hwc comments on Beyond the Reach of God - Less Wrong

66 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 October 2008 03:42PM

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

Comments (270)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Kyro 02 July 2013 08:30:36PM 0 points [-]

Many theists deny this...

To elaborate, if God exists then consciousness depends on having an immaterial soul. If consciousness depends on an immaterial soul, then simulated entities can never truly be conscious. If the simulated entities aren't really conscious they are incapable of suffering, and there's no reason for God to intervene in the simulation.

The thought experiment is not a very effective argument against theism, as it assumes non-existence of souls, but it serves the purpose of illustrating how unthinkably horrible things can actually happen.

Comment author: hwc 06 July 2013 05:17:21PM 6 points [-]

if God exists then consciousness depends on having an immaterial soul.

I translate that into logical notation:

(God exists) -> For all X (X is conscious -> X has an immaterial soul)

I don't concede this conditional. I can imagine a universe with a personal creator, where consciousness is a material property of certain types of complex systems, but souls don't exist.

Comment author: hwc 06 July 2013 05:36:33PM 2 points [-]

Eliezer (I think) feels the same way about the necessity of souls as about the Judeo-Christian god. Interesting hypothesis, but too complex to have anything but a small prior. Then no supporting evidence shows up, despite millennia of looking, reducing the likelihood further.

Comment author: wedrifid 07 July 2013 05:55:07AM 1 point [-]

Eliezer (I think) feels the same way about the necessity of souls as about the Judeo-Christian god. Interesting hypothesis, but too complex to have anything but a small prior. Then no supporting evidence shows up, despite millennia of looking, reducing the likelihood further.

Has Eliezer suggested that he believes that the Judeo-Christian god is an "Interesting hypothesis"? My model of him wouldn't say that.

Comment author: hwc 21 July 2013 03:34:57PM 1 point [-]

I think I meant “interesting” in a sarcastic tone.

Another way of putting it: “You (theists) claim a high level of belief in this hypothesis. Because so many people (including close family members) take this position, I have though about this hypothesis and find it too complex to have anything but a small prior. Then I asked myself what observations are more likely if the hypothesis is true and which would be less likely. Then I looked around and found no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.”