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.
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.”
And a map link, just to make it clear: http://goo.gl/6eFGj
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.
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.
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.
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.
Work at a desk facing your boss. It does wonders keeping you productive. My boss happens to make this possible by bringing his work into the lab for several hours a day.
At 75% you can retire for three years for every year you work, even without assuming any gains from investment income or any other sources of income.
Not necessarily. There is inflation.
invest in inflation-indexed bonds.
Epiphenominal theories of consciousness are kind of silly, but here's another situation I can wonder about... some cellular automata rules, including the Turing-complete Conway's Game of Life, can have different "pasts" that can lead to the same present. From the point of view of a being living in such a universe (one in which information can be destroyed), is there a fact of the matter as to which "past" actually happened?
Or, a Boltzmann brain that flickered into existence with memories of a past that never happened.
Like it's possible to re-read only four chapters. Ha!
Is there a comprehensive list of science declarations anywhere?
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
BBC article about the robot shown in the picture.
They have one in the lab next to mine. I love my job.