of
ruthless striving for
success at the expense of one's fellow men. This competitive spirit
prevails even in school
and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives
of achievement
not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as
springing from
personal ambition and fear of rejection.

There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is necessarily
inherent in
human nature; it is those who propound such views that are the enemies of
true religion,
for they imply thereby that religious teachings are utopian ideals and
unsuited to afford
guidance in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in certain
so-called primitive
cultures, however, seems to have made it sufficiently evident that such a
defeatist view is
wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned with this problem, a crucial one
in the study of
religion as such, is advised to read the description of the Pueblo Indians
in Ruth Benedict's book, Patterns of Culture. Under the hardest living
conditions, this tribe has apparently accomplished the difficult task of
delivering its people from the scourge of competitive spirit and of
fostering in it a temperate, cooperative conduct of life, free of external
pressure and without any curtailment of happiness."

"The individual feels the futility of
human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal
themselves
both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses
him as a sort of
prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant
whole." [...] "In my view, it is the most important function of art and
science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive
to it."

He called this a "cosmic religious feeling". I think this feeling has
inspired many scientists, it is hard not to feel it when you look at a
starry night sky, see the Hubble deep field, watch a cell divide under a
microscope, etc.

Many people had bad experiences with a religious upbringing that turns them
off from anything with the whiff of religion, but don't forget there are
infinitely many possible religions, and some of those are true. The task
then is to discern a true religion. Science is the only viable tool for
this.

As Freeman Dyson said:

"Science and religion are both still
close to their beginnings, with no ends in sight. Science and religion are
both destined to
grow and change in the millennia that lie ahead of us, perhaps solving some
old mysteries,
certainly discovering new mysteries of which we yet have no inkling."



> If he even really did say this. Lots of 'Einstein quotes' are apocryphal.
>

That's true. I checked the validity of this quote many times to be sure.

It comes from his 1954 article Science and religion.

https://einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion.html

Here is the full context:

"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are
clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the
two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may
be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from
science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the
attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by
those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and
understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of
religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the
regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is,
comprehensible to reason.

I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The
situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind."



> But if he did, it's a good example of someone who's an expert in one
> domain, being taken seriously when they say something stupid in an
> unrelated domain.
>

What, specifically, do you think is wrong in what he said?



> To me, this looks like a religious apologist's attempt to justify
> religion.


I think in the full context it is clear that isn't his intention.


And for me, religion is pretty much the worst way of deciding
> on our goals. That's basically just letting some priests tell you what
> you should be doing. And we're all familiar with the tragic consequences
> of that.
>

Not all religions are those told to us by priests. The belief that science
is the best (or only) tool for finding the truth is a belief (one some
might call a religion (scientism)). I think you just have an impoverished
conception of what religion can be. What are your guiding principles, what
is your personal ethos and philosophy, what are your values, and core
beliefs? These constitute your own personal religion. Religion needn't be
limited to organized dogmatic instruction by a priest class.



> It also implies that there are only those two options, science and
> religion, which is far from true.
>

He didn't frame it as either or, he thought both had interdependent
relationships.


> In my opinion, religion doesn't even belong in the realm of philosophy,
> but rather psychology (or even psychiatry). Including religion in
> discussions about philosophy, ethics, etc., is basically equivalent to
> including homoeopathy in discussions about medicine, astrology in
> discussions about astronomy, alchemy in discussions about chemisty, etc.
> Religion is probably the biggest con trick in all of history.
>


Are you an escapee from an organized religion?

I find that tends to leave a particularly strong distaste for anything
religious, and a specific view of what a religion must be.


