“The odds of a Cyberbuddhist Rationalist ending up in this situation with the Anthropic Principle at work are pretty good.”
This is textbook hindsight bias (the textbook is the Sequences.)
Making deductions based on anthropics is intrinsically small data (more accurately it is data which is strongly self-correlated, GIGO) because we do not have empirical access to other possible worlds. Small data / GIGO data comes from priors / sense of beauty / sense of parsimony.
Human sense of beauty / parsimony predictably errs towards anthropomorphization, means-end conflation, and wishful thinking. You are human. Being enlightened may help your priors in this matter but not sufficiently to overcome whatever facts about neuroscience consistently produce those errors. Materialism trumps spiritual revelation, e.g. brain damage influencing spiritual attainment.
This post isn’t in the reference class [probability theory], [futurism], or [analytic philosophy]. It’s in the reference class [religious doctrine].
Honestly, I hope the value proposition of this post is to examine whether the LessWrong community will call out bullshit from respected posters.
“The odds of a Cyberbuddhist Rationalist ending up in this situation with the Anthropic Principle at work are pretty good.”
This is textbook hindsight bias (the textbook is the Sequences.)
Making deductions based on anthropics is intrinsically small data (more accurately it is data which is strongly self-correlated, GIGO) because we do not have empirical access to other possible worlds. Small data / GIGO data comes from priors / sense of beauty / sense of parsimony.
Human sense of beauty / parsimony predictably errs towards anthropomorphization, means-end conflation, and wishful thinking. You are human. Being enlightened may help your priors in this matter but not sufficiently to overcome whatever facts about neuroscience consistently produce those errors. Materialism trumps spiritual revelation, e.g. brain damage influencing spiritual attainment.
This post isn’t in the reference class [probability theory], [futurism], or [analytic philosophy]. It’s in the reference class [religious doctrine].
Honestly, I hope the value proposition of this post is to examine whether the LessWrong community will call out bullshit from respected posters.