Health and Religion

[Astargath]

Religious upbringing may be protective factor for health, well-being in early adulthood
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2018/09/17/raising-kids-with-religion-or-spirituality-may-protect-their-mental-health-study/#68c6ba2c3287

A new study from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health finds that kids and teens who are raised with religious or spiritual practices tend to have better health and mental health as they age. But not to worry if you’re not a service-attender. The research, published last week in the American Journal of Epidemiology, finds that people who prayed or meditated on their own time also reaped similar benefits, including lower risk of substance abuse and depression later on.

The team looked at data from 5,000 people taking part in the long-term Nurses' Health Study II and its next generation Growing Up Today Study (GUTS). They were interested in whether the frequency with which a child/teen attended religious services with their parents or prayed/meditated on their own was correlated with their health and mental health as they grew into their 20s. The young people were followed for anywhere from eight to 14 years.

It turned out that those who attended religious services at least once a week as children or teens were about 18% more likely to report being happier in their 20s than those who never attended services. They were also almost 30% more likely to do volunteer work and 33% less likely to use drugs in their 20s as well.

But what was interesting was that it wasn’t just about how much a person went to services, but it was at least as much about how much they prayed or meditated in their own time. Those who prayed or meditated every day also had more life satisfaction, were better able to process emotions, and were more forgiving compared to those who never prayed/meditated. They were also less likely to have sex at an earlier age and to have a sexually transmitted infection.

"These findings are important for both our understanding of health and our understanding of parenting practices," said study author Ying Chen. "Many children are raised religiously, and our study shows that this can powerfully affect their health behaviors, mental health, and overall happiness and well-being."

Lying to kids about certain things can be good, however it doesn't mean it's true.

[CoinCube]

Lying to kids about certain things can be good, however it doesn't mean it's true.

Yes well I think we agree to disagree on whether the existence of God is truth or not.
That was not the focus of this particular study just the health effects of such a belief on one's children.

There have been posters in this thread who have argued that teaching of Christianity or Judiasm to ones children is child abuse.

The data in this study shows that children raised in a religious environment are (on average) happier into adulthood less likely to do drugs, report more life satisfaction, are less likely to have sex at an early age, and less likely to have a sexually transmitted infection.

I enrolled my children in a private Christian school this year Seventh Day Adventists. So far I am happy with this choice.

[Astargath]

Lying to kids about certain things can be good, however it doesn't mean it's true.

Yes well I think we agree to disagree on whether the existence of God is truth or not.
That was not the focus of this particular study just the health effects of such a belief on one's children.

There have been posters in this thread who have argued that teaching of Christianity or Judiasm to ones children is child abuse.

The data in this study shows that children raised in a religious environment are (on average) happier into adulthood less likely to do drugs, report more life satisfaction, are less likely to have sex at an early age, and less likely to have a sexually transmitted infection.

I enrolled my children in a private Christian school this year Seventh Day Adventists. So far I am happy with this choice.

I'm sure they are happy, however humanity wouldn't have advanced if it wasn't for science. Not to say that there aren't scientists who believe in god, there are, quite a lot but certainly way less than the average population. Religion individually can be good because you think god will always help you and even if you die, you go to heaven, so it's a win/win. However as a society, religion isn't good, you don't need religion to be morally good. We wouldn't go to mars if everyone was religious because why would we? Why would we do anything at all, who cares, we are all going to heaven.

[CoinCube]

I'm sure they are happy, however humanity wouldn't have advanced if it wasn't for science. Not to say that there aren't scientists who believe in god, there are, quite a lot but certainly way less than the average population. Religion individually can be good because you think god will always help you and even if you die, you go to heaven, so it's a win/win. However as a society, religion isn't good, you don't need religion to be morally good. We wouldn't go to mars if everyone was religious because why would we? Why would we do anything at all, who cares, we are all going to heaven.

We simply disagree about religion and science.

While there have certainly been conflicts between organized religion and science over the years the belief that religion is fundamentally in conflict with science is untrue.

Over the long run scientific progress ultimately depends on a culture that both acknowledges the existence of truth and sustaines a value structure that treasures it.

Progress also requires a social structure that promotes cooperation over exploration enabling discovered truth to be harnessed for good. The foundation that facilitates these things in a human society is the shared first principles of said society.

For the west that foundation is a belief in God though this is not widely understood or acknowledged. Reject God and you gut both the basis for a belief in non subjective truth as well as the framework that promotes cooperation over exploitation.

[CoinCube]

you don't need religion to be morally good.

I disagree. Here is a short little video that eloquently describes the problem of defining good and evil without God.

I linked to it a few months ago during a debate on objective morality so you may have seen it already.

Can You Be Good Without God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

[Astargath]

I'm sure they are happy, however humanity wouldn't have advanced if it wasn't for science. Not to say that there aren't scientists who believe in god, there are, quite a lot but certainly way less than the average population. Religion individually can be good because you think god will always help you and even if you die, you go to heaven, so it's a win/win. However as a society, religion isn't good, you don't need religion to be morally good. We wouldn't go to mars if everyone was religious because why would we? Why would we do anything at all, who cares, we are all going to heaven.

We simply disagree about religion and science.

While there have certainly been conflicts between organized religion and science over the years the belief that religion is fundamentally in conflict with science is untrue.

Over the long run scientific progress ultimately depends on a culture that both acknowledges the existence of truth and sustaines a value structure that treasures it.

Progress also requires a social structure that promotes cooperation over exploration enabling discovered truth to be harnessed for good. The foundation that facilitates these things in a human society is the shared first principles of said society.

For the west that foundation is a belief in God though this is not widely understood or acknowledged. Reject God and you gut both the basis for a belief in non subjective truth as well as the framework that promotes cooperation over exploitation.

Let me give you a really cool example that Ricky Gervais once told someone. If we take any book of fiction, or any holy book and destroyed it, that in 1000 years wouldn't come back as it was but if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed it, in 1000 years it would come back because all the same tests would be the same results. I don't need religion or faith and you don't either.

[CoinCube]

Let me give you a really cool example that Ricky Gervais once told someone. If we take any book of fiction, or any holy book and destroyed it, that in 1000 years wouldn't come back as it was but if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed it, in 1000 years it would come back because all the same tests would be the same results. I don't need religion or faith and you don't either.

Science when property done describes objective immutable physical reality or at least our best understanding of it. Destroy all of science and you would have a technological dark age. If we avoided extinction yes we would eventually rediscover those truths as objective reality is not gone but patiently waits to be redescribed.

The moral universe is just as real and objective as the physical universe destroy our understanding of it and you would again have another more horrifying type of dark age. In the unlikely event we survived such a scenario fundamental truth and reality would again eventually reemerge as objective truth does not change just because we have forgotten it.

[BADecker]

Let me give you a really cool example that Ricky Gervais once told someone. If we take any book of fiction, or any holy book and destroyed it, that in 1000 years wouldn't come back as it was but if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed it, in 1000 years it would come back because all the same tests would be the same results. I don't need religion or faith and you don't either.

Let me give you some very important facts. There are ancient, almost 2,000-year-old copies, or fragments of copies, of the New Testament, that show that there were at about 25,000 copies of the N.T. back then. Today there are billions of copies of the N.T.

If there had been no development of a printing press, or other print-making media, there would still be 25,000+ (and probably in excess of 100,000) hand copies of the N.T., but there would be only (at best) a handful of copies of any particular, scientific writing.

Even today, the Bible is probably the book that has been published the most... 5 or 6 billion copies.

So, why? If the Bible came only to, say, 1 billion, it might be in the range of other, major writings. But the fact that it is way ahead of other writings, shows that there is something compelling about the Bible.

The idea that in 1,000 years religion wouldn't come back is something that is irrelevant. Why? You aren't going to destroy the Bible no matter how you try. So, the whole question is fictional.



As for faith, you need it because you don't know what will happen in the next minute. You have faith in whatever... call it fate, or the design of the universe, or happenstance, or God... faith that things will go on as well in the future as they have in the past. And you hope that they will. So as Saint Paul says, "These three remain, faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

[Astargath]

Let me give you a really cool example that Ricky Gervais once told someone. If we take any book of fiction, or any holy book and destroyed it, that in 1000 years wouldn't come back as it was but if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed it, in 1000 years it would come back because all the same tests would be the same results. I don't need religion or faith and you don't either.

Let me give you some very important facts. There are ancient, almost 2,000-year-old copies, or fragments of copies, of the New Testament, that show that there were at about 25,000 copies of the N.T. back then. Today there are billions of copies of the N.T.

If there had been no development of a printing press, or other print-making media, there would still be 25,000+ (and probably in excess of 100,000) hand copies of the N.T., but there would be only (at best) a handful of copies of any particular, scientific writing.

Even today, the Bible is probably the book that has been published the most... 5 or 6 billion copies.

So, why? If the Bible came only to, say, 1 billion, it might be in the range of other, major writings. But the fact that it is way ahead of other writings, shows that there is something compelling about the Bible.

The idea that in 1,000 years religion wouldn't come back is something that is irrelevant. Why? You aren't going to destroy the Bible no matter how you try. So, the whole question is fictional.



As for faith, you need it because you don't know what will happen in the next minute. You have faith in whatever... call it fate, or the design of the universe, or happenstance, or God... faith that things will go on as well in the future as they have in the past. And you hope that they will. So as Saint Paul says, "These three remain, faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Of course it's fictional. The idea is that if we forgot everything we know right now and everything was destroyed, we would simply re discover all the science again, however all the science fiction books, religious books, etc etc would not appear again, at least not exactly the same.

[BADecker]

Let me give you a really cool example that Ricky Gervais once told someone. If we take any book of fiction, or any holy book and destroyed it, that in 1000 years wouldn't come back as it was but if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed it, in 1000 years it would come back because all the same tests would be the same results. I don't need religion or faith and you don't either.

Let me give you some very important facts. There are ancient, almost 2,000-year-old copies, or fragments of copies, of the New Testament, that show that there were at about 25,000 copies of the N.T. back then. Today there are billions of copies of the N.T.

If there had been no development of a printing press, or other print-making media, there would still be 25,000+ (and probably in excess of 100,000) hand copies of the N.T., but there would be only (at best) a handful of copies of any particular, scientific writing.

Even today, the Bible is probably the book that has been published the most... 5 or 6 billion copies.

So, why? If the Bible came only to, say, 1 billion, it might be in the range of other, major writings. But the fact that it is way ahead of other writings, shows that there is something compelling about the Bible.

The idea that in 1,000 years religion wouldn't come back is something that is irrelevant. Why? You aren't going to destroy the Bible no matter how you try. So, the whole question is fictional.



As for faith, you need it because you don't know what will happen in the next minute. You have faith in whatever... call it fate, or the design of the universe, or happenstance, or God... faith that things will go on as well in the future as they have in the past. And you hope that they will. So as Saint Paul says, "These three remain, faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Of course it's fictional. The idea is that if we forgot everything we know right now and everything was destroyed, we would simply re discover all the science again, however all the science fiction books, religious books, etc etc would not appear again, at least not exactly the same.

The thing that is fictional is everything that flow's out of your "if... ." Why? Because there is no known way to do your "if..." things. So, how can anybody even come close to knowing what would happen if your "if..." things came into being? You are simply talking nonsense.

[CoinCube]

10 reasons not to give your child – or teen – a smartphone
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/10-reasons-not-to-give-your-child-or-teen-a-smartphone

December 18, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The responses to my column last week detailing the horrific story of a boy who engaged in porn-inspired sexual molestation of his young nieces after accessing porn on his iPhone have indicated once again that many parents simply do not want to recognize the dangers that smartphones pose to their children.

Over and over again, commenters made genuinely stupid and ill-thought-out assertions, such as “You must be a Luddite!” Obviously, one does not have to be opposed to technology to recognize the dangers of some devices. We all agree that children should not drive cars, because it is not safe. We are not anti-car just because we do not think everyone should be able to drive them at a young age.

Additionally, many people seemed unaware of the fact that pornography has mainstreamed sexual violence, and that the vast majority of young people access porn on their cell phones. These are unfortunate realities, and I could tell you hundreds of stories of children accessing porn on phones at incredibly young ages, often impacting their lives for years into the future.

I could provide you with 20, but for today, here are just 10 reasons you shouldn’t give your child a smartphone:

1. Many parents harbor the mistaken belief that once their children have a smartphone, they can still control their behavior. In reality, it is nearly impossible to completely lock down a device (although there are very important steps that can be taken), and 71 percent of teens hide their smartphone activity from their parents. I’ve had many parents tell me how relieved they are that their children haven’t ended up hooked on porn or involved in “that stuff,” knowing full well that their children have been involved.

2. As Vanity Fair journalist Nancy Jo Sales laid out in her devastating book American Girls: Social Media and the Secret Lives of Teenagers, sexting and sending nude selfies are now ubiquitous in every school from the big cities to the rural Bible belt. I interviewed a number of high school girls (from Christian schools) on this issue over the past several years, and every one of them said the same thing: The pressure to send photos is relentless. Giving your child a smartphone is providing the opportunity for that pressure to be applied. Many give in. Lives are ruined as a result. The photos are forever.

3. The average age a child first looks at porn is now age 11. (The youngest porn addict I ever met was homeschooled.) Providing children a device that, regardless of how hard you try to implement oversight or lock the device down (which is impossible to do completely), you are handing them a portal to the totality of human sexual depravity as it exists online. The majority of young people now view pornography, boys and girls. The majority of them have seen things (grotesque sexual violence among other things) that previous generations could not have imagined. To give them this opportunity and this temptation at an age when we would not trust them with the right to vote, drink, smoke, or drive makes no rational sense and is arguably more dangerous.

4. Most children are exposed to sexual violence via pornography via smartphones. As I mentioned in my previous columns, experts are increasingly noticing that children are trying what they see in porn on other children, with tens of thousands of cases in the U.K. of child-on-child sexual abuse being investigated, and healthcare professionals in the United States sounding the alarm.

5. Our society still has not figured out how to control these technologies. In fact, the very Silicon experts who create these devices and these screens warn that they are a “dark influence” on children and either do not provide their own children smartphones at all, or they strictly limit the amount of time they may be on one. If those who develop smartphones are saying that they are dangerous for young people, perhaps we should be listening more closely.

6. Porn companies are actively trying to get children to look at pornography. Some have tagged hardcore porn content with phrases like “Dora the Explorer,” for example, in order to get kids to stumble on to their material. Your child may not be looking for porn. Porn is certainly looking for your child.

7. The porn companies have quite literally re-digitized their content in order to make it more accessible on a smartphone. They know that the vast majority of young people will not be viewing their material on laptops or desktops or TVs anymore. Most young people are viewing porn on their smartphones, in their bedrooms. If parents have restricted Wi-fi, it is easy these days to find free Wi-fi almost anywhere. So while you may be convinced that your child/teen can withstand the relentless sexual temptation of having access to pornography, the porn companies are quite certain that they can win this fight.

8. Smartphones provide children the first environment in history that exists without any oversight by any adult whatsoever. The reason cyber-bullying is so effective and so dangerous is the fact that social media has created an alternative world, inhabited by young people and their peers and inaccessible to parents and guardians. A generation ago, the bullying would stop when you got home from school. Today, you can be bullied at home, in your bedroom. In fact, a spate of suicides resulting from cyber-bullying tell that precise story.

9. Children do not need smartphones. They think they do, of course, because they want access to social media and the Internet. Who wouldn’t want access to something that can answer any and all of their questions? But considering the tremendous power of this tool, it is incredibly naïve to think that children and young teens are mature enough to handle it when the impact of smartphones on adults (and the skyrocketing rates of tech addiction) indicates that we have not even been able to figure out how to use this technology responsibly. If they need a phone for calling and texting purposes, get them a device without Internet access.

10. Smartphones often eliminate a child’s interest in other, healthier activities – like reading, outdoor recreation, and family time. I’m sure it comes as no surprise to anyone who has given their child a smartphone that a smartphone rapidly becomes an enormous part of the child’s life. This, of course, was predictable: There is a reason they begged so hard to have one in the first place.

[CoinCube]

Parents' Religious Beliefs May Affect Kids' Suicide Risk: Study
https://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/religion-health-news-577/parents-religious-beliefs-may-affect-kids-suicide-risk-study-736578.html

Teens, especially girls, whose parents are religious may be less likely to die by suicide, no matter how they feel about religion themselves, new research suggests.

The lower suicide risk among those raised in a religious home is independent of other common risk factors, including whether parents suffered from depression, showed suicidal behavior or divorced, the Columbia University researchers said.
...
About 12 percent of American teens say they have had suicidal thoughts. And suicide is the leading cause of death among 15- to 19-year-old girls.

For the study, Priya Wickramaratne and colleagues examined data from a three-generation study at New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University. The data, spanning 30 years, included 214 children from 112 families.

Most belonged to Christian denominations and some families lived in areas with limited church choices. All were white.

Among teens who thought religion was important, researchers found a lower risk for suicide among girls but not boys. Researchers saw the same association with church attendance.

When parent and child views were weighed together, however, researchers found a lower risk for suicide among young people whose parents considered religion important.

Wickramaratne, an associate professor of biostatistics and psychiatry at Columbia University, said, "Our findings suggest that there may be alternative and additional ways to help children and adolescents at highest risk for suicidal behaviors."

She said those strategies include asking parents about their spiritual history when a child is brought in for psychiatric evaluation, and assessing the child's own religious beliefs and practices -- especially with girls.

[@kprodip230]

Wellbeing alludes to four estimations, for example, physical, social, enthusiastic, and narrow minded wellbeing. The association among religion and psychological well-being can be given to people by methods for demonstrative structure or social help. Through these courses, there are odds of security, significance and important human connections in religion to empower psychological well-being. A few theoreticians are believed to be in charge of religion and religion by social help upheld by enrollment in religious gatherings.

[BADecker]

Dude, the dictionary has definitions of all the gods too, does that mean they exist?

Did you miss the part in the definitions that talks about them being mythology?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zeus?s=t

I did yea because it doesn't say anything about that, the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son of Cronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of a number of gods, demigods, and mortals; the god of the heavens, identified by the Romans with Jupiter. So now Zeus has to be real because it's in the dictionary, right?

Of course Zeus and other gods are real. They must have some sort of reality for them to be in the dictionary.

The pint is, that when you look at how they are described, they are shown to be lied about, and to be weak... not really gods... but slightly more in the direction of God than people are.

The real God of the universe is being shown to be almighty and real. How? Many ways. But one way is easily seen. The Bible that talks about God, is spreading around the world way more than the gods of the nations. In fact, if there are any Zeus believers regarding his godhood, they are few and far between.

God is real. Zeus is mythology.

[af_newbie]

Dude, the dictionary has definitions of all the gods too, does that mean they exist?

Did you miss the part in the definitions that talks about them being mythology?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zeus?s=t

I did yea because it doesn't say anything about that, the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son of Cronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of a number of gods, demigods, and mortals; the god of the heavens, identified by the Romans with Jupiter. So now Zeus has to be real because it's in the dictionary, right?

Of course Zeus and other gods are real. They must have some sort of reality for them to be in the dictionary.

The pint is, that when you look at how they are described, they are shown to be lied about, and to be weak... not really gods... but slightly more in the direction of God than people are.

The real God of the universe is being shown to be almighty and real. How? Many ways. But one way is easily seen. The Bible that talks about God, is spreading around the world way more than the gods of the nations. In fact, if there are any Zeus believers regarding his godhood, they are few and far between.

God is real. Zeus is mythology.

That is not very Christian of you.  What is next? Are you going to crucify all the Greeks who practice Hellenism today?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenism_(religion)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpNu4_TP9w

BADecker, 'ee-se malaka'!!!

[BADecker]

Dude, the dictionary has definitions of all the gods too, does that mean they exist?

Did you miss the part in the definitions that talks about them being mythology?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/zeus?s=t

I did yea because it doesn't say anything about that, the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son of Cronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of a number of gods, demigods, and mortals; the god of the heavens, identified by the Romans with Jupiter. So now Zeus has to be real because it's in the dictionary, right?

Of course Zeus and other gods are real. They must have some sort of reality for them to be in the dictionary.

The pint is, that when you look at how they are described, they are shown to be lied about, and to be weak... not really gods... but slightly more in the direction of God than people are.

The real God of the universe is being shown to be almighty and real. How? Many ways. But one way is easily seen. The Bible that talks about God, is spreading around the world way more than the gods of the nations. In fact, if there are any Zeus believers regarding his godhood, they are few and far between.

God is real. Zeus is mythology.

