7 ms·

Can't say I care much about what "George Hotz" is doing, but this line struck me as particularly silly: > And even if you are an atheist, you probably still ac

Can't say I care much about what "George Hotz" is doing, but this line struck me as particularly silly: > And even if you are an atheist, you probably still accept the bible is the closest thing we have to a human origin story. I can't imagine why he believes so. Apart from the modern materialist origin story, what about all the mythical ones from other cultures? Of all of them, this is my favorite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckiNNgfMKcQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckiNNgfMKcQ

rsgalloway 4y ago
“we are bytes in God’s computer” from his Lex Fridman interview.
- gjvc 4y ago
- gnramires 4y ago
  People should get to know Spizona's ideas. Note: I support all peaceful religions. Spinoza's ideas are close enough to this notion: that God is also Nature; for Spizona, we're not bytes in God's computer, we're literally part of God's (infinite) mind -- Nature itself. This is a really beautiful interpretation of Christianity, and absolutely compatible with science and all modern knowledge. God is hence all knowing, and immortal; God loves all existences (which are all themselves pieces of God). I think if religions are to survive healthily (and contribute to everyone's lives), they should become compatible with science and truth. The greatest implication is that we are responsible for good ourselves, and if heaven exists, something like us (or our descendants, or other beings entirely) it's up to us to build it (which I couldn't agree more). We should start now!
  - vasco 4y ago
    So call it Nature, why do you need a separate theological construction to realize all of nature is part of the universe which all came from the same start in the big bang and we should all respect each other? Is there really a need for anything else?
    - gnramires 4y ago
      The idea is metaphysical -- you're literally a fragment of a greater mind. Like, a cell should respect its host organism -- it's basically redefining what or who you are. I don't know if there is an absolute need for something else, although clearly you do need some ethical framework to make decisions. Assuming you're a self-interested cell can have definitely different implications than assuming you're literally a tiny part of a whole (even if you are in favor of self-interested cooperation: this redefinition has many further implications). You could also assume you're are a cell, but decide to axiomatically value the whole as well. One way you could justify this axiom is through parsimony -- saying it's simpler than only valuing the self. Another justification (without appealing to Spinoza's definition) is that self-interested cells will fail in certain situations, s.t. whole-valuing cells can go much further -- that is, self-interested cells can turn into cancer or just don't survive as well as a multi- or omni- cellular organism. People already value their children and other people, this is a mostly logical conclusion. This isn't just academic: we're going through crises right now that would be very different if people were less exclusively self-interested, and humanity's survival may depend on it in some way. I like to put it this way: Love is optimal. I think ultimately most ethical systems converge (to fundamentally valuing one another), so in a way some differences are aesthetic, how you prefer to think about it, etc. I think it's nice that we have more than one way of seeing those things coexisting peacefully (although like I said, I think it's very important they are consistent with the truth, at least for the most part).
      - vasco 4y ago
        Sounding a bit dismissive, you just said what I said in more words. My question is why you need god in the discussion, I think it's perfectly fine to have that awareness of being part of the whole without any god in the picture. It can sound like just semantics but for many people once you use the word god, there's a lot of other meanings.
        gnramires 4y ago
        Yes, it's a little difficult to picture (or maybe you might fundamentally disagree) -- but it's like there a literal being, God, that constitutes all of this (I also associate this with the idea of an 'omnimind' -- that all consciousness are literally a part of a same mind). Also, the coherence with Christian (and maybe Abrahamic in general) traditions makes it an interesting interpretation of ethics in the sense of there existing a God in a literal sense (and other premises of those traditions being consistent in this framework). I recommend reading or taking a course into Spinoza if you're interested, because there's more than I can describe without writing a little book (although I think some of the conceptions I have are fairly original -- Spinoza afterall lived in mid 17th century). To get a feel for an expanded mind, think about your cellphone (or PC or google, etc.). Some of your memories are stored in your cellphone. So in a very real way the digital world is an actual extension of your mind; think how some of our organs (like hair, or maybe cartilage etc.) are not living tissue yet we consider them part of 'us'. The definition of 'I' is in a way functional, and maybe more completely related to agency and information coherence. In a literal way also, Nature doesn't distinguish individuals. What is 'you' here is, as far as we can tell, a large amount of flowing interactions, which are not singular. What is 'you' is influenced by an entire past extended lightcone; what is 'you' does not live in a single moment in time, but is indeed distributed in time and in space -- 'I' is an abstraction over a cosmic soup -- a very useful, interesting, and important one, but nonetheless it isn't physically fundamental. What we are fundamentally changes in time as well -- you are fundamentally a distributed network of events, not a singular entity. In this way the fundamental distinction of individual seems to fade, and validate a greater distinction -- the maximum distinction is the one encompassing all that exists (i.e. Spinoza's God). In a way, you might call it just another way of seeing things -- just like the 'I' or the self -- but it can in the same way be interesting, useful, etc.. And again it fits the traditions in a way (this is also an insight of Buddhism but the interpretation is different). Derek Parfit discusses some of this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS-46k0ncIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS-46k0ncIs
