Pages:
Author

Topic: Health and Religion - page 19. (Read 210900 times)

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 16, 2019, 11:52:27 AM
But is there really such thing as a selfless act because you are helping others to feel better about yourself?  So isn't it ultimately about yourself.

Motivation matters.

Helping others to feel better about yourself is indeed not a selfless act.
Helping others because they are fellow children of God and that is just what you do is.

full member
Activity: 630
Merit: 172
July 16, 2019, 11:45:19 AM
Being selfless means you care more about others than yourself. The change can only come from within. Study Eastern philosophies, learn more about human animals.

I am afraid your Bronze Age, psychopathic maniac will not help you to achieve any form of enlightenment.

I agree that change can only come from within.
We clearly disagree about God.

Have a nice afternoon af_newbie

But is there really such thing as a selfless act because you are helping others to feel better about yourself?  So isn't it ultimately about yourself.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 302
July 16, 2019, 11:38:34 AM
I think one reason the irreligious have less children is they don't want to risk having children that they'd later find out they can't raise, especially since they don't believe there is a god to help them through it all. They are also more likely to be pro-abortion and birth control.

With regards to "overall" health, I think it boils down to the social network. Religion provide an extra set of network in addition to friends made from school, work, etc. There's more people to hold you accountable when you say stuff like "I'm gonna quit smoking". Also some religions have dietary restrictions (for example banning alcohol or coffee) and some traditionally have fasting periods (Ramadan, Lent, "vegan Fridays") whose effects might add up in the long run.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 15, 2019, 01:15:13 PM
Being selfless means you care more about others than yourself. The change can only come from within. Study Eastern philosophies, learn more about human animals.

I am afraid your Bronze Age, psychopathic maniac will not help you to achieve any form of enlightenment.

I agree that change can only come from within.
We clearly disagree about God.

Have a nice afternoon af_newbie
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
July 15, 2019, 01:08:17 PM
You don’t need external God to be a good person.

Learn biology, human psychology, do not cause harm to sentient life, eventually you will become selfless.

A selfless individual will choose the winning solution to the Platonia delemma.
Will your “good person” The more selfless the population the greater the potential payoff for a cheat.

This is especially true as the potential rewards for cheating climb.

You assume that if we learn biology, human psychology, and try not to cause harm to sentient life, we will become selflessness. The latter does not follow from the former. To be truly selfless we must ground our identity in something other then ourselves or our posterity. We must live for something other then ourselves. The broader that choice of purpose is the better. God is the broadest possible choice and the only one that allows for the formation of true selfishness.

I do not expect us to see eye to eye on this issue. However, once you understand this point you understand why acceptance and faith in God is more important to salvation then prior sins and good deeds.

Being selfless means you care more about others than yourself. The change can only come from within. Study Eastern philosophies, learn more about human animals.

I am afraid your Bronze Age, psychopathic maniac will not help you to achieve any form of enlightenment.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 15, 2019, 12:35:49 PM
You don’t need external God to be a good person.

Learn biology, human psychology, do not cause harm to sentient life, eventually you will become selfless.

A selfless individual will choose the winning solution to the Platonia delemma.
Will your “good person”? The more selfless the population the greater the potential payoff for a cheat.

This is especially true as the potential rewards for cheating climb.

You assume that if we learn biology, human psychology, and try not to cause harm to sentient life, we will become selfless. The latter does not follow from the former. To be truly selfless we must ground our identity in something other then ourselves or our posterity. We must live for something other then ourselves. The broader that choice of purpose is the better. God is the broadest possible choice and the only one that allows for the formation of true selflessness.

I do not expect us to see eye to eye on this issue. However, once you understand this point you understand why acceptance and faith in God is more important to salvation then prior sins and good deeds.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
July 15, 2019, 11:15:17 AM
Even under these conditions, you have very slim chances of winning.

I would assume more than 5% of people are greedy, even among rational thinkers there will greedy a-holes who would act against their rational thinking, and send the telegraph with their name.

Waste of time either way.  You don’t enter, you lose.  You enter, you almost certainly lose as there will more than one person who sent the telegraph.

Like I said, a waste of my time.

Even in the most communist societies you will find that more than 5% of the population is greedy and would take free stuff without hesitation.

If you send these letters to the very top one percenters, you might change the odds, but with the general population there is no way to win this game, so why bother playing.

Indeed your are correct no one will win the contest. But that is not because the game cannot be won but because rational action alone is insufficient to win it. Human beings have great difficulty with superrationality. We need to be selfless which is not something humans are very good at.

It is rational to always try and claim the prize. The cost is near zero and the potential reward very large. You need to be something better then rational to win this particular game. Indeed in the long run for games of this nature everyone must be superrational if you want to win. As you said playing the game with traditional rational actors make cooperation impossible. You can't win.

So how do we make someone superrational where there is always short term profits from defection. The only way I am aware of is to truly and totally ground oneself in the infinite. Anonymint stated it well which is why I quoted his comments on the matter.

Quote from: anonymint
We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

Superrationality itself is just a formalization of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. The categorical imperative is in turn is a valiant but incomplete attempt to codify much older wisdom into a logical framework. Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Easy to say very difficult to live by. See: Superrationality and the Infinite for more.
  
You want to win the game you have to change and not just yourself but eventually everyone because winning requires everyone playing to be better then simple rational actors.


You don’t need external God to be a good person.

Learn biology, human psychology, do not cause harm to sentient life, eventually you will become selfless.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 15, 2019, 12:49:33 AM

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment, we choose what to believe? No shit, does that mean its true tho? Meh same ol philosophical pile of shit with 0 real evidence about anything.

Your stupidity is actually embarrassing. Everybody lives by faith, because nobody knows for a fact that something bad won't happen the next minute. We might have good guestimations. We might even have some good estimations on occasion. But we don't know. We all live by faith, but people like you don't even know what it is that we have faith in.

Cool

Rofl you just proved my point, as you said we might have guestimations and what not but we don't know which is exactly my point, faith does not lead to the truth and you just agreed with me lol.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 15, 2019, 12:08:56 AM
Even under these conditions, you have very slim chances of winning.

I would assume more than 5% of people are greedy, even among rational thinkers there will greedy a-holes who would act against their rational thinking, and send the telegraph with their name.

Waste of time either way.  You don’t enter, you lose.  You enter, you almost certainly lose as there will more than one person who sent the telegraph.

Like I said, a waste of my time.

Even in the most communist societies you will find that more than 5% of the population is greedy and would take free stuff without hesitation.

If you send these letters to the very top one percenters, you might change the odds, but with the general population there is no way to win this game, so why bother playing.

Indeed your are correct no one will win the contest. But that is not because the game cannot be won but because rational action alone is insufficient to win it. Human beings have great difficulty with superrationality. We need to be selfless which is not something humans are very good at.

It is rational to always try and claim the prize. The cost is near zero and the potential reward very large. You need to be something better then rational to win this particular game. Indeed in the long run for games of this nature everyone must be superrational if you want to win. As you said playing the game with traditional rational actors make cooperation impossible. You can't win.

So how do we make someone superrational where there is always short term profits from defection. The only way I am aware of is to truly and totally ground oneself in the infinite. Anonymint stated it well which is why I quoted his comments on the matter.

Quote from: anonymint
We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

Superrationality itself is just a formalization of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. The categorical imperative is in turn is a valiant but incomplete attempt to codify much older wisdom into a logical framework. Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Easy to say very difficult to live by. See: Superrationality and the Infinite for more.
  
You want to win the game you have to change and not just yourself but eventually everyone because winning requires everyone playing to be better then simple rational actors.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
July 14, 2019, 10:02:01 PM

I would ignore the letter just like I ignore all the Nigerian lottery emails.

Nobody gives that kind of money. You have to be super gullible not superrational to participate in such a game.

Assume you know with certainty the contest is real the money and giveaway are real and the terms of the contest will be honored. Its been in the news and the judges are third parties. Furthermore the letter can be verified to have come from the contest.

Obviously, no one would respond to a Nigerian lottery email that is not the point of this exercise.  

Even under these conditions, you have very slim chances of winning.

I would assume more than 5% of people are greedy, even among rational thinkers there will greedy a-holes who would act against their rational thinking, and send the telegraph with their name.

Waste of time either way.  You don’t enter, you lose.  You enter, you almost certainly lose as there will more than one person who sent the telegraph.

Like I said, a waste of my time.

Even in the most communist societies you will find that more than 5% of the population is greedy and would take free stuff without hesitation.

If you send these letters to the very top one percenters, you might change the odds, but with the general population there is no way to win this game, so why bother playing.

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 14, 2019, 07:19:49 PM

I would ignore the letter just like I ignore all the Nigerian lottery emails.

Nobody gives that kind of money. You have to be super gullible not superrational to participate in such a game.

Assume you know with certainty the contest is real the money and giveaway are real and the terms of the contest will be honored. Its been in the news and the judges are third parties. Furthermore the letter can be verified to have come from the contest.

Obviously, no one would respond to a Nigerian lottery email that is not the point of this exercise.  
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
July 14, 2019, 06:43:01 PM
Superrationality is not possible because no two brains are the same.

IQ, emotional development, personal experiences, religious or political indoctrination influences one’s thinking process.  You are a prime example.

With the same input, two “rational” individuals will deduce a diametrically different result.

Freethinking is the best you can do to remove the cultural, political and religious influences.

That is why the actors must be superrational and not rational. Brains can be very different but still superrational. Failure to completely understand the perspective and needs of of others does indeed create inefficiency. This can be mitigated by communication or if that is not possible by best estimates and modeling of perspectives.

Your current "rational" perspective places you at risk for suboptimal outcomes trapping you in non-cooperative scenarios that can be avoided.

Let me give you an example to help demonstrate this. It is called the Platonia Dilemma and was shared originally by Douglas Hofstader in Scientific American June 1983.

"One fine day, out of the blue, you get a letter from S. N. Platonia, well-known Oklahoma oil trillionaire, mentioning that twenty leading rational thinkers have been selected to participate in a little game. “You are one of them!” it says. “Each of you has a chance at winning one billion dollars, put up by the Platonia Institute for the Study of Human Irrationality. Here’s how. If you wish, you may send a telegram with just your name on it to the Platonia Institute in downtown Frogville, Oklahoma (pop. 2). You may reverse the charges. If you reply within 48 hours, the billion is yours - unless there are two or more replies, in which case the prize is awarded to no one. And if no one replies, nothing will be awarded to anyone.”

You have no way of knowing who the other nineteen participants are; indeed, in its letter, the Platonia Institute states that the entire offer will be rescinded if it is detected that any attempt whatsoever has been made by any participant to discover the identity of, or to establish contact with, any other participant. Moreover, it is a condition that the winner (if there is one) must agree in writing not to share the prize money with any other participant at any time in the future. This is to squelch any thoughts of cooperation, either before or after the prize is given out."

The prize is real and the award judges honest and unbribable. What is the rational answer to this riddle af_newbie? What would you do? The superrational answer is quite simple and trivial. I saw it instantly and indeed later in the article Hofstader wrote the exact same solution in his article. Can you see it?  

I posted the superrational solution here: Solution to the Platonia Dilemma

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment...

Yes he did and I am happy for him. You would not understand because you are lost.

I would ignore the letter just like I ignore all the Nigerian lottery emails.

Nobody gives that kind of money. You have to be super gullible not superrational to participate in such a game.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
July 14, 2019, 04:22:51 PM

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment, we choose what to believe? No shit, does that mean its true tho? Meh same ol philosophical pile of shit with 0 real evidence about anything.

Your stupidity is actually embarrassing. Everybody lives by faith, because nobody knows for a fact that something bad won't happen the next minute. We might have good guestimations. We might even have some good estimations on occasion. But we don't know. We all live by faith, but people like you don't even know what it is that we have faith in.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 14, 2019, 02:37:51 PM
Superrationality is not possible because no two brains are the same.

IQ, emotional development, personal experiences, religious or political indoctrination influences one’s thinking process.  You are a prime example.

With the same input, two “rational” individuals will deduce a diametrically different result.

Freethinking is the best you can do to remove the cultural, political and religious influences.

That is why the actors must be superrational and not rational. Brains can be very different but still superrational. Failure to completely understand the perspective and needs of of others does indeed create inefficiency. This can be mitigated by communication or if that is not possible by best estimates and modeling of perspectives.

Your current "rational" perspective places you at risk for suboptimal outcomes trapping you in non-cooperative scenarios that can be avoided.

Let me give you an example to help demonstrate this. It is called the Platonia Dilemma and was shared originally by Douglas Hofstader in Scientific American June 1983.

"One fine day, out of the blue, you get a letter from S. N. Platonia, well-known Oklahoma oil trillionaire, mentioning that twenty leading rational thinkers have been selected to participate in a little game. “You are one of them!” it says. “Each of you has a chance at winning one billion dollars, put up by the Platonia Institute for the Study of Human Irrationality. Here’s how. If you wish, you may send a telegram with just your name on it to the Platonia Institute in downtown Frogville, Oklahoma (pop. 2). You may reverse the charges. If you reply within 48 hours, the billion is yours - unless there are two or more replies, in which case the prize is awarded to no one. And if no one replies, nothing will be awarded to anyone.”

You have no way of knowing who the other nineteen participants are; indeed, in its letter, the Platonia Institute states that the entire offer will be rescinded if it is detected that any attempt whatsoever has been made by any participant to discover the identity of, or to establish contact with, any other participant. Moreover, it is a condition that the winner (if there is one) must agree in writing not to share the prize money with any other participant at any time in the future. This is to squelch any thoughts of cooperation, either before or after the prize is given out."

The prize is real and the award judges honest and unbribable. What is the rational answer to this riddle af_newbie? What would you do? The superrational answer is quite simple and trivial. I saw it instantly and indeed later in the article Hofstader wrote the exact same solution in his article. Can you see it?  

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment...

Yes he did and I am happy for him. You would not understand because you are lost.

Edit: The solution to the Platonia Dilemma is below.

Solution to the Platonia Dilemma:
(By Douglas Hofstadter)

"And what about the Platonia Dilemma? There, two things are very clear: (1) if you decide not to send a telegram, your chances of winning are zero; (2) if everyone sends a telegram, your chances of winning are zero. If you believe that what you choose will be the same as what everyone else chooses because you are all superrational, then neither of these alternatives is very appealing. With dice, however, a new option presents itself to roll a die with probability p of coming up “good” and then to send in your name if and only if “good” comes up.

Now imagine twenty people all doing this, and figure out what value of p maximizes the likelihood of exactly one person getting the go-ahead. It turns out that it is p=120, or more generally, p=1N where N is the number of participants. In the limit where N approaches infinity, the chance that exactly one person will get the go-ahead is 1e, which is just under 37%. With twenty superrational players all throwing icosahedral dice, the chance that you will come up the big winner is very close to 120e, which is a little below 2%. That’s not at all bad! Certainly it’s a lot better than 0%.

The objection many people raise is: “What if my roll comes up bad? Then why shouldn’t I send in my name anyway? After all, if I fail to, I’ll have no chance whatsoever of winning. I’m no better off than if I had never rolled my die and had just voluntarily withdrawn!” This objection seems overwhelming at first, but actually it is fallacious, being based on a misrepresentation of the meaning of “making a decision”. A genuine decision to abide by the throw of a die means that you really must abide by the throw of the die; if under certain circumstances you ignore the die and do something else, then you never made the decision you claimed to have made. Your decision is revealed by your actions, not by your words before acting!"

If you came up with this solution and would genuinely do it in this situation you are to some degree a superrational thinker.
hero member
Activity: 1624
Merit: 645
July 14, 2019, 02:06:25 PM
And here is a recent communication from Anonymint.

I don’t know with certainty what led to his change of heart but I suspect that he was influenced in part by our discussion and by C.S. Lewis and his excellent analysis of the natural end of purely rational thinking. See: The Abolition of Man

Quote from: Anonymint
Rationality fails in Prisoner’s dilemmas. Superrationality doesn’t.

I finally figured this out! I am going to explain something that I been trying to figure out my entire life and finally had that eureka moment! I have to credit CoinCube for leading me in the correct direction. But he was not able to articulate the following, which is critical to understanding superrationality. Note this ties into what consciousness and existence really means!

1. Science will never be able to falsify existence. If anyone needs me to explain why, I will later.

2. We have a choice, either we can choose that there is no superrationality and only rationality. In which case, there is no unconditional love because of Prisoner’s dilemmas. And a world fraught with fighting, pain and misery.

3. We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

4. Then if #3 there is no selfishness, no infinite debts for infinite wants, no politics. Obviously we will not entirely achieve that ideal on Earth, but it is a competition to see who can be the most selfless. My grandfather was the most selfless person I have ever known so far. Jesus and love (and candy) was his reason for living.

5. Collectivism and taking from others to give infinite wants to others is the antithesis of selfless. It is entitlement and “give me what is my fair share”, which is a Prisoner’s dilemma. For example, when everyone works as hard as they can, and takes only the minimum that they need, there’s abundance.

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment, we choose what to believe? No shit, does that mean its true tho? Meh same ol philosophical pile of shit with 0 real evidence about anything.
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
July 14, 2019, 01:18:52 PM
And here is a recent communication from Anonymint.

I don’t know with certainty what led to his change of heart but I suspect that he was influenced in part by our discussion and by C.S. Lewis and his excellent analysis of the natural end of purely rational thinking. See: The Abolition of Man

Quote from: Anonymint
Rationality fails in Prisoner’s dilemmas. Superrationality doesn’t.

I finally figured this out! I am going to explain something that I been trying to figure out my entire life and finally had that eureka moment! I have to credit CoinCube for leading me in the correct direction. But he was not able to articulate the following, which is critical to understanding superrationality. Note this ties into what consciousness and existence really means!

1. Science will never be able to falsify existence. If anyone needs me to explain why, I will later.

2. We have a choice, either we can choose that there is no superrationality and only rationality. In which case, there is no unconditional love because of Prisoner’s dilemmas. And a world fraught with fighting, pain and misery.

3. We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

4. Then if #3 there is no selfishness, no infinite debts for infinite wants, no politics. Obviously we will not entirely achieve that ideal on Earth, but it is a competition to see who can be the most selfless. My grandfather was the most selfless person I have ever known so far. Jesus and love (and candy) was his reason for living.

5. Collectivism and taking from others to give infinite wants to others is the antithesis of selfless. It is entitlement and “give me what is my fair share”, which is a Prisoner’s dilemma. For example, when everyone works as hard as they can, and takes only the minimum that they need, there’s abundance.
Superrationality is not possible because no two brains are the same.

IQ, emotional development, personal experiences, religious or political indoctrination influences one’s thinking process.  You are a prime example.

With the same input, two “rational” individuals will deduce a diametrically different result.

Freethinking is the best you can do to remove the cultural, political and religious influences.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 14, 2019, 12:15:30 PM
And here is a recent communication from Anonymint.

I don’t know with certainty what led to his change of heart but I suspect that he was influenced in part by our discussion and by C.S. Lewis and his excellent analysis of the natural end of purely rational thinking. See: The Abolition of Man

Quote from: Anonymint
Rationality fails in Prisoner’s dilemmas. Superrationality doesn’t.

