ImmInst.org Forums: Pascal's Wager: Is God a safe bet? - ImmInst.org Forums

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)

Among the contemporaries of Descartes none displayed greater natural genius than Pascal, but his mathematical reputation rests more on what he might have done than on what he actually effected, as during a considerable part of his life he deemed it his duty to devote his whole time to religious exercises.

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/Peopl.../RB_Pascal.html

Chat Archive


<BJKlein> Pascal's Wager: Is God a safe bet?
<BJKlein> rewt: http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act...=ST&f=63&t=1199
<BJKlein> for more
<utnapishtim> Why don't we let Pascal make his argumetn for any unfamilair with it?
<BJKlein> but.. jump in.. the water is quite warm
<utnapishtim> after all he's right here!
*** Retrieving #immortal info...
<BJKlein> yeh, Pascal... what's up?
<Guest4141976> =(
<Pascal> ok... do we have any among us who do bellief in a divine/spiritual being?
<Discarnate> For lack of a better term, yes.
* Pascal smiles at Discarnate
<Pascal> anyone else?
<utnapishtim> Discarnate : Does he hand out rewards and punishments based on belief/disbelief in Him
<BJKlein> so, you're looking for agnostics?
<BJKlein> as opposed to the hardline atheist view
<Pascal> no BJ, quite the opposite
<Discarnate> utnapishtim - I don't know - but I'll be sure to ask, if/when I get a chance to. Need to find that universal terminal they were talking about over on the Extrope list...
<Sumadartsun> what is the opposite of an agnostic?
<Sumadartsun> not a gnostic, but what?
<utnapishtim> someone certian of their belief I guess
<Sumadartsun> a fundamentalist, maybe
<Pascal> well let me make it easier... do we have anybody present who does believe in a God?
<utnapishtim> including a militant atheist
<Discarnate> <-- still counts himself in, 'Pascal'...
* Sumadartsun bets God believes in God
<Jehovah> ok, that works
<BJKlein> Discarnate, care to explain your belief?
* Jehovah believes in himself/
<BJKlein> heh
<Pascal> hostile audience then I guess
<Pascal> ok picture this:
<Jehovah> Bring me a thousand foreskins, Pascal.
<utnapishtim> it is not so much the existenmce of a spiritual being that pascals wager hedges against but the far more narrow existence of a being who enforces a system of rewards and punishments based on an objectively existing moral order
<utnapishtim> in which faith is seen as a high noral good
<Pascal> is being more generous tonight
<Sumadartsun> not necessarily based on an objective moral order
<Discarnate> BJK - Closest I can come to a brief explanation is that there appears to be more, um, 'order' in this world than needs to be. An awful lot of coincidences. For lack of a better term, the summation of the causes of those 'coincedences' is, in large part, 'God'
<Sumadartsun> it could just be: if you don't want to be punished forever, you should believe in God
<Discarnate> IMO, of course.
<Sumadartsun> without seeing fate as a good thing in itself
<Jehovah> Sumadartsun: Which God ?
<Pascal> IF there is a loving God... and you believe in her... you might be even happy
<Jehovah> Me? My buddy Allah?
<Jehovah> Shiva?
<Sumadartsun> Jehovah, you should ask Pascal that
<Pascal> if there is not ... what do you have to loose?
<Discarnate> The prerequisate free will.
<Hugh_Bristic> a bad back from stooping
*** BJKlein is now known as Bruce_Almighty
<Mind> My favorite quote about religion is from Nietsche (or is it Nitszke, or Neitshke) "I cannot believe in a god that needs to be praised all the time." or something similar to that
<Hugh_Bristic> ha ha
<Jehovah> Wasted time.
<Jehovah> Wasted capital resources in most cases.
<Discarnate> *smirk* Careful what you blow, Bruce - Susan might not be appreciative!
<Pascal> you are all correct... BUT
<Sumadartsun> also, the possibility of posthuman "heaven" for everyone
<Pascal> consider the odds!
<Discarnate> Sumadartsun - that may not be contraindicated by a belief in 'God'
* Bruce_Almighty hovers 2 inches above his chair
<Hugh_Bristic> Belief in damning Gods is generally mutually exclusive. Believe in Christ and Allah damns you. Believe in All and Jesus sends you to hell.
<Jehovah> Depending on the religion and the level of requisite devotion, it might be very substantial levels of time and capital, the sacrifice of which may mean the difference between happiness and unhappiness.
<Discarnate> <-- slips a tack between the chair and Bruce. .
<Hugh_Bristic> That is Allah, not All
<Bruce_Almighty> Jeeeezus
<Hugh_Bristic> So anyway, that is the most obvious flaw in Pascals Wager
<Pascal> on the one hand you risk thinks like "ressources" on the other hand you risk eternal bliss - now what do you wager?
<utnapishtim> It all comes down to the statistical likelihood you assign to your particular religious belief system being the exclusively true description of the cosmological order
<Sumadartsun> Discarnate: true, not necessarily directly
<Hugh_Bristic> Really it is flawed on so many levels thougfh
<Mind> very flawed
<Hugh_Bristic> Is anybody on this list seriously arguing for it?
