First, I need to clear the air on a few things. As far as the
way I experience it, I am quite "bipolar" about spiritual
matters. There are times when the mystics of the ages and their
works speak directly to me and are as obviously true as the sky
outside my window. There are other times when it all looks,
perhaps not as densely baroque and foreign as it seems to look
to many here, but does not ring within me at all. I tend to
swing between strong rationalist worldview and something much
more spirtual/mystical. I have spent much of my life attempting
to find an integration or resting point on this spectrum. I'm
still swinging.
Perhaps part of this characteristic bipolar worldview of mine is
the way I process information. Remember from another post that
I don't always understand/grasp things as visuals or sets of
conceptual representations. I process multi-dimensionally and
somewhat kinesthetically. I feel and become what I am
considering and evaluating in part. This is sometimes a
strength. For instance in evaluating a complex software system
I cannot help but understand viscerally what it will be like to
actually use and work with that system. This is very useful
although it is often difficult to explain to other engineers
where some of my evaluation comes from. On other things it can
be quite dangerous and even destabilizing of self and
worldview. But it is part of how I seem to be made.
With that bit of intro to the often strange world of my mind...
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>
> The question is not plausibility or implausibility. The question is the
> Bayesian Probability Theorem. My theory - the theory that says that
> you're just imagining it - uniquely predicts that a certain level of
> intereference will be alleged. If you consider the prior probabilities
> for "permitted level of interference", these priors have no favored
> tendency to work out at a personally noticeable but not experimentally
> verifiable level of interference. Sure, it *could* end up that way, but
> the prior probability of it ending up that way, given a Mind, is something
> that I would estimate at 1% or less because of the exotic initial
> conditions required. This is essentially the same argument against
> noticeable-but-not-verifiable divine intervention - you have to postulate
> a very unusual psychology for God, where most compact descriptions of
> God's psychology will lead either to total uncaring or to a massive
> intervention to reduce suffering. Now it is of course possible to
> postulate a set of initial conditions that produce a divine psychology or
> Mind psychology that engages in quiet hints for moral uplift but not
> massive interventions. The problem is that this is extra complexity, a
> considerable amount of extra complexity, which under Occam's Razor reduces
> the likelihood of the hypothesis.
>
I confess first of all that I am not so up on and well-versed in
the Bayseian Probability Theory to apply it well to such a
consideration or to fully evaluate whether its application to
this subject is appropriate. Pointers to relevant information
could be useful. I am not sure you need to posit an unusual
psychology for God (good image that) when you think about what
could lead a non-psychotic being to create more or less free
separate sentients and what its responsibility/ethics to them
once created might be. I think your Friendly SI would also
impose some limits on the creation and treatment of sentients
that might look like very low-level interventionism. But the
point is a bit strained to really work out.
> If someone is honestly considering the Bayesian priors for Mind
> psychology, just trying out the different *a priori* plausible options and
> extrapolating them without trying to generate the specific conclusion of
> noticeable-but-not-verifiable interference, then I don't think you'll ever
> run across a "natural" conclusion (generated without expecting the
> conclusion in advance) of "Aha! This scenario predicts personally
> noticeable but not scientifically verifiable intervention, which
> intervention is morally uplifting to those who observe it!" On the other
> hand, the "It's all a meme" hypothesis does predict, as a unique outcome,
> very naturally and without the need for any exotic initial conditions,
> that just this type of intervention will be asserted by a large group of
> human beings.
>
Well sure, since anything else would look quite a bit
different. But that this is readily obvious doesn't prove that
it is the correct explanation, just that it is the easiest to
believe and follow. The razor is not infallible by any means.
<snip...>
>
> And that's just for the general, vague version of spirituality. If you're
> talking about a textual religion such as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
> tradition, you have to explain why the Mind engaged in massive blatant
> interventions a few thousand years back, but then suddenly kicked the
> habit as soon as civilization started coughing up scientists and
> reporters. In this case, there's basically no way you can make it
> plausible, no matter what kind of Mind psychology you hypothesize - the
> inconsistent description of past and present events forced by a text-based
> religion has the unique signature of a human-invented false meme, and you
> can't come up with a significant prior probability of that description
> being correct, no matter what initial conditions you postulate.
>
Well, if you want my opinion, a lot of civilizations simply saw
God behind every event that was cataclysmic and unexplainable in
earlier times. Which doesn't say much for or against a Mind
existing with some interest. There is a possibility, while we
are speculating, that such a Mind tried various levels of local
mucking about and evolved its strategies. But that seems
unlikely unless this is for sure a simulation at least.
> > Spirituality is quite falsifiable. Try it on. If it doesn't
> > improve your life and open up your options in a way that is
> > worth something to you then discard it. Don't expect to weight
> > something that rich and intricately part of life with
> > rationality and logic alone though. Not if you really want to
> > know.
>
> "Rationality and logic alone?" 'Alone' is a poor word to use for
> something that powerful. If my mind really is incomplete, it is perhaps
> plausible that my mind would not be able to *fully* understand the power
> of spirituality as it stands. But to have my mind not notice it at all?
> I don't buy it.
>
Understandable. Perhaps my mind simply is processing
differently than yours, not necessarily better or worse or more
or less completely. Differently. What "sends me off" into
mystical interpretations and flights of insight/intuition/joy
might be processed by you as a deeply rational set of insights
and even as joyfully but not be interpreted with the same
overtones it evokes in me. Perhaps I am open to experiencing
some things in ways that you have decided, quite possibly for
good reasons, not to. I don't really know.
> And I certainly will not "try on" a meme that appears to contain circular,
> self-reinforcing logic, as for example if the meme asserts that its
> wonderful effects are only visible from inside the meme. Who do you take
> me for, Inoshiro?
>
Fair enough. On the other hand there are logical, rational
circular self-reinforcing meme patterns also. It has fascinated
me for years that Western philosophy at least fairly neatly
bifurcates into Primacy of Consciousness axiom based viewpoints
(Idealism and most mysticism grow from here) and Primacy of
Matter axiom-based viewpoints. Both of them are relatively
closed and self-reinforcing if their axiom sets are fully
accepted. And there is little ground to weigh the axiom sets
outside of either viewpoint.
<snip..>
> > I would also point out that if you wish to move much of the
> > population of the world in a more positive direction the
> > language of spirituality is quite important.
>
> Yeah, well, I don't just wish to move the population of the world, I want
> to do it ethically. I can use a certain subset of the language of
> spirituality because I regard that subset as an extension of rationality
> by other means. I can't ethically use mystical language because I don't
> believe in it myself. Even if mystical language was the easy and direct
> way to convince much of the population of the world, I still couldn't use
> it.
>
That makes sense to me. And I have some problems myself with
using terms of mysticism that I do in fact believe in but
believe in in a quite different fashion than many of my
listeners. The returns are also negative if words are used that
convey something quite different from what is meant.
> > And it is
> > spirituality that gives rise to most living ethical systems
> > today.
>
> So? Most living ethical systems today are painfully incomplete.
>
Yes. But they do work to some degree. Which I would argue is a
lot better than nothing. I haven't seen as workable and
enrolling an ethical system yet based on reason alone. I would
very much like to.
> > We have yet to acheive a strong ethical system using
> > reason alone. Creating a world that is viable and forward
> > moving requires ethical, political, psychological and
> > sociological aspects as well as technological/scientific ones.
>
> Ethical, political, psychological, and sociological aspects can be
> understood using rational means. The choice of ethics may need to rely on
> the human emotional set as part of the baseline (or not - currently I'm
> figuring it both ways) but that doesn't compromise rationality.
>
I wonder. There is much in the human psychological makeup that
is not rational/logical. I am not sure you could reach deeply
enough with an ethics that did not talk to those less rational
and logical levels successfully.
> > I don't believe the necessary work can be done with
> > reason/rationality as usually understood alone. If you know how
> > it can be I would very much like to hear it.
>
> Use reason and rationality and (ethical) appeal to shared emotions.
>
OK. But if you need mythological and psychodramatic (and so
forth) elements and things that are classically "mystical" to
touch most minds deeply enough? Then what?
> > It is your construction that spritual speaking is "shorthand".
> > There are spiritual images, concepts, experiences, teachings
> > that simply do not translate into the language of
> > rationality/logic/reason no matter how long you speak and how
> > patiently intellectual you assume your audience is.
>
> Can you give me an example?
>
No. But I will keep it in mind to notice one when it comes up.
> > I believe in a transcendent Mind not limited to what we
> > currently understand through science and that that Mind is
> > immanent as well and is interested and under certain conditions,
> > at least somewhat accessible. I have little choice but to
> > believe this as I have experienced it firsthand. Yes, I could
> > come up with rationalizations to "debunk" each such experience
> > and the ones that I could possibly have in the future. But at
> > some point the effort to "debunk" them becomes less believable
> > and more contrived than accepting such as also valid. That is
> > the point I have reached and passed in my own life.
>
> I don't mean to sound insulting, but you do realize that unless you cite
> the specific experiences (and I will understand if you are reluctant to do
> so), I have to assume as a working hypothesis that this statement,
> although originating from Samantha Atkins, is of much the same origin as
> similar statements made by others for personal experience of astrology.
> Of course I am far more inclined to grant you the benefit of the doubt
> given your demonstrated rationality in other areas - but not, I'm afraid,
> *that* much benefit of the doubt, not unless I know specifically what your
> reasoning is.
This was not a simple testimonial. I have had experiences that
I believe were of such a Mind that knocked me on my butt a few
times now. Experiences that are, as I said, difficult to
dispose of. At this time I don't believe it is wise to even
try.
Thank you for the discussion. It has helped me understand my
own process a lot.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:28 MDT