  - TylerLives 4y ago
    I don't think Christians would agree that God is Nature. Christians believe that God created nature, but that he is outside of it. This is in contrast with some older religions that do worship nature. It is not a coincidence that Christian God is "the Father" while nature is "Mother Nature".
tensor 4y ago
I stopped reading when he brought the Bible into things. I have no time to waste on that sort of thing.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  You have no time to waste on western civilization's foundational text? edit: to the people who want to argue this: show me a body of work which has been more influential on western society. What people seem to identify as 'western' values are largely just judeo christian values. The influence of the bible is so ingrained into our society that you will live out the values within it even if you don't realize it. And that kindof makes sense, doesn't it? Some guys wrote down some stories which at the time were being passed orally, these stories became really popular, and the society which was telling these stories and using them to pass their moral philosophy became prosperous. The Catholic Church was a (not so)pseudo government in Europe for almost 2000 years, and was the leader and authority in philosophy and art. The idea that somehow none of this is foundational to western civilization is absurd and completely ahistoric.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    You mean the Odyssey?
  - Matl 4y ago
    Not everyone eats everything Jordan Peterson says. The values you say are 'Christian values' are expressed, (in many cases more eloquently), in classical Greek texts. Values like democracy itself are indeed much more prominent there than in the Bible, which is why I imagine you're seeing the sort of replies that you are.
    - thepasswordis 4y ago
      This is so frustrating to me. People hear "the bible is foundational" and I think they're hearing "the magical stories in the bible are literally true. God sat on a cloud and poofed western civilization into existence!" What I'm saying is that, the Dawkins sense, The Bible was an extremely successful meme. I don't think that's even up for debate. >Not everyone eats everything Jordan Peterson says. People need to find more internet people to hate. Christopher Hitchens was saying the same thing to impressionable teenagers in the early 2000s, and so was Richard Dawkins. Before that there was this little known German Philosopher saying something similar too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_God_and_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_G...
seltzered_ 4y ago
Sounds like one giving into 'watchmaker analogy' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
bsima 4y ago
An origin story is a mythology, and all of those other cultural stories fit under a common schema, hence the reference to Campbell’s “Hero’s Journey”
- jasfi 4y ago
  An origin story is how we came to be where we are. Atheists think along the lines of evolution / natural selection. Not mythology. Before that, tons to be read, all of it science based.
  - bsima 4y ago
    Science is based on mythology. Logos developed out of mythos. There is no dichotomy or conflict between the two.
stale2002 4y ago
So, people aren't really understanding the motivations that Geohotz has for looking into this stuff. He is being a bit cryptic about it. Here is a basic summary though. The atheist world, of no life after death, is scary. We have not invented immortality. And even if we do, well there is an even scarier thing called entropy, that will end the universe anyway. There is no escape from death, as far as we know, and this is a problem that faces every human being in the world. Now what? What do we do now? Do you just lay down and accept that? Do you just sit down and die when your time comes? Or do you fight? George seems to have chosen the fight route. And to do that, well, our options are pretty limited. It involves looking into things that likely are pretty fantastical. Things like "are we living in a simulation, and is there a way to break out of the simulation, to a universe where entropy doesn't exist". Or, alternatively "does the bible talk about any magic, hidden portals". And no, this doesn't involve just praying to a sky fairy, and hoping things work out in the end. Yes, these solutions sound pretty fantastical. But what other options do we have? Because if the current atheist world is the real one, then we are doomed. We are in the death world. Game over. Thats it. The most important problem, ever, is unsolvable. And we are all going to die, and nothing other than this fact matters.
- monktastic1 4y ago
  Oh I don't deny any of that. Heck, just look at the link in my profile: https://www.lifeismiraculous.org/ https://www.lifeismiraculous.org/ The silly part to me is his claim that everyone (including atheists) thinks that the Bible is the best answer.
- vasco 4y ago
  > But what other options do we have? Well, most of modern society has decided that once you've satisfied your basic needs, hedonism is the answer. Travel, good food, good times with friends, etc. That's what most people are living like and what the culture creates. No need to find hidden portals.
  - georgehotz 4y ago
    There’s only one outcome for hedonists. Wireheading. I suspect many people will go this way, I won’t.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rejectfinite 4y ago
And you link Alan Watts... the most basic bro hippie shit.
- monktastic1 4y ago
  Sounds like a case of shooting the messenger. It's not his original idea.

