= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jubydoo comments on A Rationalist's Tale - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (305)
"Whoso wishes to grasp God with his intellect becomes an atheist." — Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf
It seems you abandoned Christianity for the right reasons. Few are those whose disbelief is the result of extensive studies and advanced knowledge, I'm certainly not one of them.
Well, kind of. My reasons for rejecting supernaturalism are much better informed than when I originally left theism behind. I didn't know about technical explanation, Bayesianism, or Solomonoff induction when I lost my faith.
It's good to know I'm not the only one. I can give a good argument against the existence of God these days, but when I first walked away from religious belief it was just a vague sense of "this is all BS".
I'm still new around here, and I'm still learning how to really be rational, but after being the smartest guy in the room for so long it's nice to learn that there's still room to grow. On that note, what is Solomonoff induction?
Here.
Though I like Shane Legg's formal explanation, it's not very kind to people without mathematical inclinations. I think starting with Eliezer's post on Occam's Razor and Solomonoff Induction would be a much gentler introduction.
I like this one.
If you fall off your chair the first time you read section 8.2, you're doing it right. Alternatively, if you think to yourself "Obviously..." you are at a far deeper level of amateur understanding than I am.
I didn't find the sections had to be read in order necessarily, so if one is obscure you could skip around.