nick012000 comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong

63 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 January 2007 03:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (336)

Comments (336)

Sort By: Old

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment deleted 12 July 2010 11:44:23AM [-]

Comment author: nick012000 12 July 2010 01:16:25PM 0 points [-]

Hmm? If Atheism is correct, I cease to exist after I die no matter what I believe in. If it isn't, I'll either wind up burning in Hell, going to a relatively mediocre afterlife, or ceasing to exist, depending on which religion is correct.

What incentive could I possibly have to decide to be an atheist? It seems to be more likely to be true judging by most present science, but that doesn't automatically make it the most rational decision to make. The best-case scenario is that I'm wrong and I wind up as a minor functionary in the Celestial Bureaucracy or something.

Comment deleted 12 July 2010 01:44:20PM * [-]

Comment author: nick012000 comment score below threshold [+] (4 children)

Comment author: RichardKennaway 12 July 2010 02:46:50PM 9 points [-]

the optimal decision for what belief to choose might well to be to ignore that and believe something else.

Can you describe what you mean by "choosing to believe" in something? Right now it's raining where I am, and I don't seem to be able to choose to believe otherwise. I have the same difficulty in choosing to believe things I don't know the truth of, like whether it will stop raining by the time I go home.

On the other hand, I know someone who became interested in paganism, tested it by believing in it, and found it worked, so continued to believe. I would have been fascinated to probe him further on the matter, but I didn't think I could manage to not sound like an anthropologist inquiring somewhat condescendingly into the strange superstitions of tribal savages.

Comment author: AlexM 12 July 2010 05:29:35PM 0 points [-]

On the other hand, I know someone who became interested in paganism, tested it by >believing in it, and found it worked, so continued to believe.

how paganism worked for him? pagan rituals were cool and pagan chicks were hot, or something more? :P

Comment author: RichardKennaway 12 July 2010 08:29:10PM 5 points [-]

Worshipping the Goddess that infuses Nature made a difference in his life, or something like that. As I say, I didn't feel comfortable about pressing him on the subject. It would have been like asking what sex is like.

Comment deleted 12 July 2010 03:11:58PM [-]

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 July 2010 03:15:18PM 0 points [-]

Perhaps I should bring up a point about probabilistic reasoning here. If you believe that a proposition is true with probability 1, then you cannot rationally change your belief away from probability 1. This is a consequence of Bayes' theorem. So really, nobody believes any empirical fact with a probability of 1 or 0.

The last sentence shouldn't be "nobody" but "no Bayesian rationalist."

Comment deleted 12 July 2010 04:00:42PM [-]

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 July 2010 04:07:22PM 1 point [-]

what interpretation of the word "probability" does allow you to think that the probability of something is 1 and then change to something other than 1?

They need to have inconsistent attitudes about how they calculate probability, or estimate probabilities by inherently irrational means such as assigning likelyhood based on what hypothesis they want to be true the most and acting like that belief is certain. Empirically, I've met individuals who claim that no amount of evidence would alter some of their beliefs so something like this may be going on. It is however possible that trying to model these beliefs as probabilities implies a degree of rationality that they simply lack. The human mind is not generally a good Bayesian.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 12 July 2010 04:41:28PM 2 points [-]

It may be a matter of language use--- if I assign something a probability of 1, it means that everything I know now points in that direction, but I leave the possibility open that I might come to know more.

I think my underlying premise is "no evidence could ever convince me otherwise" is so ridiculous that it doesn't need to be included in the schema.

Comment author: cupholder 17 July 2010 07:07:51AM * 3 points [-]

what interpretation of the word "probability" does allow you to think that the probability of something is 1 and then change to something other than 1?

Any interpretation where you can fix a broken model. I can imagine a conversation like this...

Prankster: I'm holding a die behind my back. If I roll it, what probability would you assign to a 1 coming up?

cupholder: Is it loaded?

Prankster: No.

cupholder: Are you throwing it in a funny way, like in one of those machines that throws it so it's really likely to come up a 6 or something?

Prankster: No, no funny tricks here. Just rolling it normally.

cupholder: Then you've got a 1/6 probability of rolling a 1.

Prankster: And what about rolling a 2?

cupholder: Well, the same.

Prankster: And so on for all the other numbers, right?

cupholder: Sure.

Prankster: So you assign a probability of 1 to a number between 1 and 6 coming up?

cupholder: Yeah.

Prankster: Surprise! It's 20-sided!

cupholder: Huh. I'd better change my estimate from 1 to 6/20.

Comment deleted 12 July 2010 03:55:29PM * [-]

Comment author: AlexM 12 July 2010 04:38:37PM 0 points [-]

The bigger problem is that accepting Pascal wager is just first step on the road to faith. And walking the road means to live and pray as if you had faith.

Somewhat, I do not see this guy doing it...

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 23 January 2015 06:05:48PM 0 points [-]

The physical evidence indicates atheism is probably true

Only atheists can honestly assert that statement.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 23 January 2015 06:15:38PM 0 points [-]

That assertion may depend on how one unpacks atheism, physical evidence, and probably.

Comment author: Lumifer 23 January 2015 06:39:12PM * 1 point [-]

It would take an awful lot of contortions to make the grandparent statement look reasonable and I'm not even sure it's possible.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 23 January 2015 07:02:35PM 0 points [-]

Sure, I was simply referring to the isolated quote in question: comment that Normal_Anomaly was replying to had a lot of problems, but I don't think that the sentence in question was the one that deserved criticism.

Comment author: Furcas 12 July 2010 02:21:06PM 4 points [-]

What incentive could I possibly have to decide to be an atheist?

To avoid being punished by the God of Rationality. Since there's no evidence for gods, It sends all theists to Hell.

Comment author: nick012000 12 July 2010 02:26:17PM * 0 points [-]

And I'd thank him for it, since it's better to spend eternity burning in Religious Hell than ceasing to exist. At least in Religious Hell, I'm still me. ;)

Also, I should probably be going to bed since I live in Australia and it's half-past midnight and I have university tomorrow.

Comment author: Furcas 12 July 2010 02:47:30PM * 1 point [-]

If Atheism is correct, I cease to exist after I die no matter what I believe in.

And I'd thank him for it, since it's better to spend eternity burning in Religious Hell than ceasing to exist. At least in Religious Hell, I'm still me. ;)

That belief in an afterlife tends to go with belief in a deity doesn't make disbelief in an afterlife a logical consequence of atheism.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 July 2010 03:00:47PM 1 point [-]

That belief in an afterlife tends to go with belief in a deity doesn't make disbelief in an afterlife a logical consequence of atheism.

Yes, but it seems fair to say that P(Afterlife|A deity exists) > P(Afterlife|~ A deity exists).

Comment author: AlexM 12 July 2010 03:38:59PM 2 points [-]

why? how do you measure that P of caring personal god who saves human souls from extinction is higher that P of unthinking mechanism ("akashic chronicle", "reincarnation wheel") doing the same?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 July 2010 03:43:06PM 3 points [-]

why? how do you measure that P of caring personal god who saves human souls from extinction is higher that P of unthinking mechanism ("akashic chronicle", "reincarnation wheel") doing the same?

I don't, but something like a reincarnation wheel or an akashic chronicle is not inconsistent with the existence of a deity so I don't need to.

Comment author: AlexM 12 July 2010 03:37:41PM 3 points [-]

For real life example: one Russian kook preaches exactly this doctrine - strong atheism combined with strong belief of immortality of souls. Add holocaust denial, moon landing denial and admiration of Stalin as greatest hero that ever lived and you have something that sells dozens of books and gains many dedicated followers. Any more about him would belong to "irrationality quotes" thread if one existed...

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 July 2010 03:43:39PM 2 points [-]

Interesting. Never head of this guy. Link?

Comment author: AlexM 12 July 2010 04:34:25PM 2 points [-]

|Interesting.

as interesting as picking up rocks and observing insects crawling under them, IMHO

|Never head of this guy. Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yury_Ignatyevich_Mukhin

most of his works are online, in Russian of course, links from Russian wiki page

Comment author: Randolf 14 November 2011 09:27:07PM * 1 point [-]

as interesting as picking up rocks and observing insects crawling under them, IMHO

What, insects are fascinating!

nick012000 comments on Outside the Laboratory - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (336)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (336)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login