rsgalloway 4y ago

“we are bytes in God’s computer” from his Lex Fridman interview.

gjvc 4y ago
gnramires 4y ago
People should get to know Spizona's ideas. Note: I support all peaceful religions. Spinoza's ideas are close enough to this notion: that God is also Nature; for Spizona, we're not bytes in God's computer, we're literally part of God's (infinite) mind -- Nature itself. This is a really beautiful interpretation of Christianity, and absolutely compatible with science and all modern knowledge. God is hence all knowing, and immortal; God loves all existences (which are all themselves pieces of God). I think if religions are to survive healthily (and contribute to everyone's lives), they should become compatible with science and truth. The greatest implication is that we are responsible for good ourselves, and if heaven exists, something like us (or our descendants, or other beings entirely) it's up to us to build it (which I couldn't agree more). We should start now!
- vasco 4y ago
  So call it Nature, why do you need a separate theological construction to realize all of nature is part of the universe which all came from the same start in the big bang and we should all respect each other? Is there really a need for anything else?
  - gnramires 4y ago
    The idea is metaphysical -- you're literally a fragment of a greater mind. Like, a cell should respect its host organism -- it's basically redefining what or who you are. I don't know if there is an absolute need for something else, although clearly you do need some ethical framework to make decisions. Assuming you're a self-interested cell can have definitely different implications than assuming you're literally a tiny part of a whole (even if you are in favor of self-interested cooperation: this redefinition has many further implications). You could also assume you're are a cell, but decide to axiomatically value the whole as well. One way you could justify this axiom is through parsimony -- saying it's simpler than only valuing the self. Another justification (without appealing to Spinoza's definition) is that self-interested cells will fail in certain situations, s.t. whole-valuing cells can go much further -- that is, self-interested cells can turn into cancer or just don't survive as well as a multi- or omni- cellular organism. People already value their children and other people, this is a mostly logical conclusion. This isn't just academic: we're going through crises right now that would be very different if people were less exclusively self-interested, and humanity's survival may depend on it in some way. I like to put it this way: Love is optimal. I think ultimately most ethical systems converge (to fundamentally valuing one another), so in a way some differences are aesthetic, how you prefer to think about it, etc. I think it's nice that we have more than one way of seeing those things coexisting peacefully (although like I said, I think it's very important they are consistent with the truth, at least for the most part).
    - vasco 4y ago
      Sounding a bit dismissive, you just said what I said in more words. My question is why you need god in the discussion, I think it's perfectly fine to have that awareness of being part of the whole without any god in the picture. It can sound like just semantics but for many people once you use the word god, there's a lot of other meanings.
      - gnramires 4y ago
        Yes, it's a little difficult to picture (or maybe you might fundamentally disagree) -- but it's like there a literal being, God, that constitutes all of this (I also associate this with the idea of an 'omnimind' -- that all consciousness are literally a part of a same mind). Also, the coherence with Christian (and maybe Abrahamic in general) traditions makes it an interesting interpretation of ethics in the sense of there existing a God in a literal sense (and other premises of those traditions being consistent in this framework). I recommend reading or taking a course into Spinoza if you're interested, because there's more than I can describe without writing a little book (although I think some of the conceptions I have are fairly original -- Spinoza afterall lived in mid 17th century). To get a feel for an expanded mind, think about your cellphone (or PC or google, etc.). Some of your memories are stored in your cellphone. So in a very real way the digital world is an actual extension of your mind; think how some of our organs (like hair, or maybe cartilage etc.) are not living tissue yet we consider them part of 'us'. The definition of 'I' is in a way functional, and maybe more completely related to agency and information coherence. In a literal way also, Nature doesn't distinguish individuals. What is 'you' here is, as far as we can tell, a large amount of flowing interactions, which are not singular. What is 'you' is influenced by an entire past extended lightcone; what is 'you' does not live in a single moment in time, but is indeed distributed in time and in space -- 'I' is an abstraction over a cosmic soup -- a very useful, interesting, and important one, but nonetheless it isn't physically fundamental. What we are fundamentally changes in time as well -- you are fundamentally a distributed network of events, not a singular entity. In this way the fundamental distinction of individual seems to fade, and validate a greater distinction -- the maximum distinction is the one encompassing all that exists (i.e. Spinoza's God). In a way, you might call it just another way of seeing things -- just like the 'I' or the self -- but it can in the same way be interesting, useful, etc.. And again it fits the traditions in a way (this is also an insight of Buddhism but the interpretation is different). Derek Parfit discusses some of this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS-46k0ncIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS-46k0ncIs
- TylerLives 4y ago
  I don't think Christians would agree that God is Nature. Christians believe that God created nature, but that he is outside of it. This is in contrast with some older religions that do worship nature. It is not a coincidence that Christian God is "the Father" while nature is "Mother Nature".

tensor 4y ago

I stopped reading when he brought the Bible into things. I have no time to waste on that sort of thing.

thepasswordis 4y ago
You have no time to waste on western civilization's foundational text? edit: to the people who want to argue this: show me a body of work which has been more influential on western society. What people seem to identify as 'western' values are largely just judeo christian values. The influence of the bible is so ingrained into our society that you will live out the values within it even if you don't realize it. And that kindof makes sense, doesn't it? Some guys wrote down some stories which at the time were being passed orally, these stories became really popular, and the society which was telling these stories and using them to pass their moral philosophy became prosperous. The Catholic Church was a (not so)pseudo government in Europe for almost 2000 years, and was the leader and authority in philosophy and art. The idea that somehow none of this is foundational to western civilization is absurd and completely ahistoric.
- dekhn 4y ago
  You mean the Odyssey?
- Matl 4y ago
  Not everyone eats everything Jordan Peterson says. The values you say are 'Christian values' are expressed, (in many cases more eloquently), in classical Greek texts. Values like democracy itself are indeed much more prominent there than in the Bible, which is why I imagine you're seeing the sort of replies that you are.
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    This is so frustrating to me. People hear "the bible is foundational" and I think they're hearing "the magical stories in the bible are literally true. God sat on a cloud and poofed western civilization into existence!" What I'm saying is that, the Dawkins sense, The Bible was an extremely successful meme. I don't think that's even up for debate. >Not everyone eats everything Jordan Peterson says. People need to find more internet people to hate. Christopher Hitchens was saying the same thing to impressionable teenagers in the early 2000s, and so was Richard Dawkins. Before that there was this little known German Philosopher saying something similar too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_God_and_nihilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Death_of_G...

seltzered_ 4y ago

Sounds like one giving into 'watchmaker analogy' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

bsima 4y ago

An origin story is a mythology, and all of those other cultural stories fit under a common schema, hence the reference to Campbell’s “Hero’s Journey”

jasfi 4y ago
An origin story is how we came to be where we are. Atheists think along the lines of evolution / natural selection. Not mythology. Before that, tons to be read, all of it science based.
- bsima 4y ago
  Science is based on mythology. Logos developed out of mythos. There is no dichotomy or conflict between the two.

stale2002 4y ago

So, people aren't really understanding the motivations that Geohotz has for looking into this stuff. He is being a bit cryptic about it. Here is a basic summary though. The atheist world, of no life after death, is scary. We have not invented immortality. And even if we do, well there is an even scarier thing called entropy, that will end the universe anyway. There is no escape from death, as far as we know, and this is a problem that faces every human being in the world. Now what? What do we do now? Do you just lay down and accept that? Do you just sit down and die when your time comes? Or do you fight? George seems to have chosen the fight route. And to do that, well, our options are pretty limited. It involves looking into things that likely are pretty fantastical. Things like "are we living in a simulation, and is there a way to break out of the simulation, to a universe where entropy doesn't exist". Or, alternatively "does the bible talk about any magic, hidden portals". And no, this doesn't involve just praying to a sky fairy, and hoping things work out in the end. Yes, these solutions sound pretty fantastical. But what other options do we have? Because if the current atheist world is the real one, then we are doomed. We are in the death world. Game over. Thats it. The most important problem, ever, is unsolvable. And we are all going to die, and nothing other than this fact matters.

monktastic1 4y ago
Oh I don't deny any of that. Heck, just look at the link in my profile: https://www.lifeismiraculous.org/ https://www.lifeismiraculous.org/ The silly part to me is his claim that everyone (including atheists) thinks that the Bible is the best answer.
vasco 4y ago
> But what other options do we have? Well, most of modern society has decided that once you've satisfied your basic needs, hedonism is the answer. Travel, good food, good times with friends, etc. That's what most people are living like and what the culture creates. No need to find hidden portals.
- georgehotz 4y ago
  There’s only one outcome for hedonists. Wireheading. I suspect many people will go this way, I won’t.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rejectfinite 4y ago

And you link Alan Watts... the most basic bro hippie shit.

monktastic1 4y ago
Sounds like a case of shooting the messenger. It's not his original idea.