Comment author: Jakinbandw 23 May 2012 09:55:22PM 2 points [-]

Hello. I come from HPMoR. I identify as Christian, though my belief and reasons for belief are a bit more complex than that. I'll probably do a post on that later in 'how to convince me 2+2=3'. I also get told that I over think things.

Anyway, that's not the reason I joined. I was reading an article by Eliezer Yudkowsky and he stated that whatever can be destroyed by truth should be. This got me wondering in what context that was meant. My first thought was that it meant that we should strive to destroy all false beliefs, which has the side effect of not lying, but then I began to wonder if it wasn`t more personal. We should strive to let the truth that we observe destroy any beliefs that they are able to.

I realized that the difference between the two is that one is an end in and of itself (destroy all false belief), and one is a means to achieve a goal more effectively (don`t hold on to false belief when it has been proved false). I am really not sure how I feel about the first one, it seems very confrontational to no good purpose. There are a lot of false beliefs out there that people hold dear. However the second one is strange as well.

One of peoples goals is to be happy. Now there is an old saying that ignorance is bliss. While this is definitely not always a good policy I can think of several cases off the top of my head were a person would be happier with a false belief than with reality. For example what if everything that is happening to you right now is your mind constructing an elaborate fantasy to stop you from realizing that you are slowly being tortured to death? If you break free of said belief you are not happy, and you can do nothing to save yourself. The goal of being happy is actively opposed by the goal of learning the truth. [disclaimer: I've read about the mind constructing such fantasies in books and have experienced it only once in my life to a limited degree when I was being beaten up as a child. I don't know how scientifically accurate they are. This is just an example and if necessary I can come up with another one.]

So probably that wasn't what Mr. Yudkowsky meant when he said that what can be destroyed by truth should be (and if it is, can someone explain to me why?). So what does it mean? I've run out of theories here.

Comment author: Jakinbandw 25 May 2012 11:28:24PM 2 points [-]

Just a minor update. This thread has grown to big for me to follow easily. I am ready every post in it, but real life is taking up a lot of my time right now so I will be very slow to reply. I found the limit of multiple conversations I can hold at one time before I get a headache, and it appears to be less than I suspected.

Once again, sorry, didn't mean to drop out, but I stayed up way to late and even now I am recovering from sleep deprivation and still have an annoying headache. My body seems to want to wake up 2 hours before it should. I'll be back once I get my sleeping back to normal, and get some more time. Even then though I am going to try to limit myself to only a couple posts a day because while I enjoy discussions, it's very easy for me to forget everything else when I get drawn into them.

I'll be back later. JAKInBAndW

Comment author: Desrtopa 24 May 2012 06:17:16PM 3 points [-]

That may be the case, and I won't disagree that some claims are fabricated. However for the rest imagine the following: A parent has two children, and he gives a present (say a chocolate that they eat) to each child without the other child knowing. Each child takes this to mean that they are the parents favorite. After all they have proof in the gift. They get into an argument over it. However because their beliefs about why the gifts were given are wrong, the fact that the gifts were given remains.

In the same way it is possible that a supernatural* being is out there, and people are just misinterpreting what the gifts it bestows mean. As far as I can tell it doesn't mind when someone calls themselves a Christian, and follows the Christian faith, so I identify as Christian.

It's possible, but there is no necessity that any of them be true. If natural human cognitive function can explain claims of religious experiences (both willfully deceptive and otherwise,) in the absence of real supernatural events, then positing real supernatural events creates a large complexity burden (something that needs a lot of evidence to raise to the point where we can consider it probable,) without doing any explanatory work.

Let's say you have a large number of folk rituals which are used for treating illnesses, which appear to demand supernatural intervention to work. You test a large number of these against placebo rituals, where elements of the rituals are changed in ways that ought to invalidate them according to the traditional beliefs, in ways that the patients won't notice, and you find that all of the rituals you test perform no better than placebo. However, you can't test the remaining rituals, because there's nothing about them you can change that would invalidate them according to traditional beliefs that the patients wouldn't notice. You could conclude that some of the rituals have real supernatural power, but only the ones you weren't able to test, but you could explain your observations more simply by concluding that all the rituals worked by placebo.