<Bruce_Almighty> hell yeh
<Sumadartsun> who?
<Discarnate> utnapishtim - Also depends on the 'gawd' in question - is it really omniscient? If so, and you're not whole-heartedly a believer, yer worse off than if you ignored 'em.
<Pascal> some people sign up to cryonics for exactly that reason
<Jehovah> I am.
<Jehovah> I believe that Pascal was right - as long as he was referring to me when he said 'God'.
<Hugh_Bristic> Now Bruce, being able to kick people out of the chat room doesn't make you god!
<utnapishtim> Pascal: I consider the likelihood of religious teachings being true desriptions of the order of the universe to be neglibible
* Bruce_Almighty muhahah
<Jehovah> As Hugh pointed out, I would damn anyone who accepted Pascal's Wager and assumed that God == Allah, that impostor.
<Sumadartsun> the cryonics version of Pascal's wager is somewhat different, since it involves choosing to take certain actions rather than actually believing something
<utnapishtim> I don't invest resources in things which have only negligible prospects of return. This is why I do not play lotto games
<Sumadartsun> utnapishtim: but the lotto doesn't have an infinite return
<Jehovah> Although Allah does offer a better deal. I can't come up with 72 virgins.
<Pascal> Utnapishtim: if the odds are 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 but the potential reward is infinte... is it not a mathematical "must" to accept my wager?
<Hugh_Bristic> Cryonics is at least conceivably piossible, the chance that there is a damning God is vastly less.
<Mind> The chance that there is a god is so small (based on available evidence) that it is not worth much sacrifice. I lead a moral life without having to believe in god
<utnapishtim> Sumadartsun: Its not that different. Both active christian belief and cryonics have an associated cost in time and capital
<Discarnate> Pascal - depends on the cost, and the resultant 'loss'
<chronophasiac> pascal, the odds are significantly less than that
<Discarnate> Besides, infinity is a CONCEPT, not a number.
<utnapishtim> the key difference is merely that I assign cryonics a far higher likelihood of being effective
<chronophasiac> the odds of the existence of God are even with the odds of an invisible pink wooly mammoth living in my closet
<chronophasiac> err...actually less than that
* Jehovah smites chronophasiac
<Pascal> so its a question of likelyhood for you?
<utnapishtim> definitely
<chronophasiac> Bayes' Theorem dictates all
<Mind> and those odds are quite small chrono...although you better check just to make sure...get back to me on that one
<chronophasiac> Pascal's Wager is flawed because it places the existence of God in a privelaged probability range
<Discarnate> Typed like a True Believer, chronopasiac!
<utnapishtim> i don't invest nonegligible resources in things which have a negligible chance of occuring
<chronophasiac> in reality, the existence of God is as likely as the average of any theory in the space of all theories
<Hugh_Bristic> What kind of God would want such a half-assed devotion anyway!
<Discarnate> Good point, Hugh!
<chronophasiac> the average is, of course, so close to zero as makes no odds
* Sumadartsun thinks Pascal's wager is flawed because it doesn't specify which God, and because infinite utility can maybe be attained here, without religion
<Mind> Did you check your closet yet Chrono
<Pascal> well if it is just a question of likelyhood I ask again... what DO you have to loose? After all, is it THAT terrible to believe in a loving, caring God?
<Discarnate> Especially since the one everyone keeps bringing up is allegedly omniscient!
<chronophasiac> pascal, yes. it is a deviation from reality
<chronophasiac> once you deviate from reality, all your actions will also deviate
<chronophasiac> good intentions become bad outcomes
<Hugh_Bristic> God plays dice with the universe and we play dice with God? Wagering on the deity--sounds like a bad bet to me!
<Discarnate> Sounds like a song lyric to me, Hugh. *grin*
<utnapishtim> Pascal: you have a great deal to lose. You have to subjugate your own behavior to a set of arbitrary rules and restrictions
<Pascal> what nonsense "deviation from reality" is what is called HOPE and DREAMS
<chronophasiac> the reason why the road to hell is paved with good intentions is because of reality slip
<Hugh_Bristic> funny
<chronophasiac> pascal, that's imagination, not false reality models
<chronophasiac> i'm talking about the model of reality you use to *act* on
<Pascal> prove to me that my model is false... prove to me that my God does not exist!
<chronophasiac> "irrationality is the square root of all evil" -Douglas R. Hofstadter
<chronophasiac> pascal, that's nonsense
<chronophasiac> you're not being Bayesian
<utnapishtim> Pascal It is impossible to prove a negative as you well know
<PD> I don't understand why we
<Discarnate> Pascal - as soon as you prove to them that THEIR model is false by PROVING the existance of your God!
<Pascal> I do not have to be Bayesian to be happy
<PD> 're having an entire chat devoted to pascal's wager. ;\
<Hugh_Bristic> Prove to me that there aren't pixies that hide behind trees whenever I go into the forest.
<chronophasiac> pascal, if happiness is all that matters to you then wirehead yourself
<chronophasiac> live in a happy fantasy for the rest of your life
<chronophasiac> i'm speaking to people that care about *reality*
<chronophasiac> because i do
<Jehovah> Pascal, you have positied a positive proposition. The burden of proof is upon you, the positive claimant.
<Pascal> Hugh: we have moved on from my wager already
<Mind> I haven't seen the pixies Hugh...and I go into the forest all the time....I can't see god or heaven either
<chronophasiac> thats not Bayesian either Jehovah
<chronophasiac> the problem here is that both the anti-Pascals and the Pascals are being irrational
<Hugh_Bristic> Pascal: Huh?
<Sumadartsun> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~rasoren/papers/I...isiontheory.pdf
<utnapishtim> God is an unneccessary hypothesis designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist
<PD> I can't see electrons. Woe is me. :(
<Pascal> ah but GOd DOES solve a lot of very real problems does he not?
<Hugh_Bristic> No.
<Discarnate> PD - sure you can. 'electrons' is right there on the screen. Twice, now!
<ravi> how so?
<utnapishtim> PD: Electrons effect such things as the spectrum of light given off by substances when you heat them
<PD> You got me.
<Pascal> lonelyness... hopelessnesss... lack of direction
<chronophasiac> pascal, that's irrelevant. if i had an urge to torture an innocent child, then actually torturing an innocent child would "solve" that problem
<Jehovah> Bayesian ?
<Hugh_Bristic> But it doesn't solve the problem if it isn't true.
<chronophasiac> you're slicing reality up along the wrong joints
<Discarnate> So does wireheading, a drug addiction, or anger management problems, Pascal
<PD> ut, the point is that electrons are theoretical entities that we postulate in an explanatory framework. Arguably, god and pixies could have a similar role.
<PD> Of course, god and pixies are not very useful theoretical entities.
* Pascal would appreciate some help here
<Hugh_Bristic> exactly PD
* Bruce_Almighty sends down a thunderbolt
<Discarnate> PD - eggzactly
<chronophasiac> jehovah: http://sysopmind.com/bayes/bayes.html
<utnapishtim> Pascal advocating for the devil gets lonely huh?
<Hugh_Bristic> Pascal: Ask God for help.
<Discarnate> Pascal - Take a look at some of his other works, and merge it in.
<Sumadartsun> chronophasiac: the important part of Pascal's wager is infinite good (in heaven) vs. finite good (on Earth); you haven't addressed that, I think
<Pascal> Ah, but God is helping me! His scriptures give me reassurence and a purpose, that you are all lacking!
* Bruce_Almighty has seen god, he's just a man like you and me!
<chronophasiac> sum, i don't see how that's relevant
<Discarnate> No, that was George Burns, Bruce
<chronophasiac> the infinite good is infinitely unlikely. the infinities cancel out
<Hugh_Bristic> He isn't helping you in this argument, I ca tell ya that.
<Discarnate> Is it infinitely unlikely?
<Sumadartsun> why *infinitely* unlikely?
<utnapishtim> I think religioin fulfills a purpose for some people. It just isn't rational
<Sumadartsun> instead of very unlikely?
<chronophasiac> sum, heaven is *close* to infinitely good. heaven is *close* to infinitely unlikely
<Discarnate> utnapishtim - I rather think of most forms of religion as organizations, struggling to continue to exist.
<chronophasiac> sry for the miscommunication
<Hugh_Bristic> Pascal, don't project your lack of reassurance and purpose onto me buddy.
<Sumadartsun> why *close* to infinitely good? why not infinitely good?
<Hugh_Bristic> You don't even know me.
<Pascal> OK lets try to help you
<Pascal> you are all so keen on "rational" things
<Sumadartsun> if Pascal's wager were just, "you have a lot to gain by believing in God", then it would not be interesting at all
<Hugh_Bristic> uh oh, the scare quotes, watch out.
<Pascal> (although you deny the rationality of my wager)
<PD> Pascal, I'd be surprised if you even understood the wager. ;\
<Pascal> how about this:
<Hugh_Bristic> because it is irrational
<utnapishtim> I don't have a problem with people believing in Jesus. It's their mind. I don't have a problem with people believing in santa claus or the toothfairy or the Grays either. Whatever gets you through the day. But I draw the line at the suggestion that to do so is the only rational course of action available
<Hugh_Bristic> Pascal go on
<Pascal> god, is almighty and infinetly loving right?
<Jehovah> Yes I am.
<Hugh_Bristic> no, because he doesn't exist.
<Sumadartsun> see, he says so himsely
<Sumadartsun> *f
<utnapishtim> right if you say so. YOU are positing the hypothetical being. You can define him how you want
* Sumadartsun nods
*Discarnate* Not a problem, Big Guy. *smile*
<Pascal> now the very fact that we have such a concept must mean that the concept exists!
