Intergalactic Summit

For example, in an essay about the architecture of Takmahl ruins, one student had the audacity to lift a paragraph from a previously published work, without proper attributation.

I said to that student "This is a compelling argument you make in this paragraph. I should know, I wrote it!", and then threatened to put them on a sacrificial altar. They were shocked and said "you can't do that!"

To which I said, "oh, but I can, I have tenure."


That put the Fear into them, so it did. And they rewrote the essay, for a B+.

I believe God exists.

I don't care that he does.

Barring any strange and unexpected accidents, cloning means I'm going to be in this world for quite a while yet. By the time I finally die, I'm expecting that a small but notable percentage of all the people in his Heaven will have been put there by me and mine. I'd be surprised if he didn't thank us for keeping him employed.

Cpt. Antolliere,

while I do agree with most of what you say (Though I'm not quite sure to which degree you equate reason and rationality, suffice to say I'd oppose such a reduction of reason to rationality.), I think we can in fact do more than 'showing our reasoning':
We can check if the resoning is correct or incorrect. We can evaluate any given argument on whether it is valid and sound. If it's invalid, it's out of the window. And as we oftentimes have difficulties in ascertaining whether an argument is sound (as the premises might possibly be wrong but at the same time possibly right to our knowledge - humans are epistemically limited) we can further more assess arguments by whether they are potentially convincing.

Yes, for you, Scherezad.

In this first, post, it is argued that "It assumes that there’s only one religion, and only one version of God".

Now, I stated that the Philosopher's Wager, has arisen on just about all worlds with a native population. Possibly not the Ealurian homeworld, because history doesn't seem to suggest Ealur had produced any philosophers.

So yes, there is some question about which God exists or not. However, that is not important.

Because the relevance of the Philosopher's Wager, is its application to the emergence of a literal machine intelligence. In that scenario, there is only one religion and one version of "God".

Which answers point 1. Which God.

For point 2. Is God that easily duped? it would be whether or not the individual supported the development program of the AI, that determined if the person 'believed' in the God or not. And that is a matter of fact, as support for the development is a measurable and factual quantity.

Point 3. Does this even count as belief?, well, yes, supporting the development of the AI would count as belief.

Point 4, about the cost of "belief", then yes, the cost is negligible. Because even if the AI does not become godlike, there would be other beneficial outcomes, so it would be comparable to funding blue sky scientific research.

Therefore that first post can be discounted, as the counter-arguments contained within are not applicable.

For this post, it states there are a number of conditions required for the hypothetical AI to appear.

The first being:
"That you can meaningfully model a superintelligent AI in your human brain "

Well, I can't. But, I don't need to. Because the hypothetical future superintelligent AI, would be the Nth generation AI, and would be modelled and built by the N-1th generation AI.

Therefore, that assumption can be discounted, as it is not necessary, and as it is the central point of that argument, the whole argument can be discounted.

In addition, even if the Future AI chooses not to resurrect the dead, in order to punish them, it may decide to punish the living.

And, as capsuleers who have some form of demi-immortality, many IGS users might live long enough to run into the Future AI.

So, that second post can be discounted, as the counter-arguments contained within are also not applicable to the original argument.

Woe to the Unbelievers.

For their Punishment shall never End.

Oh I was only mentioning your sources because there seems to be an ongoing debate about plagiarism I'd rather not get dragged into. I didn't mean anything patronizing by it.

But yes basically I find the wager itself unsound primarily because of the staggering lack of data either side can present upon further examination.

Precisely the same sentiment. Different choice of diction.






To the former, if an argument is sound but based on a wrong premise then it is not a person's rationality or reasoning that is in error; which does not thereby make the argument or individual irrational, simply misinformed. The latter can be rectified, the former cannot. To assert that a being or notion is irrational would require the argument itself to be so, not the premise upon which it is based. This does not counter my original point, it simply clarifies it.

To the latter, a potentially convincing argument does not make a correct or even rational argument, it simply makes it a convincing one, potentially subsequently a popular one, perhaps even in a majority degree. A convincing argument is not, by necessity, rational, reasonable, incontrovertible, true or otherwise beyond fallacy. Nor have you proven either statement correct or incorrect simply by convincing an opponent of your line of reasoning, all you've done is convinced them to reason the way you have and thus draw the same conclusions.

