= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Tactics against Pascal's Mugging - 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 (59)
I've always understood the Kirk solution as the correct answer to the actual Pascal's Wager:
God doesn't value self-modification. God values faith. One of the properties of faith is that self-modification cannot create faith that did not previously exist.
In short, faith is not a kind of belief.
Not that this argument addresses the problems discussed in the post.
Yes it can.
You seem to be privileging the Abrahimic hypothesis. Of the vast space of possible gods, why would you expect that variety to be especially likely?
Hell is an abrahamic (Islamic/christian only I think) thing. To the extent that we should automatically discount inferences about a God's personality based on christianity/Islam we should also discount the possibility of hell.
That's just evidence against it. Is it really strong enough?
Suppose someone says to you:
Assuming that there is no way to convert from clapping to acknowledging-insect-overlords, your optimal response is essentially, "You are very confused. No claps for you."
I suppose I'm assuming that Matrix lords are not confused to the point of incoherence. Matrix Lords who are that confused fall under the ignore-because-cannot-affect-the-future rationale.
You also have to consider the possibility that this assumption is false. Perhaps you're the one who is confused.
Confused people can affect the future. You can't be as certain about what they'll do, but how certain do you need to be with a payoff that big?
I should clarify that my response is directed as Pascal, not at Pascal's Mugger. Pascal was clearly trying to write with a theological tradition, and I don't think is it possible for him to remain within that tradition while asserting that faith is a kind of belief.
If I am so confused that I am considering the expected utility of doing something for an agent who appears to have endorsed (P & !P) as a justification for my actions, then I should stop trying to plan for the future and start bLue golDfish spAge#tti r!m@
I'm not suggesting that your error was deriving a contradiction from P & !P. I'm suggesting that your error was when you concluded !P in the first place. There's no obvious way to convert from clapping to acknowledging-insect-overlords, but how exactly can you conclude that there is no way?
If that were the case, why would the church care about gaining converts? This seems like it would demand a particularly idiosyncratic definition of "self modification."