i’ve run into lots of weird quirks of my brain that violate the basic rational model
Can you give examples?
i’d like to think if i heard the voice of god booming down from the sky i would be like “aha yes my brain is fucking with me”.
I resonate with this but I also feel—though not super strongly (I’m not sure how to think about this) -- that there should be something (some evidence or argument or a large collection of those) that would be in principle capable of convincing you that you’re speaking to God via some legitimate epistemics.
Like, I’m pretty sure God (at least in the standard ~religious sense of the word) doesn’t exist. In my [metaphysics + broad understanding of the world] there’s no room for God, so it’s not even a hypothesis to be considered. But it seems to me that there are possible, internally consistent worlds where this [metaphysics + broad understanding of the world] is incorrect and I “should” be in principle open to evidence that I am in such a world.
Well if something spoke to me in my head and told me things I didn’t and couldn’t know but could verify later, I’d be convinced they were real and not just a hallucination.
Of course you’d need to be really careful about the strength of the evidence. Basically p-hacking on coincidences is how people become convinced of both woo metaphysics and conspiracy theories.
Well if something spoke to me in my head and told me things I didn’t and couldn’t know but could verify later, I’d be convinced they were real and not just a hallucination.
Surely they would be “real”, but then the simulation hypothesis still trumps the God hypothesis as an explanation of the phenomenon, given my metaphysics.
I’m asking: What legitimate reasoning, given what sort of ~evidence would be able to convince me that God, e.g., in the Abrahamic sense, is real, or that Kami are real (plausibly partly through subverting my metaphysics)?
Can you give examples?
I resonate with this but I also feel—though not super strongly (I’m not sure how to think about this) -- that there should be something (some evidence or argument or a large collection of those) that would be in principle capable of convincing you that you’re speaking to God via some legitimate epistemics.
Like, I’m pretty sure God (at least in the standard ~religious sense of the word) doesn’t exist. In my [metaphysics + broad understanding of the world] there’s no room for God, so it’s not even a hypothesis to be considered. But it seems to me that there are possible, internally consistent worlds where this [metaphysics + broad understanding of the world] is incorrect and I “should” be in principle open to evidence that I am in such a world.
Well if something spoke to me in my head and told me things I didn’t and couldn’t know but could verify later, I’d be convinced they were real and not just a hallucination.
Of course you’d need to be really careful about the strength of the evidence. Basically p-hacking on coincidences is how people become convinced of both woo metaphysics and conspiracy theories.
Surely they would be “real”, but then the simulation hypothesis still trumps the God hypothesis as an explanation of the phenomenon, given my metaphysics.
I’m asking: What legitimate reasoning, given what sort of ~evidence would be able to convince me that God, e.g., in the Abrahamic sense, is real, or that Kami are real (plausibly partly through subverting my metaphysics)?