>
> Daniel asked:
>  > What philosophers (if any) inspire you? It would be interesting to
> hear if I missed any good ones out there. =)
>
> In general, philosophers don't inspire me at all, but there are some who
> have had what seem like good ideas, and many that have what seem like
> very bad ones, but most, to my mind, just seem terminally confused, or
> at least confusing.
> Bacon, Hume, Locke, Spooner (Lysander, not Archibald!, & particularly
> for 'Vices Are Not Crimes'), all had some good ideas (as well as some
> bad ones, especially Bacon), and of contemporary philosophers, I only
> rate one, Dennett, although even he is dead now.
> There are other people who, while not describing themselves as
> philosophers for the most part, do have ideas that are philosophically
> important, and that I agree with: Hitchens, Dawkins (I once desribed him
> as "the most sensible bloke on the planet"), Harris, Moravec. Minsky,
> Kurzweil, Korzybski, Hofsdtater, Wiley (Keith Wiley, of 'A Taxonomy and
> Metaphysics of Mind-Uploading' fame, ISBN 9780692279847 - very highly
> recommended), Max More, Anders Sandberg, Aubrey de Grey.
>
>
> Jason said:
>  > 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.
>
> Ok, but why 'bet'? I think that 'something you think is true' would be
> better. 'Something you think is probably true' is better still.
>

To me "bet" embodies "thinks is probably true", but "thinks is probably
true" is fine with me too.

If you have a bet on something, you have an emotional investment in it.
> You /want/ it to be true, which is dangerously close to big-B Belief.
>
> Maybe 'assumption' would work better? Personally, I use 'think' in place
> of 'believe'. Usually.
>
>  > 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.
>
>
> I wouldn't take a bet on any of these ideas (simply because I don't
> bet), but:


You can bet without wagering money. It's only a matter of what you think is
more likely.


> No, I don't think there is an 'afterlife', on purely logical grounds. I
> don't think there is any 'aftermusic' once the music stops, or
> 'afterflame' once a candle goes out, either.
> Think of it this way: If something ceases to exist, does it still exist?

Rather a silly question, isn't it. If you die, and you're still alive,
> then you didn't die, did you.
>

Based on the philosophers you referenced, I presume you believe in mind
uploading.

Mind uploading is based on the idea that the continuation of consciousness
(i.e., survival) requires only a continuation of the mind-pattern, not the
survival of a particular body or brain.

Therefore death of a body or brain is not death, if at any future time or
place that same mind pattern is brought into existence.

Agree so far?

Now consider:

1. eternal inflation implies you will be born again exactly as you are now,
in a universe that results from a Big Bang in the far future.

2. The mind state of a dying brain eventually reaches a low or zero
information content state. E.g., when the last two neurons in the brain
fire for the last time. Now consider if this state is reached by a
developing brain in a fetus, e.g., when the first neurons wire together and
fire for the first time. This situation is equivalent to a mind transfer by
upload or a teletransporter. So one's consciousness will escape death by
"reincarnation" as a new being.

3. A superintelligent (Jupiter brain) can simulate the lives of all
conscious beings in the history of Earth in a trillionth of a second,
including yours. If it integrates your experiences and memories into its
own mind, then you don't know if you are Ben or the dream of a
superintelligence thinking what it is like to be Ben. If the latter, then
when you die in this universe then you will wake us that superintelligent
mind.

Witnessing the death of a being in this universe does not mean that their
mind pattern never appears again anyway in reality. To presume it does, is
to presume to knows all of reality (in order to say what does and doesn't
exist throughout all reality).




The only thing that 'afterlife' can sensibly mean is nonexistence. The
> word doesn't mean anything.
>

I hope my examples above show it to be more nuanced than that.  I have many
more examples of scientific theories they imply various conceptions of an
afterlife are unavoidable. I write about them here:

https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/


> Yes, I do think there 'is no god', or more accurately, 'aren't any
> gods'. (I find that there's a rather obnoxious short-sightedness (to be
> polite, and avoiding calling it arrogance), among very many people in
> the western world, using the word 'god', as if there haven't been
> thousands of gods throughout human history).
>

How do you know what exists (or doesn't) in an infinite cosmos, when there
are infinite conceptions of god, and possibly infinite universes?


