[ExI] A science-religious experience

[efc at disroot.org]

>       > 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': "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.

Agreed! Personally I'd probably tweak believes and devotedly and add a bit of
changing ones mind in light of evidence etc. But I think we already covered
that. In principle, yes of course. Different things to different people, I
agree.

>  
>       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.
>  
>       > 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.

That's a good one, although difficult for me to follow. When I'm on vacation
and during weekens, I do a kind of 15:9 naturally thought. ;)

When it comes to the health benefits, I'm not sure, but I am fairly sure that it
probably at least does no harm.

>       > 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.

Well, as I said... this is a "definition game". If we agree to define god as
super intelligence as expressed in this physical world by a very powerful AI, 
I have no quarrel with saying that gods may walk among us after a possible
singularity.

If you change the definition to something else like 1, 2 and 3 above, I would
probably disagree and say that those are "beyond" our physical world, so I
refrain from having an opinion and consider them null and void.

> 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.

Sorry... I think my definition of Tao got the better of me as in "the name that
can be named is not the eternal name" which is my "go to" definition.

If we define Tao as the source of all things, or as the big bang, then I have
much less quarrel with it. Generally, if you define god as a physical phenomenon
that could exist in our physical reality, and then ask me if I believe we could
ever know, I am much likelier to agree, than if you define it as a similar thing
existing in a separate universe, in which case I'll ask for proof, and absent
that, disregard it. But for me personally, the big bang is the theory of big bang, 
and no need for any rewrites or re-definitions.

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

Agreed!

>       > 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.

;)

I'm not quite sure to be honest. I'd immediately say that I'm some kind of
mix of behaviourist or verificationist. I don't think I have read enough about
functionalism in order to say that that is what I think.

> 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.

I disagree. It is a process of moving physical things as much as electrons are
physical entities in the physical world. Consciousness arose from our material
world and exists in the material world. We have no evidence for that it is not a
physical thing or an immaterial pattern, in fact, we have no empirical evidence
for any immaterial pattern, since that is not verifiable by empiric means.

>       > 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)

Disagree due to point 1. Also, we have no evidence of consciousness ever having
been restored after the destruction of the body. I'll stop here, since
everything flows from nr 1.

>       > 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

This is the truth. I do not agree with point 1, so although it might follow from
the theory, I do not subscribe to the theory. But note that it also could be
that I do not understand it, but point 1 does make me think that I won't
subscribe to that theory.

> 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

It is a theory and not a fact, so there is nothing to deny here.

> don't think minds need to be made out of squishy neurons) that is a tacit
> acceptance of functionalism.  

I disagree. I believe minds are "material" in nature. As for consciousness I
make no claims about it. I made the claim that if someone acts _as if_ they have
consciousness, I'll treat them as if they have consciousness. That's all I said
(I think).

>       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.

No, remember my agnosticism is about things beyond the physical world. I am not
an agnostic about things which exist in the world and can be empirically
verified. As for my statement, this is backed by experience. To my knowledge, no
one has died and come back to life. That is why I claim certainty on this point.

However!

Should someone die and come back to life, then we of course have to revise our
idea of death.

>       > 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?

Not in the reasoning, only in the definitions, as per our previous discussions.

>       >       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.

Yes, exactly! I first thought it said Bhagavad Gita, when reading quickly, but
then I saw that it in fact was not. Thank you very much for this recommendation!
=)

Best regards, 
Daniel