Why does everyone think that I want to convert them to Christianity? Even the churches I go, though they are not super rationalist agree that such a thing is pointless unless the person has some experience in their life that would lead them to believe. Do you often get Christians here trying to convert you?

Occasionally, but not that often. But the fact that members here are trying to change your mind doesn't necessarily mean they think you're trying to change theirs. This is a community blog dedicated to refining human rationality. When we have disagreements here, we generally try to hammer them out, as long as it looks like we have a chance of making headway. On this site, we generally don't operate on a group norm that people shouldn't confront others' beliefs without explicit invitation.

Comment author: Jakinbandw 24 May 2012 06:57:57PM 2 points [-]

You test a large number of these against placebo rituals, where elements of the rituals are changed in ways that ought to invalidate them according to the traditional beliefs, in ways that the patients won't notice, and you find that all of the rituals you test perform no better than placebo.

But but what if you get inconsistent result? Let's say you try the ritual 5 times and the placebo 5 times and it works 2 times for the the ritual and twice for the ritual. Furthermore consider that nothing changed in any of these tests that you could measure. You said the ritual was spiritual, and there for asking for divine intervention. It could be that the ritual was unnecessary and that the divine being decides when it intervenes. If you can't figure out why it sometimes works, or sometimes doesn't than maybe it's because you are asking a sentient being to make a choice and you don't understand their reasoning.

You could say that there was no divine intervention at all, but then you are left trying to come up with more and more complex theories about why it sometimes works and sometimes does not. This might not be a bad thing, but one shouldn't discount the easy solution just because it doesn't match their expectations, nor should they stop looking for another solution just because any easy one that is hard to test is present.

On this site, we generally don't operate on a group norm that people shouldn't confront others' beliefs without explicit invitation.

Oooh! I like it! Yeah sure, I can get behind that. The reason that i am not trying to convince people here of Christianity is because I don't have proof that I feel should convince other people. If I did convince anyone here, with the proof that I have, then I would feel that I had made you inferior rationalists. On the other hand I cannot just ignore my own observations and tests and agree with you when I perceive that you are mistaken. I hope that one day I might find some way of proving that god exists to people without needing them to experience something supernatural themselves. But unfortunately as I believe that I am dealing with a sentient intelligence I feel that is unlikely.

Comment author: Bugmaster 24 May 2012 06:24:24PM 1 point [-]

My mother has made 4 phone calls, and I have witnessed 2 where she felt that someone was in trouble and called them.

Has your mother ever called anyone when she felt they were in trouble, only to find out that they weren't, in fact, in trouble ? Confirmation bias is pretty strong in most humans.

This is even more interesting because one time she told me that she felt she needed to make the call just before she did, thereby predicting it.

Wait... she predicted that she would call someone, and then went ahead and called someone ? This doesn't sound like much of a prediction; I don't think I'm parsing your sentence correctly.

because I have read many accounts of people who believed a loved one had died when they were across the ocean during WWII.

If your loved one is fighting in WWII, it's very likely that he or she would die, sadly...

Personally I would go with psyonics if not god...

Why did you end up picking "god" over "psionics", then ?

Comment author: Jakinbandw 24 May 2012 06:38:26PM 1 point [-]

Has your mother ever called anyone when she felt they were in trouble, only to find out that they weren't, in fact, in trouble ? Confirmation bias is pretty strong in most humans.

Not that I remember. My memory could be faulty, but thinking long and hard about it I don't remember it happening.

Wait... she predicted that she would call someone, and then went ahead and called someone ? This doesn't sound like much of a prediction; I don't think I'm parsing your sentence correctly.

She predicted they were in trouble. I think the phrase she used was "I think XXXX is in trouble and needs help." I could be misremembering though.

Why did you end up picking "god" over "psionics", then ?

It's a close call honestly, but if god exists, which I believe he does from other evidence listed in this over-sized thread, then adding psionics on top would be added complexity for no gain. If you already know that the earth goes around the sun because of gravity, why bother coming up with an alternate explanation for why Saturn goes around the sun? It might have another reason, but the simplest explanation is more likely to be right.

