<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Ben,</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with most of what you write below. Just a few in-line comments.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 5:38 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
On 26/04/2020 08:42, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><tt><font size="+1">The above seems to equate belief with blind faith (a
belief based on no evidence). I disagree with that
equivalence.</font></tt></blockquote>
<br>
Do you not think it's important (if not essential) to be able to
distinguish between the meanings of "I believe in God" and "I
believe it will rain this afternoon"? Nobody expects that someone
who's said the latter will insist that it really is raining when no
rain appears in the afternoon, that the rain is invisible,
undetectable, but nevertheless really there, etc.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ideally, all beliefs should have a probabilistic confidence level next to them, which we constantly adjust via <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference">Bayesian inference</a>. In this way, there would be no fundamental difference between a belief in rain today and a belief in some god. The main difference is that new evidence will arrive in the afternoon to update the confidence in that belief, where it is less likely new evidence will emerge in the afternoon to update the confidence in the god belief.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
Personally, I try to avoid the word 'believe' unless it clearly
means 'think' from the context (as in the rain example above), and
even then I prefer not to use it, because it's far too easy to
confuse the two meanings. The classic example is the arguments
people get into about atheism. Atheists do not believe in the
existence of gods. But if you're not careful, and use the word
belief in the 'weak' sense, the statement 'Atheists think that gods
don't exist' (which is generally true) can become 'Atheists believe
that gods don't exist', which is not the case, at least for most
atheists, as previously discussed on this list.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree, 'ideas' and 'think' are preferable, and we would do better to use such words more often in our discourse.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
If I think something, that's just my opinion, which is subject to
revision. If I use the word 'believe', its far too easily (in many
cases), interpreted as the 'strong' version of the word, the blind
faith version. This is why I'm so insistent on challenging people
when they say 'Atheists believe there are no gods'. They may <i>mean</i>
'Atheists think there are no gods', but that's not what they're
saying. Especially as we're talking about gods, the word 'believe'
is almost certain to be taken the same way as religious people mean
it when they say they do believe, rather than the way someone means
it when they say 'I don't believe it will rain this aftenoon'.<br>
<br>
I think that magic is not real. I do not <i>believe</i> that magic
is not real. It's not that I think there's a likelihood that it is,
but if sufficient good evidence was presented that it is, I would
change my mind.<br>
<br>
You say you disagree with the equivalence of 'belief' with 'blind
faith'. Then you need to persuade religous believers to stop using
the word, and refer to their blind faith in gods, etc., instead of
belief.<br>
Otherwise, the equivalence is a fact.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I see it like this: all blind faith is belief, but not all belief is blind faith. (but this is perhaps only a difference over terms and definitions, I agree with the content of what you say here).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<br>
When you say "we all have beliefs", you are saying "we all have
blind faiths", unless you qualify it to mean "we all think certain
things are true".<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>Jason: "<font size="+1"><tt>Why are you a transhumanist
(forgive me if this assumption is incorrect, I am assuming you
are as you are active on this list)?</tt></font></div>
<font size="+1"><tt>
</tt></font>
<div><font size="+1"><tt><br>
</tt></font></div>
<font size="+1"><tt>
</tt></font>
<div><font size="+1"><tt>Does transhumanism not for some of us
provide hope of a brighter future? Perhaps in the past this
role was served by such promises found in religious
texts--especially if you consider living in an era where
people saw little to no technological or cultural progress in
their lifetime</tt></font>."<br>
<br>
Indeed I am a transhumanist. Yes, it does provide hope of a
brighter future. Whether or not the same hope has anything to do
with religion, I don't care. If it's true, that doesn't have any
bearing at all on the validity or truth of religious texts, or any
religious opinions.<br>
<br>
The reason I am a transhumanist is because it specifies that the
improvement in the human condition is to be achieved via the
rational application of science and technology, which in my
experience, works, and not via superstitious means (magic,
religion, wishful thinking, etc.), which in my experience, doesn't
work.<br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Do you see my point then, that someone born in the middle ages, who did not see technology as humanity's savoir, might find it less despairing to believe in a better next life rather than believe they would suffer now and that would be it?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<br>
Jason: "<font size="+1"><tt>Perhaps you can only see religion as
it is and not for what it can be</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
I can certainly imagine religion transforming into something that
it isn't today. People can imagine all sorts of things. I don't
think that confusing what something could potentially be for what
it actually is in the present, is very helpful, though. And, to
become something good and useful, religion would have to transform
so radically that to continue to use the word 'religion' for it
would be misleading to say the least.<br>
<br>
<br>
Jason: "<font size="+1"><tt>is it possible to apply science to
ideas normally considered the exclusive domain of religion?</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
You have to be careful here. Science can only be applied to things
that are falsifiable. Many things that are the domain of religion
are not. But science has been applied to several things that are
claimed by various religions (search for 'Does prayer work?', for
instance), and found them to be false. Not that this deters any
religious people, as they usually just squirm their way to an
interpretation of their claims that can't be falsified.<br>
<br>
<br>
Jason: "<font size="+1"><tt>Did I cherry pick?</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
Yes.<br>
You selected quotes from the large body of literature available
from the religion in question that related to the relevant idea.
