The Faith & Religion mega Thread

double post deleted

Originally Posted by easuter And in the same way we can "reinact" mutations in an environment with selective pressures and an accelerated timescale, via the miracle of computer simulations. Take your own advice: if you haven't seen one running, do it. "The process is fascinating and it is scientific."

There is no miracle in computer simulation, and they can fail under some circonstance. When implementing a model, do we want to create a perfect model or less perfect to approach real life but in this case how create perfect imperfection ?

Originally Posted by Cedrik No, but science can hold ethical values, medicine for example (hippocratic oath)

I would say scientists can hold ethical values. (Though I think you could argue that ethical values of honesty are integral to the scientific method, if we are to trust its results at all.) There is nothing to say that you cannot do good science, in the sense of accurately learning about facts, through unethical means, like experimenting on humans without consent. But for non-scientific reasons, we have developed an ethical framework prohibiting such things. Ethics is not a scientific or empirical pursuit, though. (But it ought to be a rational pursuit.)

Originally Posted by SigTerm No. You were born once. Can you be born once again?

Is there anyone in this thread (other than perhaps Anisha) who follows a religion that would answer this in the affirmative?

Originally Posted by Cedrik When implementing a model, do we want to create a perfect model or less perfect to approach real life but in this case how create perfect imperfection ?

What are you talking about?
What perfection has to do anything?

Originally Posted by Cedrik There is no miracle in computer simulation

I really hate it when sarcasm or a dickish remark is taken so literally that I have to post back explaining what I meant.
Of course it's no miracle, I used the word given the condescending nature of the person I was replying to.

Although, some of the machines used to run the larger simulations are marvels of engineering.

and they can fail under some circonstance.

True. Which is why scientific research is peer-reviewed and published, to minimize failure and weed out errors.

When implementing a model, do we want to create a perfect model or less perfect to approach real life but in this case how create perfect imperfection ?

You can't really create a completely perfect model of something. There are just too many variables, but we can approximate reality.

Take cartography as an example: the first maps of the world were very crude and very incomplete but they were just close enough to be useful. Today we have satellites that have basically mapped every square kilometer of our planet's surface and our maps are pretty damn good and close to reality.
BUT, these maps aren't perfect because they don't track every grain of sand in every coastal region, however they simply don't have to be perfect to be useful.

So that's what models aim to be: a useful approximation of reality.

Originally Posted by easuter I really hate it when sarcasm or a dickish remark is taken so literally that I have to post back explaining what I meant. Of course it's no miracle, I used the word given the condescending nature of the person I was replying to. Although, some of the machines used to run the larger simulations are marvels of engineering.

Sorry, but in this thread context, I read the post like miracles exist and God is the computer

I agree on the "useful approximation of reality" term, simulation does not bypass the necessity of validate result with real experiment

Originally Posted by reed9 I would say scientists can hold ethical values. (Though I think you could argue that ethical values of honesty are integral to the scientific method, if we are to trust its results at all.) There is nothing to say that you cannot do good science, in the sense of accurately learning about facts, through unethical means, like experimenting on humans without consent. But for non-scientific reasons, we have developed an ethical framework prohibiting such things. Ethics is not a scientific or empirical pursuit, though. (But it ought to be a rational pursuit.)

Yes it's true, this view of science is relatively modern though

Originally Posted by Cedrik Yes it's true, this view of science is relatively modern though

I don't know if that's true or not, but if so, I see no problem. Ethics and science ought to progress. They are not static entities, but change as new information comes to light. We have much greater knowledge now of how biases influence conclusions and experimental outcomes, and appropriately create guidelines to mitigate biases. We have seen scientific misconduct in the treatment of animals and people, and have created ethical guidelines to address misconduct. That's a good thing.

Originally Posted by SigTerm What are you talking about? What perfection has to do anything?

Perfect in the sense of a model with too well defined data, behaviour

Originally Posted by SigTerm Originally Posted by MrCode Think about it: when was the last time you didn't act on your desires (or any other prior cause)? Many times. All people ignore many of their desires every day, and do not act on them.

That doesn't mean they're "ignoring their desires". It simply means they gain a desire to not act on their initial desires more. Ever had to make a really tough decision? That's your desires conflicting against each other; whichever one "wins out" in the decision-making process is the one that gets acted upon. There's no reason to think the process is non-deterministic, and even if it were, again, it wouldn't place it any more in your "control".

The problem with saying that "you" are in "control" of "your" actions is defining what makes a "you". It's somewhat like asking what exactly constitutes a "car". Is it the engine? The chassis? Does it cease being a "car" when you take it apart, only becoming a "car" again when you reassemble it?

…or perhaps the seemingly eternal debate over what constitutes an "operating system": just the kernel? Kernel+userland? Kernel+drivers (in a non-monolithic design)? At what point do we consider it an "operating system", and not just a kernel, or just a kernel+drivers, etc.?

