Ep 242: Is religion worth preserving?

  Woke is a rejection of the truth, the good, the beautiful. Is the best response a return to traditional religion? Are some dogmas worth defending?

A summary of some arguments made in the previous 4 parts, and a conclusion to my evaluation of https://ai-2027.com I refer to Daniel Kokotajlo's paper which contained an earlier set of predictions made in 2021 about the 5 years leading to 2026 which is found here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/what-2026-looks-like Note that Part 4 is here: https://youtu.be/C3jDjuSLBv0 Part 3 is here: https://youtu.be/7P-UlHiTins Part 2 is here: https://youtu.be/o3Rdj37UJjw Part 1 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ Credit to  ⁨@drpeterboghossian⁩  for the inspiration,  ⁨@NavalR⁩  for the support and  ⁨@DavidDeutschPhysicist⁩  for many of the arguments made with errors, as always, my own.

Note that Part 3 is episode 239 or can be found here: https://youtu.be/7P-UlHiTins Part 2 is here: https://youtu.be/o3Rdj37UJjw Part 1 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ I react to the contents of this article https://ai-2027.com

Episode 238 contains Part 2 of this podcast and Episode 237 is Part 1. Also all parts are available on Youtube as almost always. Eg here for part 2: https://youtu.be/o3Rdj37UJjw Part 1 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ   I am reacting to the contents of this article https://ai-2027.com

Note that Part 1 is found in Episode 237 or can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ   I react to the contents of this article https://ai-2027.com with some further general comments on ‪@DwarkeshPatel‬ 's interview with two of the authors here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htOvH12T7mU

I react to the contents of this article https://ai-2027.com with some further general comments on ‪@DwarkeshPatel‬ 's interview with two of the authors here:    • 2027 Intelligence Explosion: Month-by...     Youtube version of this podcast is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_txKy-XMQ

Max is a tax lawyer who is applying Popperian epistemology to legal science and issues in AI. Links to some more of his work, and the slides to accompany part of this video are below. Slides for Max's talk(s): https://www.bretthall.org/popper-and-legal-science.html Max’s journal article on AI with Eric Marcus (in NLFiscaal TaxTech): NLFiscaal | Problems in AI, their roots in philosophy, and implications for science and society: https://www.nlfiscaal.nl/nlfiscaal-doc/BEEAD89DD9E44E81B23811716258A4C4 Slides to accompany: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7290619876879028225/ Made possible with support from, and In association with, https://nav.al

This is a "megasode" combining two episodes from Youtube all about the Simulation Hypothesis. In the first part I provide the philosophical basis for the simulation hypothesis as explained especially by Nick Bostrom and compare it to other "ultimate" explanations of reality. In part 2 I discuss and evaluate the arguments made by Scott Adams and Joe Rogan who endorse some version of Bostrom's argument.

I recently had the opportunity to participate in "Spectrum Street Epistemology" with  @drpeterboghossian  and a number of others including  @destiny  . This episode was inspired by both that event and the many other conversations I had with Peter, Reid, David, Evan, Mia and Travis across the days I spent in Florida with those excellent people engaged in the important work of defending the Enlightenment. This is a sort of disjointed episode as I have in mind a particular audience of sophisticated thinkers on epistemology so I meander through my own worldview, take a historic look at why it is "belief" and "degrees of belief" or "strength of feeling", "confidence" and so on arose and became an important improvement on more primitive ways of thinking about the world. I compare all of that to what I argue is the most rational way of conceiving of "critical thinking". I end with some personal reflections. If you go to Peter's channel I imagine the many conversations we recorded together will be gradually released in the coming days and weeks. Compared to what I do here: their's is a very professional production! The videos accompanying the audio are a mixture of my own poorly shot camera work and stock footage - just so the viewer does not have to stare at nothing but my head for ~40 minutes. 00:00 Introductions 01:00 Are humans unique…just like every other species? 03:45 We are 98% the same as chimpanzees? 07:00 Was there an “Adam” - a first person? 09:00 The first creative minds 10:10 The evolution of authoritarianism 12:30 Medieval societies vs primitive tribalism 13:20 Early individualism, empiricism, rationalism and reason 16:10 Empiricism, rationalism and inductivism as “appeals to authority” 18:25 Belief and the weight of evidence 21:00 “Updating one’s priors”. 22:20 The God of the Subjectivism 23:30 Fossils 26:04 Better ways of thinking 29:00 Knowing and believing 31:00 Moving beyond “degrees of belief” and subjectivism 32:00 Knowledge: what it is 34:00 Knowing is binary 36:00 Reason is more than feeling 36:55 Reflecting on Spectrum Street Epistemology 41:05 Gratitude and acknowledgements

The first part of my discussion of the differing visions of science and how scientific knowledge "grows" (or not) according to Thomas Kuhn vs Karl Popper as outlined in this chapter of "The Beginning of Infinity". Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" explains the concept of a "paradigm" and "paradigm shifts" comparing "revolutionary" and "normal" periods of science. Kuhn's work remains the most cited in the social sciences and so far more people - especially in academia - are familiar with his work that Popper's. What explains this? What does Kuhn have to say? And what does a "critical rationalist" perspective on the growth of knowledge have to say in response to Kuhn?