This is a more tricky question, because you have to define what
> 'god/gods' means. But in the traditional religious sense of the word,
> gods simply cannot exist, unless we have our understanding of how the
> world works totally wrong (which is unlikely, because our bridges and
> buildings tend to not fall down, we have put people on the moon, and
> millions of other things that depend on our scientific understanding,
> work fine).


There is a conception of god (in Hinduism, Sikhism, and Islam) as infinite
truth. Most mathematicians are platonists and therefore would acknowledge
the existence of such a god.

There is a conception of god (in Hinduism) as all of reality. Anyone who
believes in a reality of any kind, necessarily believes in such a notion of
god.

There is a conception of god (in Hinduism and in Buddhism) as all of
conscious. Those who believe in the existence of consciousness also
implicitly believe in such a god.


It's only when one artificially restricts notions of god to bearded men in
the sky, who care about what people do in their bedrooms, or storm gods
that shoot bolts of lightning in anger, that we can so easy dismiss them as
silly.




Go back to the 31 Dec 2024 and read the post 'A paranormal
> prediction for the next year' on this list. It could well have included
> the prediction that no gods will be demonstrated to exist, for exactly
> the same reasons.
>
> On the other hand, yes, I do think 'god/gods' exist. In fact I know they
> do. As concepts in the minds of millions of humans. So I think that
> god/s exist in the same way that pixies, santa claus, unicorns, beauty
> and justice do.
>

God can also exist in the future, as an end state of biological and
technological evolution. Variously referred to as an omega point.

Here are words of another thinker you like:

"Evolution moves towards greater complexity, greater elegance, greater
knowledge, greater intelligence, greater beauty, greater creativity, and
greater levels of subtle attributes such as love. In every monotheistic
tradition God is likewise described as all of these qualities, only without
limitation: infinite knowledge, infinite intelligence, infinite beauty,
infinite creativity, infinite love, and so on. Of course, even the
accelerating growth of evolution never achieves an infinite level, but as
it explodes exponentially it certainly moves rapidly in that direction. So
evolution moves inexorably towards this conception of God, although never
quite reaching this ideal."
-- Ray Kurzweil in “The Singularity is Near” (2005)

Here are words of the physicist who invented the quantum computers:

"In the final anthropic principle or if anything like an infinite amount of
computation taking place is going to be true, which I think is highly
plausible one way or another, then the universe is heading towards
something that might be called omniscience."
-- David Deutsch in “The anthropic universe” (2006)


> (incidentally, I think it's interesting that you capitalise the word
> 'god', but not 'universes')
>

I think that was autocorrect.



> I simply don't know if there are universes beyond this one.


The evidence is really overwhelming.

I don't even
> know how to properly define this universe.


I would define it as a a connected domain of causal interaction. But you're
right it gets complicated when we consider the various kinds of horizons,
and even moreso when we consider the ability for universes to simulate one
another.


It seems possible, from what
> I've read, but I'm not really qualified to have an opinion on it.
>
> I think robots could be conscious, yes, of course. This is a no-brainer.
> We ourselves are proof of this (provided you accept that we are conscious).
>

This requires an assumption of functionalism rather than identity theory,
biological naturalism, panpsychism or some other intrinsicist physicalism.

I agree with you that functionalism seems to be true, but note that it
hasn't been an easy road for humanity to arrive at functionalism.



> Do I think we are in a simulation? There isn't enough evidence to
> decide. There may never be.
>
> I don't know why you say these are all in the realm of religious ideas.


They're all ideas related to fundamental philosophical assumptions (i.e.
beliefs) which further can't be empirically proven or disproven.


> Only the first two relate to religion, in that without it the questions
> wouldn't even exist, but they are still amenable to thinking logically
> about them, and coming to reasonable conclusions.
>

I believe all these ideas are amenable to logical thinking.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250223/74a2cc32/attachment.htm>