Eliezer, what do you say about someone who believed the world is entirely rational and then came to theism from a completely rational viewpoint, such as Kurt Gödel did?
Surely Gödel came to it through a very advanced rationality. But I’m trying to understand your own view. Your idea is that Bayesian theory can be applied throughout all conceptual organization?
My view is that you should ask your questions of some different atheist on a different forum. I’m sure there will be plenty willing to debate you, but not here.
I’m not a theist, and so you have made two mistakes. I’m trying to find out why formal languages can’t follow the semantics of concepts through categorial hierarchies of conceptual organization. (Because if they had been able to do so, then there would be no need to train in the Art of Rationality—and we could easily have artificial intelligence.) The reason I asked about Gödel is because it’s a very good way to find out how much people have thought about this. I asked about Bayes because you appear to believe that conditional probability can be used to construct algorithms for semantics—sorry if I’ve got that wrong.
Eliezer, what do you say about someone who believed the world is entirely rational and then came to theism from a completely rational viewpoint, such as Kurt Gödel did?
I’d say, “take it to the Richard Dawkins forum or an atheism IRC channel or something, LW is for advanced rationality, not the basics”.
Surely Gödel came to it through a very advanced rationality. But I’m trying to understand your own view. Your idea is that Bayesian theory can be applied throughout all conceptual organization?
My view is that you should ask your questions of some different atheist on a different forum. I’m sure there will be plenty willing to debate you, but not here.
I’m not a theist, and so you have made two mistakes. I’m trying to find out why formal languages can’t follow the semantics of concepts through categorial hierarchies of conceptual organization. (Because if they had been able to do so, then there would be no need to train in the Art of Rationality—and we could easily have artificial intelligence.) The reason I asked about Gödel is because it’s a very good way to find out how much people have thought about this. I asked about Bayes because you appear to believe that conditional probability can be used to construct algorithms for semantics—sorry if I’ve got that wrong.
“Fat chance.”