* Bruce_Almighty streaches and knocks down a building
<Hugh_Bristic> read some Russel
<Jehovah> Well, I'm infinitely loving as long as you slughter a bunch of unbelievers in my name.
<Jehovah> er slaughter
* Pascal hates Russel
<utnapishtim> Pascal You are not Anselm!
<Hugh_Bristic> Not surprising.
<Sumadartsun> heh
<Hugh_Bristic> I knew Anselm, Anselm was a friend of mine...
<PD> Pascal, you're a brilliant fellow, aren't you? The very fact that we have a concept of the Faerie King must mean that the concept exists!
<Sumadartsun> caliban, channeling Pascal, channeling Anselm
<PD> Of course, it doesn't mean that the Faerie King exists.
<Discarnate> Must be getting crowded at that keyboard..
<utnapishtim> He's gonna channel Aquinas and Descartes before the evening is out I bet
<Sumadartsun> the Faerie King has better things to do than existing
<Anselm> Ok, that of course brings us back to the concept of infinity
<PD> Like partying all night.
*** Disconnected
-irc.lucifer.com- *** No Ident response
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Notice -- motd was last changed at 3/4/2003 19:08
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Notice -- Please read the motd if you haven't read it
-Global- [Logon News - Mar 15 2002] To obtain help on the system, client software or to locate an operator please join #operhelp
-NickServ- This nickname is registered and protected. If it is your
-NickServ- nick, type /msg NickServ IDENTIFY password. Otherwise,
-NickServ- please choose a different nick.
*** Attempting to rejoin...
*** Rejoined channel #immortal
<Hugh_Bristic> Huh?
<Discarnate> Oooo! Scary definition time! Alright, what's the definition differnce between concept and construct?
<utnapishtim> it is flawed because it assumes that existence is simply another attribute you can add to improve God
<PD> In any case, a concept is just the use of a word.
-ChanServ- Church of Virus :: http://virus.lucifer.com
*Discarnate* ??
<Anselm> hmm that would take too long now...
* BJKlein picks burnt flaks of skin off his forehead
<Anselm> lets try another one...
<utnapishtim> whwn if you remove existence you have nothing to add to
<utnapishtim> how did I know?
<PD> Now would be the time to get out that Russell.
<Discarnate> Existence is the basis of comparison. Is it possible to adjudge differences or similarities between non-existing whatevers?
<Hugh_Bristic> yeah, how bout this one: God exists because argle farble guddle mugga whumpy.
<PD> Bargle.
<utnapishtim> All attempts at deductive deism are SERIOUSLY flawed
<Jehovah> Farble Guddle is a logical fallacy.
<Aquinas> well Utnap... you are obviously well prepared... what IS your criticism with my theories?
<Sumadartsun> Guddle is not a predicate
<Hugh_Bristic> lol
<utnapishtim> It assumes that all causes and motions must logically track back to a single entity
<PD> Man... Chomsky is such a leftist.
<BJKlein> heh yep
<Jehovah> Reading Chomsky's political rantings ?
<PD> Chomsky is on cspan.
<utnapishtim> Aquinas?
<Jehovah> oooooh
<Aquinas> yes, thats essentially correct
<utnapishtim> Aristotle not helping you now eh?
<Hugh_Bristic> utna, now?
<Hugh_Bristic> I mean PD
<PD> I've actually found myself agreeing with most of what he says.
<PD> Yes.
<Hugh_Bristic> whoops
<Aquinas> Aristotle is actually a very valuable ressource
<utnapishtim> yes.. He just won't help you prove god
<PD> You should hear the nuts calling in on the show.
<PD> "Dr. Chomsky, are you familiar with the Bible Code?" "Dr. Chomsky, do you think American imperialism could stem from a fear of Goddess Energy?"
<Hugh_Bristic> Ouch.
<Aquinas> have you considered his observations on the "basic ontological necessity?"
<utnapishtim> Aquinas. No I'm afraid I haven't
<Hugh_Bristic> Everything is on account of "the man" with him.
<utnapishtim> unless you are talkign about the need for the unmoved mover
<utnapishtim> I haven't read aristotle for quite a while
<Aquinas> well let me aend on that note then
<Hugh_Bristic> how did he answer those kooky questions?
<PD> I haven't read Aristotle since someone said he was a functionalist.
<Aquinas> if I may have your attention for a brief Limmerick
<Hugh_Bristic> you are opposed to functionalism?
<PD> No, it's just that I don't normally find Aristotle interesting.
<Aquinas> "There was once a man who said
<Aquinas> God
<Sumadartsun> therefore, God exists
<Sumadartsun> :/
<Aquinas> Must think it exceedingly odd
<PD> Although I am sort of opposed to functionalism.
<Aquinas> If he finds that this tree
<Aquinas> continues to be
<Hugh_Bristic> Suma: ha hja
<Aquinas> When there’s no one about in the in the quad
<Aquinas> And the reply:
<Hugh_Bristic> functionalsim in what sense?
<Aquinas> Dear Sir, Your astonishment’s odd
<Sumadartsun> Overheard in 18th century England: "Did you hear that George
<Sumadartsun> Berkeley died? His girlfriend stopped seeing him."
<Aquinas> I am always about in the quad.
<PD> Hugh_Bristic, functionalism in the sense of computationalism. Fodor functionalism, not Dennett or Lycan functionalism.
<Aquinas> And that’s why the tree
<Aquinas> will continue to be
<Hugh_Bristic> okay.
<Aquinas> since observed by -yours faithfully- God
<PD> Berkeley is bloody annoying.
<Hugh_Bristic> Descarte walk into a Mc Donalds and orders a hamburger. The cashier asks would you like fries with that. Descarte says "I think not"... and disappears.
Discarnate is ~Here@ny-utica7b-59.aburny.adelphia.net * John
Discarnate on #immortal
Discarnate using irc.lucifer.com [127.0.0.1] Excalibur IRCd
Discarnate has been idle 8mins 40secs, signed on Sun Jun 01 14:53:15
Discarnate End of /WHOIS list.
<utnapishtim> so you are saying that God is hiding in the notion of observer independent existence
<utnapishtim> Hugh: I like that one!
<Hugh_Bristic> badda bing
<utnapishtim> it sounds like the kinda crack old professors haul out infront of freshamn classes year after year though
<Discarnate> *lol*
*** Disconnected
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Looking up your hostname...
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Checking Ident
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Found your hostname
-irc.lucifer.com- *** No Ident response
11 * BJKlein Nickname is already in use.
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Notice -- motd was last changed at 3/4/2003 19:08
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Notice -- Please read the motd if you haven't read it
*** Attempting to rejoin...
-Global- [Logon News - Mar 15 2002] To obtain help on the system, client software or to locate an operator please join #operhelp
*** Rejoined channel #immortal
<Taskmaster> pardon me
<utnapishtim> I hope you enjoy your belief
<Discarnate> A-believer - Congrats on your choice!
<Jehovah> Me, of course.
<utnapishtim> just don't interfere with mine
-ChanServ- Church of Virus :: http://virus.lucifer.com
<Discarnate> I do wonder if that's anti-believer or just a single believer, tho.... *grin*
<PD> I'm not ridiculing your belief, just most of the attempts to justify it.
<MichaelA> hello Jehova, sorry I've been using your name in vain lately
<MichaelA> hey PD
<Taskmaster> Jesus Christ?
<PD> Hello.
<PD> It's been a while. ^^
<Taskmaster> I knew he would be here!!!
<Taskmaster> lol
<MichaelA> Uth, Task, rewt, and all
<Discarnate> Oooo! I'm all!
<BJK> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/Nig...it_feature.html
<Discarnate> <-- is all proud and al
<A-believer> I shall leave you to your lonely, empty scepticism... just remember that when that night comes knocking at your door **I** will at least have hope... you will have nothing
<utnapishtim> Hey Michael!
<A-believer> http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act...t=ST&f=2&t=1053
<BJK> "There are certain [brain] patterns that can be generated experimentally that will generate the sense, presence and the feeling of God-like experiences," says professor of Neuroscience Michael Persinger of Ontario's Laurentia University. "The patterns we use are complex but they imitate what the brain does normally."
<utnapishtim> I'll have a liquid nitrogen tank waiting
<Taskmaster> A-believer: I happen to believe in God and an afterlife.
<MichaelA> Hunter gatherers had shamans
<PD> Well, that's not true at all. I'll have sex, drugs, and rock 'n toll.
<PD> roll even
<Jehovah> BJK, Shhhhhh.
<PD> toll, lol
<Jehovah> You're going to ruin my rep.
<utnapishtim> and I will be raging against the dying of the light rather than succumbing meekly like a lamb being lead to the slaughter
<A-believer> Taskmaster... sorry I did not know that
<A-believer> Utnap- yes but your rage will be shelfish and just as futile as you accuse mine to be
<Jehovah> Mmmm shellfish. =)
<A-believer> pardon my English
<Discarnate> A-believer, I shan't rage. I'll just laugh, and go. If/when it happens.
<PD> I'm still trying to figure out if our nick-swapping friend here is being sincere or not. Someone help me out.
<utnapishtim> PD He's not
<utnapishtim> He is playing devils advocate
<PD> That's what I was guessing.
<PD> Since he's not doing a very good job.
<PD>
<utnapishtim> without him this discussion would have died a quick death
<Hugh_Bristic> yep
<A-believer> ... is not doing a very good job
<Hugh_Bristic> as it was, it was more like a living death.
<utnapishtim> PD: Well its a pretty indefensible position he's chosen
<PD> :(
<Sumadartsun> next time someone should play Leon Kass :D
* BJK Leon Kass
<Discarnate> Heh. You volunteering?
<MichaelA> "Die! Die! Die!"
<PD> Is one of you formerly known as Mechanus?
<BJK> heh
<Sumadartsun> PD, I am
<PD> That's right. I forgot.
<A-believer> I must say, that I still fell you have not properly adressed my last three arguments
<BJK> Mechanus.. smanus is the manus
<Hugh_Bristic> How can you be a christian and an advocate of physical immortality. I'd think you'd wanna get outta here ASAP.
<utnapishtim> The utility of belief
<utnapishtim> argument?
<A-believer> that one, the force majeuere one and the LimmericK :-)
<A-believer> but never mind
<Jehovah> Hugh, if you had rad the Bible, I think you'd want to stay away from me as long as possible.
<Jehovah> er read
<utnapishtim> I don't have a problem with you holding your position. For some it might even represent a neccessary tool in dealing with existential angst
<utnapishtim> the limerick is actually a pretty good one
<Hugh_Bristic> Yahweh: How true.
<Discarnate> Hugh - Physical immortality would be a problem, but living a LONG time wouldn't be, as long as you continue your Christian beliefs.
<Jehovah> Yeah.
<A-believer> you are being very kind Utnap... God will love you
<Jehovah> Noah, Adam, Abraham - those guys lives several hundred years.
<Discarnate> Then the date of your judgement/goin' to heaven/hell is delayed.
<Taskmaster> But even with indefinite lifespan, God could "bring you home" when it was time.
<Taskmaster> Spaceship accident, etc.
<Discarnate> Eggzactly, Taskmaster.
<Jehovah> er lived
* A-believer has to go
<utnapishtim> Adam had to get kicked out off his land. Abraham had to do a ton of wandering pimping his wife and offering up of sons Noah had to do all this boat building plus have his kids walk in on him naked
<utnapishtim> but you take Methuselah
<BJK> Ok..Take Care caliban__away
<PD> Well, even "afterlife" is an amorphous enough term that it could encompass things like OPT, etc.
<Jehovah> I gave Adam a hell of a lot of telomeres.
<utnapishtim> he outlived em all. And had less shit happen to him if the bible is to be believed
<Taskmaster> Utnap: Lots of cool stories in the OT!
<Taskmaster> ; )
<Jehovah> I had to compensate him somehow for the rib.
<utnapishtim> taskmaster yup!
*caliban__away* hm did you send me the ppt?
<utnapishtim> Jehovah: why did you have to f**k with Job?
<Discarnate> Taskmaster - Agreed. Also depending on which portion of the OT you read.
<utnapishtim> that was pretty damn mean
<Taskmaster> But Job was amply reward in the end....
<utnapishtim> like pickign on the dorky kid or something
<Taskmaster> a tenfold increase in everything as I recall.
<Jehovah> Job is wuite happy right now, trust me.
<Jehovah> er quite
<Hugh_Bristic> Yeah, he got it in the end all right!
<PD> Damn, there was a good line about Job in Shadow Hours, and I was just watching yesterday but I already forgot what it was. My memory is shit.
<Discarnate> Always wondered why it wasn't a seven-fold increase.
<Taskmaster> So much for the first wives and kids....
<Taskmaster> water under the bridge I guess!
<utnapishtim> The funniest thing I have ever heard in that regard was God saying to Job
<Jehovah> I even borrowed 72 virgins from Allah for Job when Peter paged me with the message that he showed up at the gates.
<Jehovah> So cut me some slack.
<utnapishtim> "I don't know what it is but something about your face to irritates the crap out of me' shrugs and keeps on punishing
<PD> Something about if I was the devil, I'd give Job everything, watch him get bored out of his mind, and decide to come party downstairs.
<Jehovah> bah
<Jehovah> Satan's just a puppet.
<Discarnate> Heh. Read Heinlein's take on Job.
<Jehovah> He's my PR agent - he's there to make me look good.
<Discarnate> Jehova, been reading sinfest.net have you?
<PD> What's with the satanists then?
<Jehovah> Harmless.
<Jehovah> They sacrifice goats and such, and still manage to help my PR.
<Taskmaster> I've always thought of Lucifer as a goodlooking and very spoiled fratboy who got what he deserved.
<PD> lol
<PD> J is Eris's lapdog, so he needs to make himself feel big.
<PD> Well, this chat came to a screeching halt awfully soon.
<Discarnate> 'Fraid so... Someone else got a favorite topic to hash about?
<utnapishtim> I knew pascal wouldn't put up much of a fight
<Jehovah> That's because the topic sucks.
<Taskmaster> No it doesn't
<utnapishtim> the philosopher not caliban I mean!
<PD> I don't know. Throw something out.
<Discarnate> OK - Try this on for size.
<Discarnate> How do you know which experts to believe?
<BJK> by the way.. all should make a point to join us next week for the moderated discussion with James Hughes
<hkhenson> wassail
<hkhenson> back
<BJK> should be quite interesting.. he's not to keen on physical immortality
<PD> Elaborate on that, will you?
<Discarnate> Can you judge from past expert testimony?
<Discarnate> PD - Certainly.
<Taskmaster> The problem is you are a bunch of "young turks" who just want to go out and agitate!
<hkhenson> was there a talk about ghods?
<Jehovah> Young ?
<Sumadartsun> Discarnate, is that in the context of nanotech for example?
<Discarnate> You're someone interested in something, but you're not up to speed on it - say a computer guru interested in neurohormone theories.
<utnapishtim> How do you judge between two competing viewpoints, both of them more informed than your own?
<celindra> Hughes isn't to keen on anything that doesn't advanced his politics
<BJK> hkhenson, i'll post an archive soon.. but there was quite a good discussion on gods and such
<utnapishtim> me and Discarnate have already racked our brains over this one!
<hkhenson> sorry I missed it. had to go out
<Discarnate> Is there some way you can judge from the experts' prior statements as to their likelyhood of correct answers, and could you use this to navigate thru the disputes?
<hkhenson> but there is a book that really applies to this discussion
<Jehovah> googling for James Hughes now. My omniscience machine is borken =(
<Discarnate> Sumadartsun - that's one of MANY places that such could be used.
* BJK is reading 'Religion Explained' now
<Sumadartsun> true
<hkhenson> evolution explained by pascal boyer
<BJK> yep hkhenson.... Pascal Boyer.. Religion Explained
<utnapishtim> going with the critical mass of expert opinion is one way
<PD> Well, off the top of my head, I want to say that experts are only any good if you can make sufficient sense of what they're saying to have an independent plausibility criterion.
<utnapishtim> kind of like a tracker fund on the stock market
<hkhenson> From a review at http://www.semcoop.c...tail/0465006965 ". . . Perhaps more puzzling, and just in need of an explanation, is the fact that human beings have religion in the first place. According to Boyer, it is only now, with recent contributions of the cognitive and neural sciences and evolutionary biology to the understanding of the nature
<hkhenson> and origins of the human mind, that we are in position to successfully provide such an explanation. Religion Explained attempts just such an explanation, drawing on cutting edge research in a variety fields and Boyer’s own fieldwork experience. Religion, Boyer suggests, is a by-product of the way our minds evolved to negotiate the natural and, more importantly, the social world. .
<Discarnate> utnapishtim - that's likely to give you the TRADITIONAL answer, not always the RIGHT answer. Look at the einstein questions today.
<hkhenson> decent sumation of the book
<utnapishtim> discarnate: But it'll give you a reasonable batting average
<Jehovah> Good idea. 1933 Germany demonstrated the power of the rule of majority opinion quite lucidly.
<Sumadartsun> I think you'll have to go with the majority or most respected of experts, unless you can really understand their arguments and/or see that what they're saying comes somehow from wrong but maybe widespread prejudices
<utnapishtim> 'beating the market is hard
<Taskmaster> BJK: When was the good conversation about God? The hour prior to my showing up here?
<Jehovah> Popularity is a wonderful measure of the intrinsic worth of an idea.
<BJK> yes Taskmaster
<PD> That's just it, experts are only any good when you can understand their arguments.
<Taskmaster> damn!
<utnapishtim> Jehovah: hmmmm
<BJK> http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act...&f=13&t=1193&s= for more on "Religion Explained"
<Sumadartsun> not sure why, PD
<PD> If you can't, obviously you won't have any way of choosing between two experts that disagree.
<Taskmaster> And to think I am "on time" if I get here at the official time of 6pm! grrrr
<Discarnate> Taskmaster - Just for future reference, these topics tend to stray after half an hour to an hour after the start, traditioanlly
<Sumadartsun> that's not obvious; you could go with what most experts think, or just assume both are equally likely to be right
<Taskmaster> So I need to get to the "party" one hour before the official time to get in on the good stuff.
<Discarnate> Sumadartsun - you could, but is there a better way?
<Jehovah> Official time ?
<PD> Sum, you could, but what would be the point?
<MichaelA> Ben Goertzel gave "Religion Explained" a bad review
<Jehovah> Official time was 76 minutes ago.
<Discarnate> Server time is 17:21
<Taskmaster> Ben is the man.
<Discarnate> Er, 19:21
<MichaelA> He is pretty slick
<PD> If you hear one expert say "argle bargle" and another say "bargle argle" the worst thing you can do is pick one and restate his party line for others. And that's all you really could do unless you knew what he was talking about.
<utnapishtim> PD: BUT we have to make these decisions all the time
<Discarnate> PD - Let's say you're coherent enough to grok the arguement thread.
<Discarnate> Er, rather, threads.
<utnapishtim> and the infoglut will only make things worse
<Sumadartsun> but why couldn't you just assume "maybe argle bargle and maybe bargle argle"
<Taskmaster> PD: Could it be there is no substitute for the hard work of doing your homework to figure out the situation???
<Discarnate> The various aspects of the conversation/arguement going on.
<Taskmaster> hmmmm......
<Discarnate> Taskmaster - You can't do everyone's homework. There's just not enough time in the world.
<Discarnate> However, can you get a good feeling for which arguement is more solid from external indicia? Prior arguements' final reception? Phase of the moon? Something else?
<utnapishtim> It would be possible to do some historical research on what percentage of fringe theories have proven to be correct in the long run
<Sumadartsun> if you didn't listen to experts at all then you might think "burgle urgle", and that would certainly not be true
<Taskmaster> Dis: Very true.
<Discarnate> We're in the InfoGlut ™
* Discarnate winks at celindra
*** Disconnected
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Looking up your hostname...
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Checking Ident
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Found your hostname
-irc.lucifer.com- *** No Ident response
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Notice -- motd was last changed at 3/4/2003 19:08
-irc.lucifer.com- *** Notice -- Please read the motd if you haven't read it
-Global- [Logon News - Mar 15 2002] To obtain help on the system, client software or to locate an operator please join #operhelp
-NickServ- This nickname is registered and protected. If it is your
-NickServ- nick, type /msg NickServ IDENTIFY password. Otherwise,
-NickServ- please choose a different nick.
*** Attempting to rejoin...
*** Rejoined channel #immortal
<Sumadartsun> take Goldbach's conjecture
<Discarnate> utnapishtim - also, watch out for an expert in one field giving an opinion in another field.
<PD> If you don't know understand what an expert is saying, the only sense in which you could incorporate his statements into your conceptual scheme is the lame "party line" sense, in which you affirm the statement when you hear it, or repeat it for others.
<Sumadartsun> for example
-ChanServ- Church of Virus :: http://virus.lucifer.com
<Discarnate> PD - you can also use it for a springboard for your own work, *IF* you know which one to trust!
*caliban__away* read it
<Discarnate> WITHOUT spending the effort to learn all the sides of the arguement
*caliban__away* want comments ?
<Jehovah> Heh you're all trying to find a solution for a practically intractable question.
<PD> But you have to understand his points if you can use them for a springboard for anything, and if you can do that, then you have a plausibility criterion.
<Discarnate> Jehovah - Yep! Ain't it wonnerful?
<utnapishtim> PD: its only an issue if you wish to use them as a springboard for discussion
<Sumadartsun> not sure what you mean by "springboard"
<Discarnate> PD - only if you assume you learn the points for the opposition, as wel
<Discarnate> Sumadartsun - Let's say you're a software coder, K? Which math algorythm for encryption do you use?
<Discarnate> HOW do you choose?
<Sumadartsun> what if it's just information you want to use directly?
<utnapishtim> age of the persona makign the claim
<Jehovah> Discarnate: Application requirements and environment constraints, mostly.
<Discarnate> Same thing, just not what came to mind for an example immediately
<utnapishtim> track record
*caliban__away* BJ?
<Discarnate> Jehovah How so?
<Sumadartsun> Discarnate: I could choose by looking at what most experts think is best, and that would be better than randomly choosing something, and thus experts are not useless even when you don't understand them
<utnapishtim> how relevant is the experts past experience to his current claim
<Jehovah> 3DES, for example, is a great algorithm for implementation in hardware, but lousy for software.
<Sumadartsun> I suspect we're talking about different things :/
<utnapishtim> how might the experts particular background have biased him toward taking side A vs side B
<Discarnate> Sumadartsun - could be - can you point to a bit you're fuzzy on? We can work on this...
<utnapishtim> sumadartsun: Exactly. This is what most members of the public do in fact
<Jehovah> Software development is a lousy analogy, because decisions of that nature have well-understood and well-reasoned decision trees.
<utnapishtim> personality type may also be an issue. I do not know this but certain personality types on the myers-briggs scale might be more accurate and making forecasts than others
*** Disconnected
*** Attempting to rejoin...
*** Rejoined channel #immortal
<Sumadartsun> I understand the content of Goldbach's conjecture, but not the arguments about it by experts
<PD> No. But _if_ you understand what they're talking about, _then_ you will have a justification criterion. In most cases that readily come to mind, anyway.
<Discarnate> PD - lemme rephrase that to see if I understand your point...
*** Disconnected
*** Attempting to rejoin...
*** Rejoined channel #immortal
<Discarnate> PD - agreed.
-ChanServ- Church of Virus :: http://virus.lucifer.com
* BJK has to harken the call is his life companion
<Discarnate> But, given the situation where you CAN'T find such a full comprehension, how can you find justification criteria?
<BJK> see ya later guys
<Discarnate> Late, BJ!
<Sumadartsun> yes, but it doesn't mean that you know what the experts are talking about, which is what it seems to me you were saying
<Jehovah> altruism ?
<Jehovah> heh
<PD> Well, I'm not sure what you're saying there.
<Discarnate> Which 'you'? *wry grin*
<Sumadartsun> I'm saying that experts can be useful if you don't understand their arguments but do understand their statement
<PD> IMO, to know how choosing to affirm a statement will affect your dispositions to affirm other statements (i.e. "the greater body of your beliefs") _is_ to understand that statement.
<PD> I don't disagree with that.
<Sumadartsun> you said you did, more or less ("experts are only any good when you can understand their arguments")
<Sumadartsun> but never mind, seems we don't disagree