TheOtherDave comments on Bayesian Judo - Less Wrong

71 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 31 July 2007 05:53AM

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

Comments (100)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: TheOtherDave 19 December 2012 03:38:01AM 0 points [-]

Well, if person A's religion strictly implies the claim that only God can make a soul and this precludes AI, then the falsehood of that claim also implies the falsehood of A's religion. (A->B => -B -> -A)

But sure, you're of course correct that if person A is mistaken about what person A's religion claims, then no amount of demonstrated falsehoods in person A's statements necessarily demonstrates falsehood in person A's religion.

That said... if we don't expect person A saying "my religion claims X" given that person A's religion claims X, and we don't expect person A saying "my religion doesn't claim X" given that person A's religion doesn't claim X, then what experiences should we expect given the inclusion or exclusion of particular claims in person A's religion?

Because if there aren't any such experiences, then It seems that this line of reasoning ultimately leads to the conclusion that not only the objects religions assert exist, but the religions themselves, are epiphenomenal.