What makes you think that Eliezer personally knows them?

(Though to be fair, I've long suspected that at least Clippy, and possibly others, are actually Eliezer in disguise; Clippy was created immediately after a discussion where one user questioned whether Eliezer's posts received upvotes because of the halo effect or because of their quality, and proposed that Eliezer create anonymous puppets to test this; Clippy's existence has also coincided with a drop in the quantity of Eliezer's posting.)

Showing 3 of 4 replies (Click to show all)

Clippy was created immediately after a discussion where one user questioned whether Eliezer's posts received upvotes because of the halo effect or because of their quality, and proposed that Eliezer create anonymous puppets to test this

Really? User:Clippy's first post was 20 November 2009. Anyone know when the "halo efffect" comment was made?

Also, perhaps check out User:Pebbles (a rather obvious reference to this) - who posted on the same day - and in the same thread. Rather a pity those two didn't make more of an effort to sort out their di... (read more)

1Blueberry9yI don't think Silas thought Eliezer personally knew them, but rather that Eliezer could look at IP addresses and see if they match with any other poster. Of course, this wouldn't work unless the posters in question had separate accounts that they logged into using the same IP address.
4JoshuaZ9yClippy's writing style isn't very similar to Eliezer's. Note that one thing Eliezer has trouble doing is writing in different voices (one of the more common criticisms of HPMR is that a lot of the characters sound similar). I would assign a very low probability to Clippy being Eliezer.

Theists are wrong; is theism?

by Will_Newsome 1 min read20th Jan 2011539 comments

4


Many folk here on LW take the simulation argument (in its more general forms) seriously. Many others take Singularitarianism1 seriously. Still others take Tegmark cosmology (and related big universe hypotheses) seriously. But then I see them proceed to self-describe as atheist (instead of omnitheist, theist, deist, having a predictive distribution over states of religious belief, et cetera), and many tend to be overtly dismissive of theism. Is this signalling cultural affiliation, an attempt to communicate a point estimate, or what?

I am especially confused that the theism/atheism debate is considered a closed question on Less Wrong. Eliezer's reformulations of the Problem of Evil in terms of Fun Theory provided a fresh look at theodicy, but I do not find those arguments conclusive. A look at Luke Muehlhauser's blog surprised me; the arguments against theism are just not nearly as convincing as I'd been brought up to believe2, nor nearly convincing enough to cause what I saw as massive overconfidence on the part of most atheists, aspiring rationalists or no.

It may be that theism is in the class of hypotheses that we have yet to develop a strong enough practice of rationality to handle, even if the hypothesis has non-negligible probability given our best understanding of the evidence. We are becoming adept at wielding Occam's razor, but it may be that we are still too foolhardy to wield Solomonoff's lightsaber Tegmark's Black Blade of Disaster without chopping off our own arm. The literature on cognitive biases gives us every reason to believe we are poorly equipped to reason about infinite cosmology, decision theory, the motives of superintelligences, or our place in the universe.

Due to these considerations, it is unclear if we should go ahead doing the equivalent of philosoraptorizing amidst these poorly asked questions so far outside the realm of science. This is not the sort of domain where one should tread if one is feeling insecure in one's sanity, and it is possible that no one should tread here. Human philosophers are probably not as good at philosophy as hypothetical Friendly AI philosophers (though we've seen in the cases of decision theory and utility functions that not everything can be left for the AI to solve). I don't want to stress your epistemology too much, since it's not like your immortal soul3 matters very much. Does it?

Added: By theism I do not mean the hypothesis that Jehovah created the universe. (Well, mostly.) I am talking about the possibility of agenty processes in general creating this universe, as opposed to impersonal math-like processes like cosmological natural selection.

Added: The answer to the question raised by the post is "Yes, theism is wrong, and we don't have good words for the thing that looks a lot like theism but has less unfortunate connotations, but we do know that calling it theism would be stupid." As to whether this universe gets most of its reality fluid from agenty creators... perhaps we will come back to that argument on a day with less distracting terminology on the table.

 


 

1 Of either the 'AI-go-FOOM' or 'someday we'll be able to do lots of brain emulations' variety.

2 I was never a theist, and only recently began to question some old assumptions about the likelihood of various Creators. This perhaps either lends credibility to my interest, or lends credibility to the idea that I'm insane.

Or the set of things that would have been translated to Archimedes by the Chronophone as the equivalent of an immortal soul (id est, whatever concept ends up being actually significant).

4