This is a special post for quick takes by [anonymous]. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Buddhists claim that they can put brains in a global maximum of happiness, called enlightenment. Assuming that EA aims to maximize happiness plain and simple, this claim should be taken seriously. It currently takes decades for most people to reach an enlightened state. If some sort of medical intervention can reduce this to mere months, this might drive mass adoption and create a huge amount of utility.
But could you explain why you think wireheading is bad? Besides, I don't think the comparison is completely justified. Enlightenment isn't just claimed to increase happiness, but also intelligence and morality.
I don't think "if you do this you'll be super happy (while still alive)" is comparable to "if you do this you'll be super happy (after you die)". The former is testable, and I have close friends who have already fully verified it for themselves. I've also noticed in myself a superlinear relation between meditation time and likelihood to be in a state of bliss, and I have no reason to think this relation won't hold when I meditate even more.
The buddha also urged people to go and verify his claims themselves. It seems that the mystic (good) part of buddhism is much more prominent than the organised religion (bad) part, compared to christianity.
-3garbageactual
It seems contradictory to preach enlightenment since you could be working towards enlightenment instead of preaching. Evangelical Christians don't have that issue.
Pascal was right, Christianity is the rational choice, even compared to all other religions.