Comment author: thomblake 24 May 2012 06:21:07PM 1 point [-]

My mother has made 4 phone calls, and I have witnessed 2 where she felt that someone was in trouble and called them.

Even if that were true, and not a misremembrance or a post-hoc rationalization, you must take note of the many other people who have those feelings and no one was in trouble. You should expect in advance to hear more anecdotes about the times that someone really was in trouble, than anecdotes about the times they were not, so having heard them is very little evidence.

Comment author: Jakinbandw 24 May 2012 06:32:14PM 0 points [-]

Even if that were true, and not a misremembrance or a post-hoc rationalization

I did state that she predicted one in advance to me. Also when my mother called me the first thing she asked was "are you alright?"

You should expect in advance to hear more anecdotes about the times that someone really was in trouble, than anecdotes about the times they were not, so having heard them is very little evidence.

As far as my mother goes I have never once seen her mistake a prediction. Now 2 predictions (and 2 more that she told me about) sounds small, but consider the amount of times that she didn't mistakenly call the probability that something is going on is quite high. For example if you have a deck with 996 blue cards in it, and 4 red cards in it, and you call a red card before it flips once, but never call it before a blue card flips, the chances of you succeeding on are... Um... Do you guys want me to do the math? It's pretty small.

And just because some people think that they can do it and can't, doesn't mean that a person can't do it. Look at all the people who think they are wonderful singers.

Of course I could be misremembering. I could go ask my mother, and my father and see what they say if you like. (Yes I am close to my parents. We have a tight nit family even though I am 24). Of course we could all be misremembering, or lying. Again, you have no way to know, and you really shouldn't even consider taking my word for this.

Comment author: thomblake 24 May 2012 06:05:04PM 1 point [-]

I have no way to prove I am not lying however so what would be the point?

If you have evidence that could overcome the low prior for God's existence were you not lying, then that would be worth hearing even if we would believe you're lying. I'm not aware of such evidence for particular deities.

Comment author: Jakinbandw 24 May 2012 06:22:33PM 0 points [-]

Honestly mine really isn't any different than what you hear on the internet all the time. If you want to hear it go ahead. When my grandfather died all the people in the room said that they saw a light enter the room. It didn't say anything but they all agreed that they felt peace come over them. My grandfather was a Christian, as were the people in the room. I wasn't in the room, however I did check their stories individually and they matched. Also these were people who haven't lied to me before or since (well, other than stuff like april fools... though one of them never even does that). That, along with my foot, and my Mothers ability to know when her friends are in trouble and make phone calls that I have related in other posts give me reasonably strong belief in the supernatural* world

*(Supernatural yada yada, not understood by science yada yada. Do I need to keep making these disclaimers?)

Comment author: Desrtopa 24 May 2012 05:46:29PM 2 points [-]

The reason for people to believe someone else is if they had proof to back it up, or they already had reason to believe. Humans aren't stupid, and I don't think we've become radically more intelligent in the last couple thousand years. Why then is belief in the supernatural* everywhere? Is it something in our makeup, how we think? I have heard such a thing discounted by both sides.

I don't think you'll find such a thing readily discounted here. There are plenty of well established cognitive biases that come to play in assessment of supernatural claims. The sequences discuss this to some degree, but you might also be interested in reading this book which discusses some of the mechanisms which contribute to supernatural belief which are not commonly discussed here.

We don't even need to raise the issue of the supernatural to examine whether people are likely to pass down beliefs and rituals when they don't really work. We can look at folk medicine, and see if there are examples of cures which have been passed down through cultures which perform no better than placebo in double blind tests. In fact, there is an abundance of such.

Comment author: Jakinbandw 24 May 2012 06:14:13PM 1 point [-]

We can look at folk medicine, and see if there are examples of cures which have been passed down through cultures which perform no better than placebo in double blind tests.

Point.

though I would point out that not all of them are wrong either. Just the good majority. That's neither here nor there though.

Out of curiosity how does science explain people feeling knowing that people they care about are in trouble? My mother has made 4 phone calls, and I have witnessed 2 where she felt that someone was in trouble and called them. One of those calls was to me and it helped me greatly. While she has missed calling people that were in trouble, she has never once called someone with that intent and been wrong.She told me that it feels like someone is telling her to call them because they are in trouble. I can't know if that is true or not, but I can't think of her ever lying to me. This is even more interesting because one time she told me that she felt she needed to make the call just before she did, thereby predicting it.