But your claim was that these ideas are 'core themes'. I could
claim that a core theme of entomology is interference patterns,
and quote research on the colours of butterfly wings. I won't
convince anybody, though.<br>
<br>
<br>
I don't know much about Hinduism, and maybe hindus aren't
concerned about their gods rewards and punishments, perhaps there
aren't any, in which case, good for them. I can't help wondering,
though, where all those taboos come from. If someone eats a cow,
what will (supposedly) happen? What's so bad about feet, or
menstruation?<br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Perhaps these are questions best left to anthropologists and evolutionary biologists. It's easy to forget how far we have come since those were written. Only a few hundred years ago, about half of babies didn't survive to their first year. Disease killed many. No doubt this lead to all kinds of ideas about cleanliness, what foods could or should be eaten, etc. Many perhaps wrong or misguided, but I think with good intentions.</div><div><br></div><div>Even today, much of nutrition science is bunk. Many medical practices, even those used until very recently (and surely some still today) are actively harmful. How will humans a thousand years from now judge today's (presumed to be rational and scientifically justified) proscriptions and prescriptions?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<br>
Jason: "<font size="+1"><tt>We all hold fundamental beliefs
concerning reality</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
If you replace the word 'beliefs' with 'ideas', then I agree. In
fact, things would be a lot clearer if, everywhere the word
'belief' was used, it was replaced with 'idea', and 'believe' was
replaced with 'think', with appropriate qualifiers to distinguish
between blind faith and rational thought.<br>
<br>
It seems that by 'religious belief', you mean 'world-view'. Use
that term, and I'd agree that this encompasses atheism. Again,
using the term 'religious belief' instead just causes confusion
and resentment (and gives religious apologists ammunition).<br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I will use world-view from now on for that purpose. Thanks for the suggestion.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<br>
Jason: "<font size="+1"><tt>What if we do find evidence for or
against any of those fundamental concepts which today you call
religious? Then, given that we now have evidence, such beliefs
(under your definition) would no longer be religious beliefs</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
Correct.<br>
You've heard of 'the god of the gaps', haven't you?<br>
As soon as something mysterious is shown to have a rational
explanation, there's no longer a need for the 'goddiddit'
explanation any more. Nobody thinks that Thor or Zeus is the cause
of lightning bolts anymore, because we now know how they really
work.<br>
<br>
But maybe you mean something different when you say 'fundamental
concepts'. The key question is: Are they falsifiable? If so, they
can be disproved, and fall out of the realm of religion (there's
no longer any need to 'believe' them (blind-faith version), they
have been demonstrated to be true or false), but if not, science
can't address them. Which usually means they aren't real, but
anyway, they remain in the magical realm of the gods.<br>
<br>
<br>
The simulation argument is not a religious concept. It's a
thought-experiment that, as far as we know, can't be proven. So,
while it is (probably) unfalsifiable, neither is it a subject of
blind faith. The people who think it's probably true, just assign
a high probability to it, those who think it's probably false,
don't. And there are plenty of people who think it's irrelevant
anyway, so don't worry about it at all. The difference between a
simulator and a god is clear, though. One is logically consistent
with the laws of physics, the other is supernatural.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would argue that the entity and the computer who run the simulation are 'supernatural' in that they are beyond anything of our present nature/physical universe. They exist beyond nature, they don't adhere to our laws of physics. Though this is a terminology/definition disagreement, it restores the blur in the line between "God" and "simulator" -- when both can be considered beyond nature.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<br>
<br>
Jason: "<font size="+1"><tt>In what category would mathematical
beliefs, such as the belief that "1 + 1 = 2" fall into? Are
true mathematical beliefs falsifiable, subject to revision,
eternally true?</tt></font>"<br>
<br>
I don't know the full answer to that, I'm not a mathematician.
But there are no such things as 'mathematical beliefs'. There are
Axioms. Things that are held to be true because other things
depend on them. 1 + 1 = 2 is not a belief. You don't have to have
blind faith in it, you can prove it. There are other systems of
mathematics with other axioms, I think. I don't know anything
about them, so someone who actually knows maths might want to
comment on that, but my understanding is that maths is an
(approximately) self-contained logical system. Gödel shows that
this is not quite true, of course, but I'm way out of my depth
there.<br>
I think you're just asking the wrong question, here, to be honest.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You are right, axioms are still taken as beliefs which themselves can never be proven.</div><div><br></div><div>Gödel showed that no finite set of axioms is complete. That is, no finite set of axioms can be used to prove every mathematical statements that is true. In other words, mathematical truth cannot be defined, and transcends any attempts at specification.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
<br>
<br>
Jason: "<font size="+1"><tt>Given the evidence and examples I
provided regarding the scientific theory of the mechanistic
description of the mind, have you changed your own opinion
regarding the physical possibility of reincarnation,
resurrection, and the continuance of a mind beyond the death
of one of its bodies?</tt></font>"<br>
<div><br>
I think you misunderstand my position. I'm a materialist, and
fully accept the 'mechanistic description of the mind'. I think
that uploading, diverging identity, mind backups and possibly
even merging of different versions of a mind are all
theoretically possible, and have done for a long time.<br>
There's one important thing about materialism: It excludes the
supernatural.<br>
<br>
I don't use the terms 'reincarnation', 'resurrection' etc.,
because these are words that come from the world of magical
religious thinking (the supernatural), and give completely the
wrong impression. There's a huge difference between saying "I
believe in reincarnation" and "I think that uploading is
theoretically possible".<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think it is contextual. If reality is big enough such that "reincarnation" (let's say this is unintentional continuation of the mind, unlike mind uploading which is controlled and intentional) happens automatically, then there is a different flavor between 'reincarnation' and 'mind uploading'.</div><div><br></div><div>With mind uploading you need to do something extra, do a brain scan, upload it into a computer, run the computer. In a large enough reality, the existence of other computers already running exact copies of your brain state when you die is implicitly assumed to exist within that infinite reality. Thus you get "uploaded for free".</div><div><br></div><div>There's nothing supernatural about any of this. It's just what you get when you accept theories from different domains of science (mechanism, materialism, digital brain emulation, neuroscience, etc.) which says we can simulate and recreate the mind, with (cosmology, string theory, quantum mechanics, platonism, etc.) which say reality is very big and probably infinite.</div><div><br></div><div>Jason</div></div></div>