Court

Karma: −3

Court 6 Oct 2008 3:58 UTC
−6 points
on: Beyond the Reach of God
Eliezer,
I’m a little disappointed, frankly. I would have thought you’d be over both God and the Problem of Evil by now. Possibly it goes to show just how difficult it is for people raised as (or by) theists to kill God in themselves.

But possibly you’ll get there as you go along. I’d tell you what that was like but I don’t know myself yet.

Court 10 Jul 2008 8:38 UTC
7 points
on: Where Recursive Justification Hits Bottom
I was wondering when someone would mention Hume. Instructive to note Hume’s ‘solution’ to the Problem of Induction: behave as if there were no such problem. Practically speaking, in actual life, it is impossible to do otherwise. As relates to this discussion, it seems to foreguess Eliezer’s point that there are no ‘mysterious’ answers to be found. Everything will be as it was, once we have found what we are looking for.

Hume also recommended billiards, backgammon, and dining with friends. Sound advice, indeed.

Court 4 Jun 2008 8:58 UTC
0 points
on: Timeless Identity
Nick,

Nothing about cryonics there. That was what I was referring to specifically in bringing up Pascal’s Wager. Or am I missing something?

Court 4 Jun 2008 1:27 UTC
−4 points
on: Timeless Identity
As a matter of historical coherence, as it were, see Nagarjuna’s MÅ«lamadhyamaka-kÄrikÄ (Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way). Concerning the point that ‘nothing happens,’ you have more or less arrived at the same conclusions, though needless to say his version lacks the fancy mathematical footwork. I tend to think that your fundamental position regarding the physical nature of existence, insofar as I understand it, is probably correct. It’s where you go from there that’s a little more troubling.

Nagarjuna extrapolates from his views that via the Law of Karma we can reach Nirvana; Eliezer extrapolates from his views that via the Laws of Physics we can reach the Singularity. Both hold that their Law(s) do not require our assent; they continue to operate whether we believe in them them or not, and furthermore, their operation is inevitable. I am very skeptical that this follows in either case.

As regards cryonics, it seems to me what Eliezer is doing is fairly simple: he’s taking Pascal’s Wager. Pascal wagered on gaining immortality via God, Eliezer wagers on gaining immortality via the Singularity. There’s no harm in it, per se, any more than there was in Pascal’s being a believing Christian. But one of the major fallacies in Pascal’s Wager is the assumption that we know God’s characteristics, e.g., if I am believe in Him, He will reward me with eternal life. The same fallacy seems to apply to Eliezer’s Wager—even if the Singularity is true, how can we know its characteristics, e.g., that some future benevolent AI will re-animate his frozen brain?

Perhaps, Eliezer, you could in future posts fill in the gaps .