I do not think we disagree at all. Perhaps I simply did not expound upon my thoughts enough.

The topic at hand is a well-known and very old conundrum which, I think, has long been resolved as best it can be and even the wise minds currently undertaking a renewed dialog on the problem are really only rehashing the best answers with which philosophers of times long passed have afforded us. Despite this I am always glad to see the arguments take new variations of their now ancient forms.

And, more importantly, the discussion reminds me of my days as an undergraduate at Hedion and it is with that adolescent mindset I make the following observation:



Regardless of your feelings on fleshy appendages, for those that have them we all look down upon them for they are situated beneath our heads.

That depends on the premises in question. There are premises that are irrational to adopt. Take for example the following valid argument:

Premise 1: If there are square circles, then God exists.
Premise 2: There are square circles.
Conclusion: God exists.

Premise 2 is clearly wrong and irrational to adopt. Someone claiming P2 is not simply misinformed (if he is a competent speaker), they clearly are irrational insofar that they are operating with a contradiction in terms. Giving an argument where one of the presmises is such is clearly irrational.

Also, people can give arguments with erong premises even if they know those premises to be wrong. That as well might reasonably considered as irrational.

Furthermore rationality as logical soundness includes the truth of the premises. So, while someone who (erroneously) believes the premises of a valid argument to be true and gives it is rational in a way, the argument itself is arguably not. One has to consider here that an argument can't be rational as a human being can be: An argument can't be rational in the sense of being able of reasoning. It can't form beliefs in regard to the truth value of it's premises. Thus, whether an argument is rational depends to a large part on it's logical soundness.

Correct reasoning and as such rationality does, in the last instance, depend on both the correct form of the argument as well as the truth of the premises. Acknowledging the epistemic boundedness of humans, though, we have to call them rational as long as the have sufficient reason to believe their premises to be true. But logical soundness doesn't ask whether there is sufficient reason to accept something as true: It's only interested in the objective truth value. That's one of the reasons why potentail convincingness should be consdidered.


So, while I agree that a potentially convincing argument doesn't make a correct or even fully rational argument, any argument that lacks potential convincingness is hardly one that any rational being should bring forth. If we can't ascertain the truth value of the premises and don't have sufficent reason to accept the premises, then the argument will lack in it's potential to convince. Arguments are for the sake of convincing, though. Reasoning from premises that we don't have sufficient reason to accept as true is, I'd thus claim, very much irrational.

Another reason why potential convincingness needs to be considered becomes clear if one considers arguments of the form 'A therefore A'. Even if A is true, the argument will not convince anybody of the truth of A, unless they already accept A. Such a kind of argument lacks any potential to convince (as someone who already accepts A can't be convinced of A anymore). It is therefore as well irrational to make such an argument.

By the way, I'd insist that there's a difference between considering whether an argument is potentially convincing and it being convincing (to certain people). Similarly I object to the notion that potential convincingness plays any strict causal role in whether an argument becomes popular: Rather it seems that arguments become popular because the conclusions are convenient for most people. A whole lot of people are convinced by arguments primarily, because the conclusions are such, which is why one will easily find people who are convinced by invalid (and thus certainly -logically- unconvincing) arguments. Popularity depends on the psychological convincingness of an argument - not on whether it's logically convincing. The latter has a lot to do -by necessity- with whether the argument is rational, reasonable, incontrovertible, true or otherwise beyond fallacy.

Potential convincingness is on the logical/epistemic side of these matters - it has to do with sufficent reasons to accept premises as true and forms which arguments must take by necessity, if they are to convince anybody.

Thus, validity, soundness and potential convincingness play an important role in assessing the rationality of arguments and the people bringing them forth. They are certainly not the only things to consider, but they are a very good start.

One more thing: Rationality is something which can be acquired through education and habituation. The rules of logic are very much teachable and we certainly can habituate ourselves and be habituated to not act on a whim, but rather think before we act and act on the result of careful deliberation. Given that, I'm sure both irrationality as well as misinformation are eligible to being rectified.

This thread is entirely too rational for you.
Please go and stay go.