I think I meant “interesting” in a sarcastic tone.
Another way of putting it: “You (theists) claim a high level of belief in this hypothesis. Because so many people (including close family members) take this position, I have though about this hypothesis and find it too complex to have anything but a small prior. Then I asked myself what observations are more likely if the hypothesis is true and which would be less likely. Then I looked around and found no evidence in favor of your hypothesis.”
And a map link, just to make it clear: http://goo.gl/6eFGj
Eliezer (I think) feels the same way about the necessity of souls as about the Judeo-Christian god. Interesting hypothesis, but too complex to have anything but a small prior. Then no supporting evidence shows up, despite millennia of looking, reducing the likelihood further.
if God exists then consciousness depends on having an immaterial soul.
I translate that into logical notation:
(God exists) → For all X (X is conscious → X has an immaterial soul)
I don’t concede this conditional. I can imagine a universe with a personal creator, where consciousness is a material property of certain types of complex systems, but souls don’t exist.
Work at a desk facing your boss. It does wonders keeping you productive. My boss happens to make this possible by bringing his work into the lab for several hours a day.
invest in inflation-indexed bonds.
Or, a Boltzmann brain that flickered into existence with memories of a past that never happened.
Like it’s possible to re-read only four chapters. Ha!
Is there a comprehensive list of science declarations anywhere?
You might attract a broader audience if you removed references to Existential Risk and Transhumanism from your web page.
I always advise in favor of a double major with one major being something sciencey and quantitative (math, natural science, engineering, computer science, et cetera) and the other being something you care about. If those categories overlap, then you have less work to do.
I just donated $300 to Givewell for AMF.
The leap is that the Church–Turing thesis applies to human (“sentient”) cognition. Many theists deny this.
It’s a conceit of our current sensibilities that we even use the same word to refer to how we feel about those, our siblings, our pets, and ice cream.
Which is why I sometimes taboo that word and try and explain exactly how I feel about my S.O. in other, more concrete, terms.
sounds like my weekend.
Sound like I’m missing a good meeting. Instead I was at a party with scientists.
I’m going to be out of town this week, but I’m pretty sure curiousepic will be there. Does anyone else want to commit to being there?
I think I just broke the meetup submission function. Sorry.
Break down the claims of Buddhism and test them individually against evidence. Bring me what’s left.
They have one in the lab next to mine. I love my job.