4 ms·

Relevant philosophical discussion: Koestler (1967) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machin

Relevant philosophical discussion: Koestler (1967) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_in_the_Machine This work has informed quite a bit of art and literature ever since, from the manga/anime series Ghost in the Shell to a fair bit of William Gibson's work (see 'semiotic ghosts' of futures that might-have-been in The Gernsback Continuum). As far as religious belief in modern civilization, Frank Herbert in Dune (Appendix II) describes what I imagine is the common modern view among the 'power elite': The agnostic ruling class (including the Guild) for whom religion was a kind of puppet show to amuse the populace and keep it docile, and who believed essentially that all phenomena - even religious phenomena - could be reduced to mechanical explanations. With respect to as belief, I think anyone who says 'I believe in <insert whatever here>' is actually expressing doubt in their own world view. I'm more impressed by the so-called religious fanatics who instead say, 'I know of <insert whatever here>'. Consider the person who hears the voice of 'invisble sky friends' in their heads and writes it down in an (eventually holy) text - who is to say with certainty whether that's the result of schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, or an actual interdimensional communication from the architect of this virtual reality simulation we're all (okay, perhaps) living in? As far as haunted old tech: "We build our computers the way we build our cities - over time, without a plan, on top of ruins." - Ellen Ullman, Life in Code

anthk 4y ago
> who is to say with certainty whether that's the result of schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, or an actual interdimensional communication from the architect of this virtual reality simulation we're all (okay, perhaps) living in? Russel's Teapot. Also, Occam's Razor.
- NateEag 4y ago
  Yet those are probabilistic heuristics, not things which grant certitude. (Also, Russell's Teapot is not at all a fair comparison. A vast, incomprehensible, inconceivably simple unitary consciousness as the fundamental substrate of reality is much closer to most religious conceptions of God than is a teapot in orbit.) (...and, of course, a single entity which underlies reality is ultimately simple. Push it pantheist and you reduce the number of entities to one - no other worldview can reduce the number of entities further.)
  - saghm 4y ago
    > Also, Russell's Teapot is not at all a fair comparison. A vast, incomprehensible, inconceivably simple unitary consciousness as the fundamental substrate of reality is much closer to most religious conceptions of God than is a teapot in orbit The corollary between the teapot and the idea of "god" is that both of them are extraordinary claims and therefore the burden of proof rests on the people trying to argue that they're true. That property remains holds for your first definition of god as well. That doesn't mean it _can't_ be true, but it does imply that it should be held to the same standard as any other unfalsifiable claim. Of course, the converse is true as well, which I think is the point the article is trying to make; believing in ghosts or hauntings isn't any more incompatible with the worldview of the cold, rational technologist that the article describes than religion is. If believing in ghosts or hauntings makes someone happier, as long as they don't use it as a rationale to harm anyone else, all the more power to them!
kwhitefoot 4y ago
> The agnostic ruling class (including the Guild) for whom religion was a kind of puppet show to amuse the populace and keep it docile, and who believed essentially that all phenomena - even religious phenomena - could be reduced to mechanical explanations. Sound a bit like Gibbon on Roman religion: "The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosophers, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."

anthk 4y ago

> who is to say with certainty whether that's the result of schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, or an actual interdimensional communication from the architect of this virtual reality simulation we're all (okay, perhaps) living in? Russel's Teapot. Also, Occam's Razor.

NateEag 4y ago
Yet those are probabilistic heuristics, not things which grant certitude. (Also, Russell's Teapot is not at all a fair comparison. A vast, incomprehensible, inconceivably simple unitary consciousness as the fundamental substrate of reality is much closer to most religious conceptions of God than is a teapot in orbit.) (...and, of course, a single entity which underlies reality is ultimately simple. Push it pantheist and you reduce the number of entities to one - no other worldview can reduce the number of entities further.)
- saghm 4y ago
  > Also, Russell's Teapot is not at all a fair comparison. A vast, incomprehensible, inconceivably simple unitary consciousness as the fundamental substrate of reality is much closer to most religious conceptions of God than is a teapot in orbit The corollary between the teapot and the idea of "god" is that both of them are extraordinary claims and therefore the burden of proof rests on the people trying to argue that they're true. That property remains holds for your first definition of god as well. That doesn't mean it _can't_ be true, but it does imply that it should be held to the same standard as any other unfalsifiable claim. Of course, the converse is true as well, which I think is the point the article is trying to make; believing in ghosts or hauntings isn't any more incompatible with the worldview of the cold, rational technologist that the article describes than religion is. If believing in ghosts or hauntings makes someone happier, as long as they don't use it as a rationale to harm anyone else, all the more power to them!

kwhitefoot 4y ago

> The agnostic ruling class (including the Guild) for whom religion was a kind of puppet show to amuse the populace and keep it docile, and who believed essentially that all phenomena - even religious phenomena - could be reduced to mechanical explanations. Sound a bit like Gibbon on Roman religion: "The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosophers, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."