"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
>
> Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> >
> > "Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> > >
> > > Or to summarize: "Either life has meaning, or it doesn't. I can act as if it
> > > does - or at least, the alternative doesn't influence choices. Now I'm not
> > > dumb enough to think I have the vaguest idea what it's all for, but I think
> > > that a superintelligence could figure it out - or at least, I don't see any
> > > way to figure it out without superintelligence. Likewise, I think that a
> > > superintelligence would do what's right - or at least, I don't see anything
> > > else for a superintelligence to do."
>
> > I think I like your straight and seemingly elegant use of logic, but I
> > hate the consequences. Then I will not act logically! (considering that
> > particular framing of logic anyway, I'm sure we can discuss the
> > probabilities and the fact you use fuzzy logic and yes/no state)
>
> Yeah, learning to accept the consequences is the hardest part of building a
> logical moral system. Most philosophers have preferred the traditional method
> of starting from the desired consequences and then inventing the system. But
> that's what separates logic from fantasy. Objective thought is what tells you
> something you didn't know and to do what you didn't want.
>
> > One: if you do not believe in christian god there are two possibilities,
> > if christian god exists you will go in hell, if it doesn't nothing
> > happen.
> > Two: if you do believe in god, and it doesn't exist, then there is no
> > consequence, but if it does (finally) exist, then JackpoT!!! you go in
> > heaven.
>
> The fallacy is that there are only two probabilities and that they are 50/50.
No, just like your argument, there are 2 possibilities, to which you
can assign probabilities.
Then you can set your bets. What do you want to bet on your belief???
>From what I've read of your posts, you seem you want to bet your
professional life (in a manhattan project), maybe more. Maybe your life,
maybe humanity.
I just want to draw your attention on the fact that your logic chain
to the singularity meme is the -exact- symetrie to pascal's bet.
> > And, do you currently think that there exist an objective morality?
There is absolutely no objectivity into anything.
>
> I'd say there's between a 20% and 70% probability. Even 10% would be good
> enough for the logic to hold both arithmetically and intuitively.
Of course, a supposed god would stand outside or would be the universe. So, as you are an atheist, you seem to be trying to create a god (you do speak of applied theology, or is it just vernor vinge). Note that your god will need to have a complexity at least as great as the universe in order to be able to look upon it in an objective manner. And this is probably (let's stay inside the universe:) impossible because of entropy.
I wonder about the heisenberg principle applied to god (as seen from religion), would it imply that if god can interact with the universe, then this god has to be inside the universe. Only way out: god -is- the universe. I've allways wanted to stick that into my own personal religion.
And contrary to spike, I accept everybody in it, particularly rich and intelligent and beautiful and lustful babes (only my genes speaking, my prefered memes completely disagree with this line of conduct). And everybody go into heaven, militant atheist (I laughed out loud on this one) or not. In fact heaven is the universe, when you die your particles simply recombine into different composites, your meme set (including your belief in your self, in your will, in your ego) is dispersed back into its constituents, but do not fear, information is not lost, even black holes irradiate back the information they've eaten.
Manu.
--- logic is just a tool... and when in a casino, whatever the bets, at the end only the casino wins.