I know that she isn't the only person that does this, because I have read many accounts of people who believed a loved one had died when they were across the ocean during WWII.

Personally I would go with psyonics if not god, but that might be because I played to many role-playing games.

Sorry if this seems odd, it was just something that came to mind as I was thinking about supernatural* things.

*(outside of the realm of what human science commonly accepts)

Comment author: APMason 24 May 2012 05:42:42PM 3 points [-]

And that's without even getting into my experiences, or those close to me.

Well, don't be coy. There's no point in withholding your strongest piece of evidence. Please, get into it.

Comment author: Jakinbandw 24 May 2012 05:58:45PM 0 points [-]

As already pointed out, would it change either my beliefs or your beliefs? I've already recounted a medical mystery with my foot and blood loss. It comes down in the end to my word, and that of people I know. We could all be lying. There is no long term proof, so I don't see any need to explain it. That was my point. What is strong proof to me, is weak proof to others because I know that I am not lying. I have no way to prove I am not lying however so what would be the point?

Comment author: Desrtopa 24 May 2012 05:18:48PM 3 points [-]

Well, mass hysteria is a real thing, but if a large group of people who have no prior reason to cooperate all claim the same unusual observations, it's certainly much stronger evidence that something unusual was going on than one individual making such claims.

Many, possibly even all religions though, make claims of supernatural events being witnessed by large numbers of people, and religions make enough mutually exclusive claims that they cannot all be true, so we know that claims of large scale supernatural observations are something that must at least sometimes arise in religions that are false.

In terms of the falsifiability of religion, it's important to remember that we're essentially working with a stacked deck. In a world with one globally accepted religion, with a god that made frequent physical appearances, answered prayers for unlikely things with sufficient regularity that we had no more need to question whether prayer works than whether cars work, gave verifiable answers to things that humans could not be expected to know without its help, and gave an account of the provenance of the world which was corroborated by the physical record, then obviously the prior for any claims of miraculous events being the result of genuine supernatural intervention would be completely different than in our own.

If a pilgrim child in America in 1623 claimed to have spoken to a person from China when nobody else was around, the adults in their community would probably conclude that they were lying, confused or deluded in some way, unless presented with a huge preponderance of evidence that the child would be highly unlikely to be able to produce, and it's completely reasonable that they would behave this way, whereas today, an American child claiming to have spoken to a person from China demands a very low burden of evidence.

In a world where the primary evidence offered in favor of religion is subjective experiences which have a pronounced tendency to be at odds with each other (people of different religions have experiences with mutually incompatible implications,) if a person who claims highly compelling religious experiences is unable to persuade other people, it does not indicate a failing in the other people's rationality.

Comment author: Jakinbandw 24 May 2012 05:52:04PM 0 points [-]

Many, possibly even all religions though, make claims of supernatural events being witnessed by large numbers of people, and religions make enough mutually exclusive claims that they cannot all be true, so we know that claims of large scale supernatural observations are something that must at least sometimes arise in religions that are false.

That may be the case, and I won't disagree that some claims are fabricated. However for the rest imagine the following: A parent has two children, and he gives a present (say a chocolate that they eat) to each child without the other child knowing. Each child takes this to mean that they are the parents favorite. After all they have proof in the gift. They get into an argument over it. However because their beliefs about why the gifts were given are wrong, the fact that the gifts were given remains.

In the same way it is possible that a supernatural* being is out there, and people are just misinterpreting what the gifts it bestows mean. As far as I can tell it doesn't mind when someone calls themselves a Christian, and follows the Christian faith, so I identify as Christian.

...if a person who claims highly compelling religious experiences is unable to persuade other people, it does not indicate a failing in the other people's rationality.

I would never dream to claim otherwise. I wouldn't even try to convince people that have not had their own experiences. It would prove that you were rather inferior rationalists if I could. Unless you have proof, you should not believe. I am not here to try to convince anyone otherwise. The only reason that I talk about it is that you seem interested in how I could believe, and I suspect that I can point out why I believe to you in such a way that you will understand.

Why does everyone think that I want to convert them to Christianity? Even the churches I go, though they are not super rationalist agree that such a thing is pointless unless the person has some experience in their life that would lead them to believe. Do you often get Christians here trying to convert you?

*(outside of the realm of what human science commonly accepts)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 May 2012 04:46:16PM *  2 points [-]

How do you prove that a godlike entity exists if it doesn't want to be proven?

Proof is not typically necessary. People make claims about their experience all the time that they have no way of proving, as well as claims that they probably could prove but don't in fact do so, and I believe many of those claims.

For example, I believe my officemate is married, although they have offered me no proof of this beyond their unsupported claim.

I would say a more useful question is, "how do I provide another person with sufficient evidence that such an entity exists that the person should consider it likely?" And of course the answer depends on the person, and what they previously considered likely. (The jargon around here would be "it depends on their priors.")

Mostly I don't think I can, unless their priors are such that they pretty much already believe that such an entity exists.

Another question worth asking is "how do I provide myself sufficient evidence that such an entity exists that I should consider it likely?"

I don't think I can do that either.

Unrelatedly: Is "god exists, has the properties I believe it to have, and wants to stay hidden" really the only reason you can think of for the observable universe being as we observe it to be? I understand it's the reason you believe, I'm asking whether it's the only reason you can think of, or whether that was just hyperbole.

Comment author: Jakinbandw 24 May 2012 05:31:11PM 1 point [-]

Is "god exists, has the properties I believe it to have, and wants to stay hidden" really the only reason you can think of for the observable universe being as we observe it to be?

My own belief is closer to: "Something very powerful and supernatural* exists, doesn't seem to be hostile, and doesn't mind that I call it the Christian God." And while I would answer 'no' to that question, the amount of evidence that there is something supernatural* if far greater than the amount of evidence that there are millions of people lying about their experiences.

For instance, every culture has a belief in the supernatural. Now I would expect that social evolution would trend away from such beliefs. If you say, I can dance and make it rain, and then you fail, you would get laughed at. If you don't believe me gather a bunch of your closest friends and try it. The reason for people to believe someone else is if they had proof to back it up, or they already had reason to believe. Humans aren't stupid, and I don't think we've become radically more intelligent in the last couple thousand years. Why then is belief in the supernatural* everywhere? Is it something in our makeup, how we think? I have heard such a thing discounted by both sides. So there must be some cause, some reason for people to have started believing.

And that's without even getting into my experiences, or those close to me. As was suggested, misremembering, and group hallucination are possible, but if that is the case than I should probably check myself and some people I know into a medical clinic because I would be forced to consider myself insane. Seeing things that aren't there wold be a sign of something being very wrong with me, but I do not any any other symptoms of insanity so I strongly doubt this is the case.

I suppose when I get right down to it, either I and some others are insane with an unknown form of insanity, or there is something out there.

*(outside of the realm of what human science commonly accepts)

Comment author: thomblake 24 May 2012 04:35:07PM 1 point [-]

Because if for example (and no, I'm not saying this is what happened), God came out of the sky, pointed at me, and said "I exist." I would know that either he existed, or something else did that was trying to fool me into thinking he did. Either way I would have belief that something supernatural (outside of the realm of what human science commonly accepts) had happened.

Not really. There are plenty of plausible explanations for that description that don't require positing something supernatural.

And now if all you have is one event in your faulty human memory to go on, it counts for practically nothing. Given the low prior for the existence of most particular deities, updating on that piece of evidence should still give you a ridiculously low posterior. "I'm hallucinating" would probably be my winning hypothesis at the time it's happening, and "I'm misremembering" afterwards.

Comment author: Jakinbandw 24 May 2012 04:47:43PM *  0 points [-]

So what I'm getting from you is that you would ignore your own observations to conform to what others expect? That your belief in a universe without god is so strong that even if I did show you something like this you would refuse to believe it because it didn't fit with your expectations? Then I fail to see how I could ever convince you.

Addendum: Have group hallucinations been proven or disproven?

View more: Next

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit