Not so fast. Religions are evolved psychological tools to unify the interests of a group on a shared foundation, so they can negotiate behavior based on collective goals, and to allow the individual to negotiate conflicting behavior within itself.
-
-
-
The problem with these tools is that the price of convergence is breaking the rational epistemology of the individual, but what if that turns out to be the only way to create the convergence required for scalable civilization?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The problem is that we don't have a rigorous proof (that I know of) that a system built on fully enlightened self interest is going to be convergent and stable, and if is, how to get to the stable zone
-
Moralistic reasoners often assume that because the fully enlightened self interest is morally desirable and stability is a requirement, the force field of the moral dimension can constrain the emergent dynamics so they won't lead into oblivion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Religions force you to accept that there is a particular kind of certainty, a sacred purpose, even though it cannot be rationally derived. If you give up this certainty, something infinitely bad happens: everything is meaningless. If you keep it, you cannot discover rationality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Lets first focus on establishing pockets of rationality, and figure out if fully informed rational agents will form stable societies before we wake everybody up.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Separation of church and state is a requirement for pluralism, which is a requirement for coordination without violence. Capitalism has emerged as a temporary local optimum on a trajectory of the rules for negotiation of the conditions of human survival.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There is of course a subtle difference between a society that is built on the rationality of economic interdependence rather than shared purpose. For instance, slaves and slave owners are economically interdependent.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
like the fictional normative prior that bayesian decision theory is a good framework in which to think about anything outside of statistics?
-
We can already derive that all normative priors are invalid.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.