From: Mika Letonsaari (mika.letonsaari@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Aug 23 2007 - 09:17:19 MDT
> You seem to have difficulty understanding that assigning a non-zero
> probability to something is a different thing than "believing" in it.
> Religiosity tends to be about assigning probabilities of 1 to silly
> stuff. Here we are talking about assigning a potentially very small
> but still non-zero probability to the fact that one is living in a
> simulation, and implications of such a probability assignment.
When I've asked my religious friends, they usually say they can't be
sure if the Bible for example is true or not. They say it might be
small possibility, but it's better be safe than sorry (and being
religious doesn't carry much cost in some social groups, it can be
even benefit locally). So they assign a low probability too.
And why should we be interested in AI which gives so small a
probability that it doesn't act accordingly? We are interested to make
AI also behave so that it doesn't eat us. Which is to create a bogus
myth about there being someone who can punish wrong-doers. And that's
pretty much like religion to me (well, religion is organized community
sharing belief, so it isn't actually, but just a thought).
Mika
ps. Sorry for the trolling about simulation argument believers being
religious. I'll behave better...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT