Domination of RenaissanceMan; atheism, masculinity, rational

RenaissanceMan
Banquo: Actaully, I completely agree with Fen. Although I still don't have a solution.  Religion seems to be impermeable to reason.
LittleWing` has joined (~LittleWin@ip68-103-228-226.ks.ok.cox.net)
Profound has changed mode: +v LittleWing`
LittleWing`
How do you know?
LittleWing`
;)
bradmaj has joined (~bradmaj@h165.172.22.98.static.ip.windstream.net)
Profound has changed mode: +v bradmaj
LittleWing` is now known as Ham_
K-Pax
Not all religion is impermeable to reason, in my view.
K-Pax
I am an atheist.
K-Pax
I think you may be restricting your definition of religion to include the property 'impermeable to reason'.
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: Are you familiar with acausal decision theory?
bradmaj
say no!!
K-Pax
bradmaj is a known causal decision theorist.
K-Pax
And his time is almost up.
bradmaj
this may be true, but probably ins't
K-Pax
Acausal decision is a form of reason-based religion in an important way.
K-Pax
Acausal decision theory is a form of reason-based religion in an important way.
K-Pax
bradmaj intercepted my post and is now stealing words from me.
K-Pax
Real classy guy.
bradmaj
yur posts aren't worth intercepting
bradmaj
take it from me
deusexc has left IRC (Ping timeout)
bradmaj
BS_Lewis, I'll wait till I realy need it
kiwi_51 has left IRC (Quit: Connection closed)
K-Pax
bradmaj: Are you familiar with acausal decision theory?
deusexc has joined (~deus-ex-a@mobile-166-173-187-22.mycingular.net)
Profound has changed mode: +v deusexc
bradmaj
K-Pax, I'm familiar with evrything. Including string theory and Boolean logic.
K-Pax
Acausal decision theory is a contemporary, mathematics-derived idea that results in the same outcomes as heaven-backed theism.
K-Pax
There are at least two important interpretations of this:
K-Pax
1) Theism is a very deep modality in human psychology and is re-created by individuals even when they ostensibly think they're doing something else
K-Pax
2) Historical theism is to be understood as a non-mathematical, intuitive form of acausal decision theory, indicating all religions with an afterlife whose qualities vary depending on life performance can be steelmanned into a reason-based ideology, thereby refuting RenaissanceMan's claim
K-Pax
I think one is reasonably inapplicable in this case, lest we find ourself never being able to prove that an apparently non-theistic system is a hidden theistic system, rendering such classification meaningless.
K-Pax
Example:
bradmaj
oh great.. xamples
bradmaj wanders off to watch "Gilligan's Island"
K-Pax
"You should behave this was as it is correct." "But, I'll gain more if I don't behave that way." "In this life, sure, but not in the forever-life administered by SkyJudge." "I'm incentivized to set aside immediate gain I can definitely be sure of (i.e. causally) for a deferred gain I'm unsure about (i.e. acausally)?" "Yes."
K-Pax
bradmaj: I put you on block for three days for disdaining philosophy.
K-Pax
A most ignoble offense.
bradmaj
I was promised INFINITY!!!
axelf`
The family car is on blocks
axelf`
he always says someone is on "block"
K-Pax
That first example shows the core of traditional, afterlife-backed theism.
axelf`
I think this is part of his trolling schtick
K-Pax
Now, for an example in acausal decision theory:
ForexTrader has joined (~fogq@cpe-66-108-73-92.nyc.res.rr.com)
Profound has changed mode: +v ForexTrader
axelf`
thank goodness we have ForexTrader now, this chat needed more misogyny
ForexTrader is now known as Guest39531
axelf` is now known as axelf
K-Pax
"There are a range of problems for which classical decision theory based off expected value calculations fail. There is no none solution." "That is annoying. We know that is an inefficient state of affairs. What can we do?" "Well, we are aware of this inefficiency. We can now just commit to behaving in a manner such that we don't find ourselves trapped in Nash equilibria." "But, if I know that you're doing that, I can
K-Pax
take advantage of you, of course, returning us to the original dilemma." "You can, but you can choose to not do that." "What is my incentive for doing that?" "If you refuse to do that, specifically relying only on this argument we're constructing, then anybody aware of this argument will recognize they're in the same dilemma. In this way, we'll all have equivalent reasoning minds. So, what you do, only here, determin
K-Pax
es for are all other minds that have reached this point of thought what the nature of all such minds shall be forever into the past, in the present everywhere spatially, and forever into the future. What universe do you wish to live in? Now, you just lamented that you're aware causal decision theory won't remove you from your Nash equilibria, and so this is the only way out."
K-Pax
That form of reasoning is essentially identical to worrying about Hades and Elysium.
SirOsOriS is now known as danivampi
K-Pax
no known solution*
Guest39531 is now known as ForexTrader
RenaissanceMan
Probably need to find a replacement term for Nash Equilibrium. What distiniguishes Nash Equilibriums from plain old ordinary equilibriums is that they are non-exploitable.
K-Pax
Non-exploitable by a single player.
K-Pax
Who is doing expected value calculations.
K-Pax
Acausal decision theory transcends that, and can move the system out of a Nash equilibrium, and the individual acts in accordance with the policy that is best for the system, i.e. they imagine themselves the universal law maker aka Kant's categorical imperative aka they're in a one-player game vis-a-vis Nash equilibria.
RenaissanceMan
Well. Mutli-player games often don't have Nash Equilibria. But what make a Nash Equilibrium a Nash Equilibrium is that it is non-exploitable. Regardless of how many players.
K-Pax
A Nash equilibrium is a game state in which no player acting *unilaterally* can improve the game state in regards to their personal utility function.
K-Pax
Acausal decision isn't aiming to do that.
K-Pax
It's modifying the player's utility function consistent with a universal policy that acausally modifies the utility function of all players with a given criteria.
K-Pax
Specifically, they're aware of this argument.
deusexc has left IRC (Ping timeout)
ULF has joined (~Mibbit@cpe-70-121-197-185.satx.res.rr.com)
Profound has changed mode: +v ULF
RenaissanceMan
You have to eat cucumber sandwiches. And Marmite
Ham_
mmmmmm
K-Pax
Looks like all finite games have at least one Nash equilbrium.
RenaissanceMan
Plus you have eat pancakes on shrove tuesday. But the lent bit no longer applies.
K-Pax
Though, not necessarily a pure strategy version, which doesn't seem relevant here.
K-Pax
Probability seems an important component of policies/strategies which are acausally determined.
K-Pax
For example, maximizing utility in the '1/20 game'.
K-Pax
(20 people write down a 0 or 1 on a card. If exactly one person writes a 1, that person receives 100% of the winnings)
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: I wish you didn't descend into silliness so easily.
K-Pax
Generally, people do that when they 'need a break'.
RenaissanceMan
bradmaj: Shrove Tuesday is the day before the start of lent. The purpose of the exercise is that you use up someting or another you're not supposed to eat during lent by making pancakes.
RenaissanceMan
Not honestly sure what. I wanna say flour, but that I can't imagine that one has to give up flour for lent.
RenaissanceMan
But whatever it is you're not supposed to during lent, episcopaleans (and anglicans) ignore that bit now.
RenaissanceMan
bradmaj: There you go. Probably fat. :-) Use up all your fat making pancakes.
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: You seem a lot less interested in learning than I previously assessed.
K-Pax
Has anything changed in your life?
RenaissanceMan
bradmaj: fwiw, the catholic version of shrove tuesday sounds a lot more fun. But Anglicans are Protestants. So pancakes, instead of dancing topless in the streets of new orleans.
K-Pax
You just made a claim about a possible characteristic of religious thought, as an atheist.
K-Pax
Another atheist, is extremely qualified to potentially teach you something makes an excellent case for how you might be wrong.
K-Pax
And you appear not care less.
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: You kind of lost me at "acausal reasoning".
K-Pax
Are you not familiar with that concept, then?
RenaissanceMan
lol BS_Lewis
K-Pax
My first question was "are you familiar with".
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: I'm not sure I want to be familiar with that concept.
K-Pax
Why?
RenaissanceMan
Because reasoning that doesn't involve causailty sounds a lot like superstition.
K-Pax
I see.
RenaissanceMan
Althoughe even superstion assumes causaity. So something worse than superstition.
K-Pax
And the fact that I'm one of the smartest people you've ever met in your lifetime doesn't give you some pause that you should be open to learning at this point?
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: Your IQ is about 150, right?
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: I have met a lot of smart people.
K-Pax
I know.
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: My IQ is unmeasurable.
K-Pax
Are you unwilling to discuss your IQ?
RenaissanceMan
As is anybody's IQ that's much above 135.
ULF has left IRC (Quit: https://mibbit.com Online IRC Client)
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: There's some truth to that.
K-Pax
Well, as a person with an IQ around 150, there aren't going to be so many people who can teach you things, right.
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: I got perfect on an IQ test once. Which gives me a score of 158.
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: I'm sure uyou can see the problem with that.
K-Pax
So you should probably be pretty interested in developing your ability to detect smart people and then learning from them at a higher rate.
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: Not necessarily.
K-Pax
The test could just haver a ceiling of 158 (or somewhat less).
K-Pax
have
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: The thing you learn about smart people is that not all of them are pleasant people.
kiwi_51 has joined (~4443fa2c@68.67.250.44)
Profound has changed mode: +v kiwi_51
kiwi_51 has left IRC (Client closed connection)
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: I don't know if smart people are unpleasant at a higher rate than non-smart people.
K-Pax
But that doesn't seem relevant here.
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: And I'm pretty sure you're not in my top 10. Quite sure.
K-Pax
You have a fear about 'acausal reasoning'.
RenaissanceMan
As a matter of fact. I have met a lot of smart people.
kiwi_81 has joined (~4443fa2c@68.67.250.44)
Profound has changed mode: +v kiwi_81
K-Pax
Your fear about acausal reasoning is poorly founded, given my high intelligence.
kiwi_81
my son got spanked, and he wasn't smoking then
K-Pax
My potential pleasantness is a non sequitur (but highly important for other important things in life).
kiwi_81
yeah the dansons son
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: Acausal reasoning follows me clear and important premises.
kiwi_81
yeah i like my son
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: I think you understimate the importance of potential pleasantness in IRC chat.
K-Pax
"There exist known games for which causal decision theory/expected value calculations cannot reach optimal solutions."
kiwi_81
i was so old when i spanked him
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: That depends on the personality of the received, to be sure.
kiwi_81
there was no pool for the police then
kiwi_81
the dad is in charge
K-Pax
I've always felt that putting pleasantness before intelligence was part of the mark of the ordinary man.
K-Pax
'Be my friend, then I'll value your thoughts.'
K-Pax
That largely seems backwards to me.
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: You're not going to teach me antyhing about game theory, I'm afraid.
kiwi_81
if you say god
kiwi_81
then your acting like the kid
kiwi_81
he's the one who was hurt
K-Pax
My model of intimacy is, 'Show me your value, and I'll learn to like you above general guidelines on dignity, etc.'.
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: Why am I not going to teach you anything about game theory?
kiwi_81
no that is not fair
kiwi_81
you don't like people who fight
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: Because I know game theory pretty well.
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: You appear to know game theory pretty well.
K-Pax
My goal isn't to teach you something about game theory.
K-Pax
My goal is to teach you about acausal decision theory.
K-Pax
Which arose as a response to problems/outcomes in expected value calculations and game theoric analyses of games.
K-Pax
For example, the one-shot prisoner's dilemma and its various applications.
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: Spare me. Please.
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: Do you agree your last post was a fallacy?
K-Pax
Recall, the topic is 'Why is RenaissanceMan afraid to learn about "acausal reasoning" from K-Pax'.
K-Pax
I am learning something pretty powerful from this interaction.
K-Pax
Here is what I am learning, RenaissanceMan.
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: You are one of the smartest people I have ever met. Your IQ is clearly a solid 150 or more.
K-Pax
Your education and ability to reason are fantastic. I have admired it for a long period of time.
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: because you don't really seem to understand what a Nash Equilibrium is.
K-Pax
Apparently, my ability to reason, not commit fallacies, and to maintain integrity, which I previously assessed as 'about the same as RenaissanceMan', is considerably higher.
K-Pax
I have committed zero fallacies in this dialogue, for example.
K-Pax
You've committed several.
K-Pax
I have not yet exhausted my intellectual curiosity or patience.
K-Pax
You have, apparently.
RenaissanceMan
K-Pax: I'm just going to put you on ignore now. Don't let me interrupt.
shrayz has joined (~Mer0vingi@122.180.207.237)
K-Pax
I am disappointed in this outcome. I wish you were my peer all of the time.
Profound has changed mode: +v shrayz
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: Your last post about my not really understanding a Nash equilibrium is highly fallacious.
RenaissanceMan
Sorry if the rest of you are going to have to put with the ensuing rant.
K-Pax
Between the two of us, in this dialogue, I have actually provided the more precise definition.
K-Pax
Which isn't to say that you can't do better, but, so far, you have not done better.
QST has changed mode: +l-b 67 *!*uid374025@*.irccloud.com
K-Pax
At X:57, I posted the following:
K-Pax
K-Pax
K-Pax
A Nash equilibrium is a game state in which no player acting *unilaterally* can improve the game state in regards to their personal utility function.
K-Pax
Now, let's check the definition on Wikipedia.
K-Pax
First, here's a dictionary definition: "(in economics and game theory) a stable state of a system involving the interaction of different participants, in which no participant can gain by a unilateral change of strategy if the strategies of the others remain unchanged."
K-Pax
That appears to be semantically identical to my definition.
K-Pax
Informally, a strategy profile is a Nash equilibrium if no player can do better by unilaterally changing her/his strategy. To see what this means, imagine that each player is told the strategies of the others. Suppose then that each player asks themselves: "Knowing the strategies of the other players, and treating the strategies of the other players as set in stone, can I benefit by changing my strategy?"
K-Pax
That provides some extra qualities to my definition.
K-Pax
My definition of Nash equilibrium appears to be quite excellent, though, of course, it's improvable.
K-Pax
RenaissanceMan: I put you on ignore for one weak for the following reasons: 1) There are times when you're irrationally uninterested in learning, 2) you too easily emotionally collapse into notions of 'pleasantness' and other non-rational assessments instead of setting aside personal preferences and staying focused on the correct things you're supposed to learn from the other.
K-Pax
week*
K-Pax
Ironically, this is a kind of irrationality you were decrying with your quick assessment of religion as being 'impermeable to reason'.
K-Pax
That is, you acted out the religious metaphysics in our conversation, partially, while I was an exemplar for the atheistic metaphysics.
K-Pax
There's one last argument here about atheistic metaphysics that is sophisticated, but I am having trouble articulating it.
K-Pax
It's a synthesis of models of masculinity, stoicism, LaVeyan Satanism, libertarianism, and Nietzsche's critique of Christian ethics as slave ethics.
K-Pax
I think it would go something like this: Another way we can see that you partially acted out religious metaphysics, while I acted out atheistic metaphysics in response to your observation/lamentation that religion is necessarily impermeable to reason is that you more highly emphasized the personality qualities of the speaker, whereas I more greatly emphasized the intellectual content of the speaker independent of how
K-Pax
you personally feel about that person. The former is often seem in feminine models of ethics, whereas my approach is more commonly seem in putative masculine models of ethics.
K-Pax
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development#Critiques
K-Pax
A critique of Kohlberg's theory is that it emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values and so may not adequately address the arguments of those who value other moral aspects of actions. Carol Gilligan, in her book In a Different Voice, has argued that Kohlberg's theory is excessively androcentric.[12] Kohlberg's theory was initially based on empirical research using only male participants; Gilligan argued that
K-Pax
it did not adequately describe the concerns of women.[23] Kohlberg stated that women tend to get stuck at level 3, being primarily concerned with details of how to maintain relationships and promote the welfare of family and friends. Men are likely to move on to the abstract principles and thus have less concern with the particulars of who is involved.[24]
K-Pax
That is the basis of my intimation regarding masculinity.
K-Pax
The stoicism angle is that stoicism is one of the classical version of atheistic emotionality, relationship theory, and how to live. Stoicism would advise, it seems, to not fret too much about another's pleasantness and instead focus on the content of their argumentation, especially in a digital setting without the intimate qualities of sound of voice and facial expressions.
tzipsaway has left IRC (Client closed connection)
icequeen81 has joined (~qwebirc@cpe-74-129-18-255.kya.res.rr.com)
Profound has changed mode: +v icequeen81
K-Pax
The Nietzschean angle is that due to historical patriarchy post-agriculatural revolution, we can reasonably equate 'slave' with the feminine and 'master' with the masculine. Notably, stoicism is often describe as masculine, whereas relationship-centric models are more often considered feminine, partially due to arbitrary cultural practices, and partially due to varying life strategies between men and women in the dimo
K-Pax
rphism of Homo sapiens. That is, your relationship-centric analysis can be compared to the feminine which can be compared to the slave which can be compared to the religious, whereas my approach be considered masculine which can be equated to master which can be equated to the post-religious.
kiwi_81 has left ()
icequeen81 has left ()
K-Pax
The libertarian angle is probably reasonably covered by the stoicism approach, but, in short it would be that right-libertarianism in the USA is male-dominated and features high rates of rationality -- the highest average IQ between libertarian, liberal, and conservative -- along with the lowest levels of empathy of the three. High IQ, low empathy, male-libertarianism is also reasonably correlated with atheism and can
K-Pax
be considered living in the lineage of Lucifer/master/power/self as opposed to God/submission/humility/collective.
K-Pax
I'm struggling most with the LaVeyan satanism component.
AYamSofaKingdom has left IRC (Ping timeout)
QST has changed mode: +l 64
K-Pax
Finally, that connects us to LaVeyan satanism, an atheistic secular-religion which marries elements of the anti-traditional/irrational religion of your original claim, in their exaltation of Luciferian qualities over Godly qualities, would more closely align with the values I demonstrated, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism#The_Nine_Satanic_Sins, specifically avoiding sins 4) self-deceit and 5) herd c
K-Pax
onformity (which you showed greater amounts of in regards to your false witness on Nash equilibria and 'pleasantness' in the scope of debate about the nature of a non-self object, i.e. religion, respectivley), coupled again with its focus on masculinty -- the eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth seemed to be mostly from the perspective of a male follower -- coupled with its interest in the Age of Enlightenment, coupled w
K-Pax
ith its interest in developing power, i.e. not 'wilting' or retreating from a debate in which you're clearly being at least equally matched, as was the case in our dialogue. That is to say, there are many ways to interpret your ending the dialgoue, but certainly the feminine/avoiding of conflict/fatigue and abandoning those qualities in the other you are not to learn from while learning from those qualities you are to
K-Pax
learn from
K-Pax
is definitely one perspective with partial insight.
Publios has changed mode: -v K-Pax
james_- has joined (~path@c-73-11-248-197.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Profound has changed mode: +v james_-
Ham_ takes K-Pax's soapbox away
Ham_ burns it
K-Pax
So, in conclusion, I have presented two classic atheistic system of norms and mores and demonstrated that I acted more consistently with atheistic rationality, while arguing for the possibility of rational theism, while you acted more consistent with religious irrationality, while arguing for the inability of religion to be rational. Ironic.