Half the more “philosophical” posts on here seem like they’re trying to reinvent the wheel. This issue has been discussed a lot by philosophers and there’s already an extensive literature on it. Check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ for starters. Nothing wrong with talking about things that have already talked about, of course, but it would probably be good at least to acknowledge that this is a well-established area of thought, with a known name, with a lot of sophisticated thinking already underway, rather than having the mindset that Less Wrong is single-handedly inventing Western philosophy from scratch.
AlexU
Karma: 148
The difficulty of answering this question suggests one possibility: pain might very well be the only intrinsically bad thing there is. Pain is bad simply because it is bad, in a way that nothing else is. It could be argued that the “goodness” or “badness” of everything else is reducible to how much pain qualia it causes or prevents.
Lots of great stuff in this post. Don’t have time to comment on anything in particular, but just wanted to say: this is the best-written piece I’ve ever seen on lesswrong. Keep writing.
Quick: is there an 85 year old former plumber by the name of Saul Morgan eating a breakfast of steak and eggs in a diner in North Side of Chicago right now? Who knows, right? You certainly don’t have an affirmative belief that there is, but it’s also true that, perhaps up until this moment, you didn’t affirmatively believe that there wasn’t such a man either. Lacking a belief in something is not the same as believing in its converse. To affirmatively believe in the non-existence of every conceivable entity or the falsity of ever proposition would require an infinite number of beliefs.
I eat anything. Make a conscious choice to eat healthy stuff and avoid junk food and simple carbs when convenient. Preferred eating pattern is to basically graze all day long. That, as well as a general indifference toward food (I find eating to be a bit of an irritating necessity, and never have cravings for anything) are enough to keep me trim. Probably worth noting that I wasn’t always this way; up through college, I loved eating crap foods, sweets, carbs, soda, etc. Permanent preference changes take time, but can happen.
Most vegetarians/vegans strike me as sanctimonious twits, who are more often than not no healthier than anyone else.
I get that you’re being sarcastic, but I’m not sure what you’re driving at.
However, if the holodeck hypothesis is true, then someone outside the simulation might decide to be nice to me, so the probability that it will win is more like 10^-3.
Um, what?
But that’s pretty much what LW is, no? I’ve long suspected that “rationality,” as discussed here, was a bit of a ruse designed to insinuate a (misleading) necessary connection between being rational and supporting transhumanist ideals.
Your conception of “theism”—a tremendously broad concept—is laughably caricatured and narrow, and it pollutes whatever argument you’re trying to make: absolutely none of the logic in the above post follows in the way you think it does.
Discounting an argument because of the person making it is pretty much the textbook definition of ad hominem fallacy.
Also, it should go without saying that being a theist doesn’t automatically mean one believes in a loving and all-powerful god watching over us. And anyway, I still don’t follow the logic that being a theist means one can’t make sensible decisions about the Singularity (insofar as one can say there are “sensible decisions” to be made about something that’s basically a sci-fi construct at this point.)
God’s non-existence isn’t predicated on any positive evidence for the proposition, but on lack of any evidence whatsoever, which was just as lacking in previous centuries as it is today.
Anyway, a list of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences is going have a substantial number of theists on it (probably a majority).
You’ve never heard of the ad hominem fallacy, I take it?
You do realize that on any list of historically significant “geniuses,” the majority are going to be theists, right? I’m sure it must be nice to pat yourself on the back for being “smarter” than people like Goethe, Thomas Aquinas, and Kierkegaard, but that would seem to be a reductio ad absurdum against the use of theism as an automatic disqualifier for “smartness,” to my mind.
Isn’t there an equally well-known bias toward thinking we’ll react differently to future events (or behave differently) than most people? That is, we observe that most people don’t become happier when they become rich, but we convince ourselves that we’re “different” enough that we nonetheless will? I think Dan Gilbert wrote pretty extensively on this in of those recent “happiness studies” books. Anyway, it seems like there’s an obvious tension between the two tendencies.
Of course, different worldviews may be qualitatively very different, but the point I’m making is that our personal reasons for adopting one over the other aren’t all that different. My reasons for believing various scientific findings have much more to do with the sociology of my upbringing and current environment than with the actual truth or falsity of those findings. I did some lab experiments in high school and college, but to extrapolate from those personal verifications to the truth of all scientific findings is to make quite an inductive leap.
I’m not sure those categories are as meaningful as you think. How many scientific findings are you capable of verifying personally, right now? And believing you’re capable of verifying them, “in principle,” is quite different altogether...
Right. The idea that we as individuals arrive at our scientific beliefs via perfect rationality is a fiction. It’s good to keep in mind that our scientific beliefs are a product of a particular social network—we believe things largely because people and institutions we trust believe those things. The difference between being a Mormon and being a scientific materialist is less a qualitative difference (i.e., one person is rational, the other is not) than one of degree, circumstance, and where you place your faith.
A problem I have with the LW community is this background assumption that infinite life somehow equals infinite utility, that living forever is clearly the rational goal, and that anyone (the vast majority of people, it seems) who doesn’t express any particular zeal for this notion is deluded, irrational, or under religion’s spell. A long, healthy life is certainly desirable to most people, but I think there are good, irreligious, perfectly sensible reasons for not placing any great value on immortality or living to see the distant future.
Pretty doubtful, especially controlling for IQ and education...
Why has this comment been downvoted so much? It’s well-written and makes some good points. I find it really disheartening every time I come on here to find that a community of “rationalists” is so quick to muffle anyone who disagrees with LW collective opinion.