Similarly, what constitutes the "self"? Is it just the perception of agency? Is it just possession of memories and a personality? Is it just <insert human thinking trait here>? It seems a lot like "self" == "soul" to most people, in the sense that there's really no solid way to "define" it in any material sense, aside from being merely an emergent effect of disparate brain activity that somehow coordinates together to create an illusion of "self", which is hardly existentially satisfactory. Most people want to be immaterial "things", whether they realize it or not, because the phenomenon of "creeping mechanism" in the brain sciences is scary, since it does away with such things as "self" by offering mechanistic, separated, impersonal explanations for seemingly "willed" actions.

Originally Posted by MrCode It simply means they gain a desire to not act on their initial desires more.

Doesn't sound very convincing. Desire is something you want. But aside from desires there are necessites - i.e. something you need or have to do, even if you don't want it.

Originally Posted by MrCode That's your desires conflicting against each other; whichever one "wins out" in the decision-making process is the one that gets acted upon.

Sounds like an extreme oversimplifcation to me.

Originally Posted by MrCode There's no reason to think the process is non-deterministic, and even if it were, again, it wouldn't place it any more in your "control".

And there's no reason to think that it is deterministic. "clockwork universe" has been disproven. Before getting depressed, you should at least try to make sure your hasty conclusion is correct.

There are 4 possible scenarios regarding free will:

1. There's free will and you think there's free will.
2. There's free will, but you think there's no free will.
3. There's no free will, but you "think" there is.
4. There's no free will, and you "think" there is no free will.

In case #3 and #4 your actions are "beyond your control", so they can be dismissed.
In case #1 you have full control, and know it.
But in case #2 while you have full control, you give up and get depressed for a false reason.

So the best way will be to assume there's free will. If there's no free will, this was meant to happen. If there is free will, then you'll be able to enjoy life to the fullest.

This approach doesn't work for religion, though, because there's more than one possible god, as a result there's too many possible scenarios, and it is not possible to pick "optimal course of action".

By the way:

Kathleen Vohs has found that those whose belief in free will had been eroded were more likely to cheat.[82] Roy Baumeister has observed that disbelief in free will increases aggression and reduces helpfulness.[83] Tyler Stillman has found that belief in free will predicts better job performance.

Originally Posted by MrCode The problem with saying that "you" are in "control" of "your" actions is defining what makes a "you".

This is not related to free will. And frankly it is irrelevant. I do not need to disassemble myself and fully understand what am I. There's no reason for that, and there's little gain from that. I live and I can enjoy the process of living. I exist, and for me that's enough.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Let's assume that free will exist and you've made a program capable of making decisions. A true AI. Does it have free will? It is an algorithm, after all.

Isn't the question is that deterministic? I think the answer is yes. MrCode's point about randomness, I believe, is that either things are deterministic, ie, there is cause and effect, in which case we don't have control in the libertarian sense, or there is no cause and effect, ie, random, in which case we don't have control either. The universe does not appear to run like clockwork, as you mentioned. There seems to be real indeterminacy, at least at the quantum level - whether that is meaningful at the macro level humans live in is debatable - which seems to me to show that the things are not predestined, if we rewound the universe and set it in motion again, I do not think it would have to turn out the same way. But that quantum indeterminacy doesn't offer much in the way of thinking we have libertarian free will, ie, even if our actions were somehow uncaused, that doesn't mean they are under our control.

Now, I'm a compatibilist, which is to say I don't think libertarian free will is necessary to say that our actions are meaningful or that we have moral responsibility.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Desire is something you want. But aside from desires there are necessites - i.e. something you need or have to do, even if you don't want it.

The point is that even in this scenario, you have to "want" to fulfill that "need". In a sense, you could say there is always the "option" of not fulfilling the need; you can always "opt out", excepting possibly situations in which your life is in immediate danger, or other situations involving similarly instinctive/reflexive decision making. Whether you do "opt out" is dependent on your priorities and what you see as being more important.

As an example, you might not want to go to work today, because you may not enjoy your job, but you do anyway because you want to keep your job more, because you want to maintain an income, because you want to be able to survive and make a living. It all comes down to "what do you care about more?".

EDIT: By the way:

This approach doesn't work for religion, though, because there's more than one possible god, as a result there's too many possible scenarios, and it is not possible to pick "optimal course of action".

I couldn't care less about the religious aspect of this whole thing; I'm not arguing for religion here. The only time I join in this proverbial firefight is when people seem to be making statements about the ages-old free will debate.

Originally Posted by SigTerm [*]Religion: "this is the truth, because book says so". "This is good/bad, because book says so". [*]Science: "This is most reliable explanation at this moment, which can be demonstrated by experiment". "If you do "this", you'll have following consequences".

If this is, in fact, a good definition of science, your view is justified if and only if we exclude (by prejudice) every notion of everything outside nature because science can only test things in nature. You would have to judge, prematurely, that nothing exists outside of nature, in order to reject any notion that, as you say, cannot "be demonstrated by experirment--as for example, Scripture. Your blanket rejection of Scripture on the basis that it cannot "be demonstrated by experiment," completely disregards the notion that anything might exist outside nature.