3 ms·

While I agree 100% with you, everyone thinks that way about their own belief.

by dmd 2y ago

xanderlewis 2y ago
Yeah. One could equally imagine that dualism is the null hypothesis since human cultures around the world have seemingly universally believed in a ‘soul’ and that materialism is only a very recent phenomenon. Of course, (widespread adoption of) science is also a fairly recent phenomenon, so perhaps we do know more now than we did back then.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
So let's put it differently. True or not, materialism is the simplest, most constrained, and most predictive of the hypotheses that match available evidence. Why should we prefer a "physics + $magic" theory, for any particular flavor of $magic? Why this particular flavor? Why any flavor, if so far everything is explainable by the baseline "physics" alone? Even in purely practical terms, it makes most sense to stick to materialism (at least if you're trying to understand the world; for control over people, the best theory needs not even be coherent, much less correct).
- dmd 2y ago
  But the religious nuts will say "no, 'god did it' is the simplest, most constrained explanation". I'm not arguing that they're correct. I'm saying that they believe that they are correct, and if you argue that they're not, well, you're back to arguing! It's the old saw - you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > But the religious nuts will say "no, 'god did it' is the simplest, most constrained explanation". Maybe, but then we can still get to common ground by discussing a hypothetical universe that looks just like ours, but happen to not have a god inside (or lost it along the way). In that hypothetical, similar to yet totally-not-ours universe ruled purely by math, things would happen in a particular way; in that universe, materialism is the simplest explanation. (It's up to religious folks then to explain where that hypothetical universe diverges from the real one specifically, and why, and how confident are they of that.)
    - dmd 2y ago
      You've never actually met a religious person, have you. :)
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        I used to be one myself :). I do of course exclude people, religious or otherwise, who have no interest or capacity to process a discussion like this. We don't need 100% participation of humanity to discuss questions about what an artificial intelligence could be or be able to do.
  - xpe 2y ago
    > It's the old saw - you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into. There are cases where formerly religious people "see the light" on their own via an embrace with reason. (I'm not sure if you are endorsing the claim.)

While I agree 100% with you, everyone thinks that way about their own belief.

by dmd 2y ago

While I agree 100% with you, everyone thinks that way about their own belief.

Yeah. One could equally imagine that dualism is the null hypothesis since human cultures around the world have seemingly universally believed in a ‘soul’ and that materialism is only a very recent phenomenon. Of course, (widespread adoption of) science is also a fairly recent phenomenon, so perhaps we do know more now than we did back then.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

So let's put it differently. True or not, materialism is the simplest, most constrained, and most predictive of the hypotheses that match available evidence. Why should we prefer a "physics + $magic" theory, for any particular flavor of $magic? Why this particular flavor? Why any flavor, if so far everything is explainable by the baseline "physics" alone? Even in purely practical terms, it makes most sense to stick to materialism (at least if you're trying to understand the world; for control over people, the best theory needs not even be coherent, much less correct).

dmd 2y ago
But the religious nuts will say "no, 'god did it' is the simplest, most constrained explanation". I'm not arguing that they're correct. I'm saying that they believe that they are correct, and if you argue that they're not, well, you're back to arguing! It's the old saw - you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > But the religious nuts will say "no, 'god did it' is the simplest, most constrained explanation". Maybe, but then we can still get to common ground by discussing a hypothetical universe that looks just like ours, but happen to not have a god inside (or lost it along the way). In that hypothetical, similar to yet totally-not-ours universe ruled purely by math, things would happen in a particular way; in that universe, materialism is the simplest explanation. (It's up to religious folks then to explain where that hypothetical universe diverges from the real one specifically, and why, and how confident are they of that.)
  - dmd 2y ago
    You've never actually met a religious person, have you. :)
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      I used to be one myself :). I do of course exclude people, religious or otherwise, who have no interest or capacity to process a discussion like this. We don't need 100% participation of humanity to discuss questions about what an artificial intelligence could be or be able to do.
- xpe 2y ago
  > It's the old saw - you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into. There are cases where formerly religious people "see the light" on their own via an embrace with reason. (I'm not sure if you are endorsing the claim.)