I finally figured this out! I am going to explain something that I been trying to figure out my entire life and finally had that eureka moment! I have to credit CoinCube for leading me in the correct direction. But he was not able to articulate the following, which is critical to understanding superrationality. Note this ties into what consciousness and existence really means!

1. Science will never be able to falsify existence. If anyone needs me to explain why, I will later.

2. We have a choice, either we can choose that there is no superrationality and only rationality. In which case, there is no unconditional love because of Prisoner’s dilemmas. And a world fraught with fighting, pain and misery.

3. We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

4. Then if #3 there is no selfishness, no infinite debts for infinite wants, no politics. Obviously we will not entirely achieve that ideal on Earth, but it is a competition to see who can be the most selfless. My grandfather was the most selfless person I have ever known so far. Jesus and love (and candy) was his reason for living.

5. Collectivism and taking from others to give infinite wants to others is the antithesis of selfless. It is entitlement and “give me what is my fair share”, which is a Prisoner’s dilemma. For example, when everyone works as hard as they can, and takes only the minimum that they need, there’s abundance.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 14, 2019, 12:14:07 PM
I wanted to share a conversation I had with Anonymint on the topic of superrationality.

We had discussed this concept earlier as I posted upthread. See: Superrationality and the Infinite .

The discussion has since continued via messages.

Quote from: CoinCube
Quote from: Anonymint
Quote from: CoinCube
Quote from: Anonymint

Thanks for the link. My writing was much better then. And your retort was something that does not exist. Some wishful thinking you invented a term for it “superrationality”.

Some of us would prefer on not repeating the same delusions and instead roll up our sleeves and analyze the actual game theory involved with for example gender relations being so fundamental that is one of the main topics covered in Genesis (Eve, Oman, etc).

We are moving into a new epoch where land and territory is no longer the main asset of a civilization. How does our organization of gender relations change? Especially now with gender selection under control of the males.

There is no way that society can keep the technology of gender selection regulated. Impossible. It is not as sophisticated as producing nuclear bombs.

The entire basis for superrationality is unsupported. Essentially it would be equivalent to violating the Laws of Thermodynamics, because you would demand that the distribution of uncertainty does not trend to maximum and that time is reversible. That we live in a static universe where there is no past and future.

Prisoner’s dilemmas exist because omniscience must not be possible otherwise the above.

Apology my lapse. Should have realized that and made that retort when you first raised the point.

Superrationality is not a term I invented.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality

You are correct that it is not currently a mainstream part of game theory. But then again there is nothing sacrosanct about current game theory. Game theory is just mathematical model based on a series of assumptions about the modeled actors.

I think we are just going to disagree on this one.

I think you are misunderstanding the logic.
Here is a comment on the subject I came across. Not my words but maybe it will clarify the issue.

From the Wikipedia talk page on Superrationality

“Hofstadter, (the thinker who coined the term superrationality) as far as I know, is the first person to explicitly challenge economic rationality, to call its bluff. He says "This is garbage", and gives a mathematically precise alternative. The use of the pejorative "magical thinking" to refer to superrationality is absurd. There is no magic involved. It is only referred to as magical thinking by those with an irrational attachment to game-theory rationality

Read his book. It's precise enough to know exactly what he's saying, and it has a discussion of probabilistic scenerios, where the optimal probability is determined by the reasoning. It's written for a general audience, so you might not like it very much, but it's precise...Maybe superrationality is an old idea.
But from your comments, I get the feeling that you don't appreciate the logic of superrationality: Hofstadter doesn't engage in magical thinking. He does not assume that his decision will influence another person's decision in any causal way. That's impossible. What he assumes is that the other person already is superrational, so that his decision is going to be perfectly correlated with Hofstadter's in a symmetric situation, and he assumes that both he and his opponent take this into account before maximizing their utility. This is not magical, because correlation does not imply causation. It's a circular definition of a decision algorithm that only looks magical if you already believe (in the religious sense) in economic rationality. Then any deviation from defection looks irrational, and you can't be persuaded otherwise because economic rationality is self-consistent.

But Hofstadter points out that superrationality is equally self-consistent, so that the prisoner's dilemma is fundamentally an ill-posed problem, with several consistent answers. This leaves him with a free choice of algorithm. He chooses superrationality because it seems to his intuition to be correct, and he urges his readers to do so too, with mixed results.”


That is nonsense. If you know everyone is superrational, then you defect, because you get $20 guaranteed instead of possibly only $1.

It is ostensibly some unsupported nonsense from some philosophical ramblings that have not been vetted by any actual mathematical model.

Yeah I will disagree with nonsense.

You are not understanding the issue and that’s ok.

I will leave you with the words of the man himself who coined the term.
 
My feeling is that the concept of superrationality is one whose truth will come to dominate among intelligent beings in the universe simply because its adherents will survive certain kinds of situations where its opponents will perish. Let’s wait a few spins of the galaxy and see. After all, healthy logic is whatever remains after evolution’s merciless pruning.

Douglas Hofstadter, Metamagical Themas: Questing For The Essence Of Mind And Pattern

I agree with Mr. Hofstafter.

For now you are probably just have to add Mr. Hofstafter along with C.S Lewis and myself to your internal list of irrational illogical individuals. Quite the list you are drawing up.

Best Wishes
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
February 22, 2019, 10:18:43 AM

Dude, the dictionary has definitions of all the gods too, does that mean they exist?

Did you miss the part in the definitions that talks about them being mythology?

Cool

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zeus?s=t

I did yea because it doesn't say anything about that, the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son of Cronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of a number of gods, demigods, and mortals; the god of the heavens, identified by the Romans with Jupiter. So now Zeus has to be real because it's in the dictionary, right?

Of course Zeus and other gods are real. They must have some sort of reality for them to be in the dictionary.

The pint is, that when you look at how they are described, they are shown to be lied about, and to be weak... not really gods... but slightly more in the direction of God than people are.

The real God of the universe is being shown to be almighty and real. How? Many ways. But one way is easily seen. The Bible that talks about God, is spreading around the world way more than the gods of the nations. In fact, if there are any Zeus believers regarding his godhood, they are few and far between.

God is real. Zeus is mythology.

Cool

That is not very Christian of you.  What is next? Are you going to crucify all the Greeks who practice Hellenism today?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenism_(religion)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpNu4_TP9w

BADecker, 'ee-se malaka'!!!

Crucifying anybody is not Christian. That's why you suggest it.

Christianity is way beyond the other religions in strength and how widespread it is. Jesus God is holding it in place. He tells us that His Word will not return void. And He is proving it.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2702
Merit: 1468
February 22, 2019, 09:50:15 AM

Dude, the dictionary has definitions of all the gods too, does that mean they exist?

Did you miss the part in the definitions that talks about them being mythology?

Cool

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zeus?s=t

I did yea because it doesn't say anything about that, the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son of Cronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of a number of gods, demigods, and mortals; the god of the heavens, identified by the Romans with Jupiter. So now Zeus has to be real because it's in the dictionary, right?

Of course Zeus and other gods are real. They must have some sort of reality for them to be in the dictionary.

The pint is, that when you look at how they are described, they are shown to be lied about, and to be weak... not really gods... but slightly more in the direction of God than people are.

The real God of the universe is being shown to be almighty and real. How? Many ways. But one way is easily seen. The Bible that talks about God, is spreading around the world way more than the gods of the nations. In fact, if there are any Zeus believers regarding his godhood, they are few and far between.

God is real. Zeus is mythology.

Cool

That is not very Christian of you.  What is next? Are you going to crucify all the Greeks who practice Hellenism today?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenism_(religion)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpNu4_TP9w

BADecker, 'ee-se malaka'!!!
Pages:
Jump to: