= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
To me, "Supernatural" needs to be evaluated from within the framework of the speaker's reality. Otherwise, the term loses all possible semantic meaning.
Really good point. But I still enjoyed the conversation.
To me, the simulation hypothesis definitely does not imply a supernatural creator. 'Supernatural' implies 'unconstrained by natural laws', at least to me, and I see no reason to expect that the simulation creators are free from such constraints. Sure, it means that supernatural-seeming events can in principle occur inside the simulation, and the creators need not be constrained by the laws of the simulation since they are outside of it, but I fully expect that some laws or other would govern their behaviour.
A bold, but reasonable expectation that I agree with. There MUST be SOME laws, even if we don't know what they are.
It defined "God" as supernatural didn't it? In what sense is someone running a simulation supernatural? Unless you think for some reason that the real external world is not constrained by natural laws?
Maybe my definition of "supernatural" isn't the correct definition, but I often think of the word as describing certain things which we do not (currently) understand. And if we do eventually come to understand them, then we will need to augment our understanding of the natural laws...Assuming this "supernatural" stuff actually exists.
I suppose a programer could defy the laws he made for his virtual world when he intervenes from outside the system....But earthly programers obey the natural physical laws when they mess with the hardware, which also runs based on these same laws. I understand this is what you mean by "constrained by natural laws".
I have no idea who Zenkat 2 is, much less the original pagan panelist, but here are some plausible suggestions about what she might have been thinking:
- She was trying to say that her story about the Primordial Cow was the most emotionally satisfying story currently available on the topic of "where do we come from?"
- She did not explicitly describe her story as false because this makes a story less emotionally satisfying.
- She believed that telling false stories as if they were true is not necessarily a mark of an inferior scientist -- some people can effectively compartmentalize, and it would be reckless to insist (without evidence) that all such people would be more productive if they forced themselves to adopt rational modes of thinking in all aspects of their life.
- Creation myths could be a common but accidental byproduct of the evolutionarily advantageous ability to develop stories (improves communication), the urge to complete stories (improves curiosity), and the urge to build community (i.e., the relevant in-group shares a common origin and should act like kin; improves cooperation). Alternatively, the cooperation-improving function of a really good creation myth might be part of the cause of its ubiquity.
Whether Yudkowsky is biased or not is irrelevant to the purpose of his post.
This:
I think there's a bias about religion here, that needs to be overcome.
Was basically just an attempt to be clever making a play on words related to "Overcoming Bias". They were all the rage.
Wow, I was coming to edit this post, and you responded so quickly...well, thank you.
I foolishly neglected to research this creation myth before commenting. I now can see how this myth could be purposely using symbolical language. But I wouldn't know how to correctly understand it, without over-interpreting it. (That is if its worth interpreting.)
In response to
Professing and Cheering
"Belief" is a notion that isn't necessarily tied to literal truth. Aquinas once said that "all statements about God are metaphors," and Niebuhr (sp?) said something to the effect that "religious statements should be taken seriously, but not literally." For a more recent (and accessible) variation, consider Tony Hillerman's novels, in which one of his principal characters, Jim Chee, studies to be a Navaho shaman (not quite the right word, but I forget the Navaho one), taking myths very seriously without for a minute thinking that they are history. (Hillerman himself is Catholic, so he doesn't think the Navaho myths are literal truth either.) Discussions of religious belief on this blog seem to me to assume too readily that they are just like beliefs about science or history. To some people, no doubt, they are. But not to me, and not to a lot of other religious people, either. I think there's a bias about religion here, that needs to be overcome.
The cow thing does seem a stretch, though, even on the most sympathetic possible interpretation.
From the way this woman is portrayed in this post, this woman obviously believed that the myth was literally true, or was acting like she believed it for some other purpose.
If she actually believed in the literal interpretation of this creation myth, then it doesn't matter whether or not there is a plausible metaphorical or symbolical interpretation. The subject matter, and conclusion of this post is indifferent to the nature of the myth. What matters is what that woman believed. Whether Yudkowsky is biased or not is irrelevant to the purpose of his post. (Unless were not assuming that this creation myth is false.)
In response to
Professing and Cheering
I too am both a pagan and a scientist, and I will happily switch between tales of the Green Mother's handfasting to the Dying King and Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. I find it no more ridiculous than Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project and a man I respect greatly, publicly embracing evangelical Christianity.
Our brains are complex creations, with many levels and conflicting functions. The scientific method, with its falsifiable hypotheses and reductive materialism, is a stellar belief system for those systems responsible for predicting and understanding how the physical world works. Unfortunately, it provides little if any support for those pre-rational, emotional, and social systems all our brains share. Your amygdala needs something a bit different than physics.
Many of my fellow biologists share your confusion when confronted with the common person's dislike of Darwinian theory. What they fail to understand is that creation myths serve a critical function in people's lives that has *nothing* to do with what "really happened". Think about the function of belief from an evolutionary perspective for a moment. What survival benefit is there in understanding what "really happened" when the universe was formed billions of years ago -- especially to our ancestors on the savanna? Yet *all* cultures place a great importance in their creation myths, despite the fact that most can be easily disproved. It is a universal in human experience.
You may want to ask yourself what the evolutionary function of a creation myth is, and why they are a universal human conceit. With that knowledge in hand, you may have a better understanding of how a creation myth should be judged, and you may finally understand what your pagan panelist was trying to tell you.
Please enlighten me. If she did not believe what she said as literal truth, then what was she trying to say? And why did she not say what she meant? Is it possible that you mean to say her whole speech was an act to communicate a deeper message? A secret message that only pagans understand? Or do you mean to say that this woman had social (or other reasons) to believe this, and she promoted that it didn't matter what she believed because it didn't conflict with her scientific life? Or do you mean that she was encouraging the separation of science and religion by making herself an example of how irrationally stubborn people can be, making it too difficult for science to ever eradicate any false religion because it's "the opium of the people"? Is that what you mean by the "evolutionary function of a creation myth"? How could it play any role in evolution? Were you there during this event, or do you know something I don't?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I already commented on other people's comments and got Karma while not stating that I took it. Am I still supposed to just say "I took it" and get more Karma without commenting anything more of value? Well, I took it. All of it. And I chose to "cooperate" because it seemed more ethical. 30$-60$ isn't enough to arouse my greed anyway.
Oh, btw. Hi everybody, I'm new here even though I created this account years ago when I was lurking. I knew I'd come back.