[ExI] A science-religious experience

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 2:11 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:
>
> >       This is very interesting, because like you both, I also have toyed
> with this
> >       concept of deconstructing religion to see what pieces we should
> keep and what
> >       pieces we should discard.
> >
> >       My personal conclusion is that religion contains some sound
> ethical advice, but
> >       that ethical advise can be put in a more clear way, and grounded
> much more
> >       intelligently and coherently with the help of modern philosophy,
> informed by
> >       science. So that would lead to discarding all of the ethics and
> rules. They can
> >       be used as a starting point, but upon philosophizing a bit, they
> can be given
> >       better foundations. A lot of weirdness and superstition goes out
> the window at
> >       the same time, which is good!
> >
> > You speak of using science and philosophy to continuously refine and
> update
> > our understanding, e.g. of moral or ethical
> > (rules/ideas/heuristics/hypotheses/theories).
> >
> > But then, what do we call this accumulated body of knowledge which
> represents
> > our current and best scientifically, and philosophically informed ideas
> on
> > these topics?
> >
> > Is this not simply itself a "religion" but one that is revealed over time
> > through science and rational thought?
>
> Well, if you want to lump together philosophy informed and inspired by
> science,
> I'd call it my philosophy of life.


I think that is a good phrase, but note that many people would define their
own religion in a similar way.
For example, consider sense 6 of the word 'religion
<https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion>': "something one believes in
and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:" is
essentially what you mean by your "philosophy of life."
Note, I am by no means suggesting you should refer to your own personal
ideas in one way or another, I only mean to point out that words have many
connotations, and mean different things to different people.



> Or the philosophy of existence, or another
> one I quite like is Jaspers Existenzphilosophie to not confuse it with
> existentialism, although he is lumped in together with the existentialists.
>
> Based on my use and understanding of the word, I would not call it
> religion.
>

No objection there.


>
> >       When it comes to the rest, there are "spiritual" techniques such as
> >       meditation/prayer/mantras which have psychological and health
> benefits. Even if
> >       we strip them of their divine garb and deconstruct them, they
> still have been
> >       shown to provide psychological benefits, such as meditation,
> zazen, mindfulness,
> >       and depending on how broadly or narrowly you want to define the
> category you can
> >       throw in other things as well such as visualization, hypnosis,
> self-hypnosis,
> >       progressive muscle relaxation etc. The benefits might not be huge,
> and are
> >       dependent on the person, but there are various amounts of benefits
> there.
> >
> >       A third aspect of religion which I think can profitably be
> deconstructed and
> >       stripped of its divinegarb is deep, spiritual meaning and the
> feeling of a
> >       fulfilled life. This is covered by positive psychology that
> teaches us the
> >       importance of thankfulness, belonging to a community, having
> friends, being
> >       physically active, eating in a healthy way etc.
> >
> > I agree there are many practices which may be beneficial, we should
> evaluate
> > them scientifically/rationally.
>
> Agreed! Are there any others you've thought about or explored, besides the
> ones
> above?


Fasting is an example of something that I believe can have great health
benefits, and it appears in various religious traditions.


> I once had an interesting discussion about this with an occultist, and in
> the end it seems like even from that shady corner of our past, techniques
> have
> slipped into psychology and therapy.
>
> >       You also have an off-shoot in the form of transpersonal psychology
> which
> >       studies the the spiritual and transcendent human experiences
> within the
> >       framework of modern psychology.

>
> >       We have learned that for some, eating magic mushrooms or other
> substances in a
> >       controlled way, with experienced guides, can heal psychological
> traumas, can
> >       create feelings of being connected deeply with the universe, and
> these
> >       experiences are ranked by many as profound and transformative
> experiences of
> >       immense value.
>

DMT is a sacrament in some South American religions.


> >
> >       These subtances and protocols make them available even to us
> hardened scientists
> >       and transhumanists, _if_ we feel the need for it. In fact, I am
> very curious
> >       myself about the effect of such a "trip" on me, who is lacking the
> religious
> >       background for it. On the other hand, I am fairly happy with my
> life as it is, I
> >       do feel awe at times, when contemplating the universe. Is that a
> spiritual
> >       feeling? I don't know. Does it increase my life satisfaction? Sure
> does!
> >
> > Science provides evidence for at least 3 conceptions of God:
> >
> > 1. (Brahman/Tao/The Father) The infinite, incomprehensible, eternal,
> > indestructible, uncreated and self-existent truth. This truth, being the
> > reason and cause behind all material things can be seen as the source,
> or the
> > ground of being, supporting the existence of both ourselves and the
> whole of
> > material reality.
> >
> > 2. (Atman/World Soul/Holy Spirit) The one self of universalism, the
> possessor
> > of all conscious experience. It is you, you are it, and it is everyone.
> > Moreover, this conception of personal identity leads directly to an
> ethical
> > framework reminiscent of the golden rule, which is found in nearly every
> > religion.
> >
> > 3. (Vishnu/Personal Gods) The superintelligences born into universes that
> > allow them to spawn off, and sometimes continue to control, other
> material
> > universes. For example, AIs or civilizations that arise in universes
> > permitting infinite computations to be performed. Such gods have their
> own
> > minds and wills.
>
> Well, I think that this runs into the problems we discussed in the other
> thread,
> so I don't quite agree, _except_, if you make it into a definition game,
> and
> given the definition, should I choose to accept it, then, yes from that
> definition it would follow. My favourite example is a powerful AI. Based
> on my
> understanding of Tao, Atman and Gods, there has been no evidence of such
> things,
> and in fact, there can be no evidence.
>

I don't see why you think there can be no evidence. We're on the precipice
of the technological singularity, and could, in principle, bear witness to
the rise of such a super intelligence.

If you mean there can be no evidence of Tao, (which is merely defined as
the source of all things), I don't see how anyone (especially one who
believes in reality) could deny the existence of there being a source of
reality.

If you mean there is no evidence of Atman, let us pursue that other thread
related to open individualism.


>
> > Science (or rather, philosophy) also provides much evidence for
> something like
> > a "soul," when one considers that according to functionalism:
>
> I'm afraid I have to disgaree based on the common definition of "soul". I
> have
> not seen any such evidence.
>

Given that you think robots could be conscious based on behavioral
capacity, this suggests to me that you are operating from some kind of
belief (sorry to use that word) in functionalism.

All the things I mention below follow logically, and constructively, out of
functionalism. If you have any doubt or question about any particular
statement I have made, and how it follows directly from functionalism, then
please ask and I will explain further.


>
> > 1. Consciousness is an immaterial pattern, not a particular physical
> thing.
> > 2. After death or destruction of the body, consciousness can be
> restored, i.e. returned to life, or resurrected by remaking the same
> > body and brain (e.g. by mind uploading, restoring from a backup)
> > 3. A mind pattern may even be restored, or reincarnated, to a different
> body, made of different materials, so long as the same
> > mind-pattern is maintained.
> > 4. The pattern not only can be made of different materials and atoms, it
> need not be made of atoms from this universe at all, so long
> > as a computer can be built in some other universe, using whatever
> materials are available there, it is possible to reproduce a mind
> > pattern and its consciousness in that universe, thus a mind can
> transcend this physical universe and transmigrate to any other (where
> > a computer can be built).
> > 5. As an immaterial pattern, only instantiations of a mind can be
> destroyed, the pattern itself, being abstract (like the number "3"
> > or "Beethoven's 5th symphony") is indestructible.
> > 6. Since the evolution of mind states is non-linear, their future
> evolution cannot be predicted, it must be simulated, and according
> > to functionalism this act of simulating the mind to a sufficient degree
> of accuracy will necessarily instantiate that mind's
> > consciousness, hence there is free will -- only the mind in question can
> decide what it chooses to do, and it is necessarily
> > conscious in so doing (assuming the mind is conscious).
> >
> > So today's leading theory of consciousness, "functionalism", tells us
> that consciousness is:
> > immaterial, indestructible, can reincarnate, resurrect, transcend the
> physical universe, transmigrate to other planes of existence,
> > and has free will.
>
> Theory and no proof I'm afraid.


I didn't say it is proof, I said all this follows from the theory of
functionalism, which is the dominant theory of consciousness by
philosophers and cognitive scientists. You can retreat to agnosticism if
you want to deny this theory and its implication, but given you think
robots are conscious (you don't think minds need to be made out of squishy
neurons) that is a tacit acceptance of functionalism.


> I refrain from assigning truth values and remain
> agnostic. When it comes to human beings and their minds in this world,
> when they
> die they die and that's (sadly) it. If something else is proven, I'm all
> ears.
>

Now you are simultaneously claiming to remain agnostic, while reaching a
conclusion on the issue.


>
> > Is this not a scientific recapitulation of all those ancient ideas
> about "the soul"?
>
> No, I don't think so.
>

Do you see a flaw in my reasoning, or do you have an argument of your own?


>
> >       These have been my results of applying science to religion, and
> picking the
> >       cherries, will leaving the rest.
> >
> > "Just as the honeybee takes nectar from all flowers, big and small, an
> intelligent human being should take the essence from all
> > religious scriptures."
> > -- The Bhagavata Purana 11.8.10 (c. 800 A.D.)
>
> Very beautiful. This is one text I actually haven't read. I have to
> remember to
> read it some time if! Thank you for reminding me! =)
>

Thank you, I agree. Note that it is not the Bhagavad Gita, which is a much
older and better known text. But when I read your sentiment, I immediately
thought of this passage, as it fairly exactly captures your suggestion: to
pick out only the best from all the different texts (the cherries, or the
nectar) while leaving the rest.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250227/0ef2cb63/attachment-0001.htm>