That is not very Christian of you.  What is next? Are you going to crucify all the Greeks who practice Hellenism today?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenism_(religion)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpNu4_TP9w

BADecker, 'ee-se malaka'!!!

Crucifying anybody is not Christian. That's why you suggest it.

Christianity is way beyond the other religions in strength and how widespread it is. Jesus God is holding it in place. He tells us that His Word will not return void. And He is proving it.

[CoinCube]

I wanted to share a conversation I had with Anonymint on the topic of superrationality.

We had discussed this concept earlier as I posted upthread. See: Superrationality and the Infinite .

The discussion has since continued via messages.

Thanks for the link. My writing was much better then. And your retort was something that does not exist. Some wishful thinking you invented a term for it “superrationality”.

Some of us would prefer on not repeating the same delusions and instead roll up our sleeves and analyze the actual game theory involved with for example gender relations being so fundamental that is one of the main topics covered in Genesis (Eve, Oman, etc).

We are moving into a new epoch where land and territory is no longer the main asset of a civilization. How does our organization of gender relations change? Especially now with gender selection under control of the males.

There is no way that society can keep the technology of gender selection regulated. Impossible. It is not as sophisticated as producing nuclear bombs.

The entire basis for superrationality is unsupported. Essentially it would be equivalent to violating the Laws of Thermodynamics, because you would demand that the distribution of uncertainty does not trend to maximum and that time is reversible. That we live in a static universe where there is no past and future.

Prisoner’s dilemmas exist because omniscience must not be possible otherwise the above.

Apology my lapse. Should have realized that and made that retort when you first raised the point.

Superrationality is not a term I invented.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality

You are correct that it is not currently a mainstream part of game theory. But then again there is nothing sacrosanct about current game theory. Game theory is just mathematical model based on a series of assumptions about the modeled actors.

I think we are just going to disagree on this one.

I think you are misunderstanding the logic.
Here is a comment on the subject I came across. Not my words but maybe it will clarify the issue.

From the Wikipedia talk page on Superrationality

“Hofstadter, (the thinker who coined the term superrationality) as far as I know, is the first person to explicitly challenge economic rationality, to call its bluff. He says "This is garbage", and gives a mathematically precise alternative. The use of the pejorative "magical thinking" to refer to superrationality is absurd. There is no magic involved. It is only referred to as magical thinking by those with an irrational attachment to game-theory rationality

Read his book. It's precise enough to know exactly what he's saying, and it has a discussion of probabilistic scenerios, where the optimal probability is determined by the reasoning. It's written for a general audience, so you might not like it very much, but it's precise...Maybe superrationality is an old idea.
But from your comments, I get the feeling that you don't appreciate the logic of superrationality: Hofstadter doesn't engage in magical thinking. He does not assume that his decision will influence another person's decision in any causal way. That's impossible. What he assumes is that the other person already is superrational, so that his decision is going to be perfectly correlated with Hofstadter's in a symmetric situation, and he assumes that both he and his opponent take this into account before maximizing their utility. This is not magical, because correlation does not imply causation. It's a circular definition of a decision algorithm that only looks magical if you already believe (in the religious sense) in economic rationality. Then any deviation from defection looks irrational, and you can't be persuaded otherwise because economic rationality is self-consistent.

But Hofstadter points out that superrationality is equally self-consistent, so that the prisoner's dilemma is fundamentally an ill-posed problem, with several consistent answers. This leaves him with a free choice of algorithm. He chooses superrationality because it seems to his intuition to be correct, and he urges his readers to do so too, with mixed results.”

That is nonsense. If you know everyone is superrational, then you defect, because you get $20 guaranteed instead of possibly only $1.

It is ostensibly some unsupported nonsense from some philosophical ramblings that have not been vetted by any actual mathematical model.

Yeah I will disagree with nonsense.

You are not understanding the issue and that’s ok.

I will leave you with the words of the man himself who coined the term.
 
“My feeling is that the concept of superrationality is one whose truth will come to dominate among intelligent beings in the universe simply because its adherents will survive certain kinds of situations where its opponents will perish. Let’s wait a few spins of the galaxy and see. After all, healthy logic is whatever remains after evolution’s merciless pruning.”

Douglas Hofstadter, Metamagical Themas: Questing For The Essence Of Mind And Pattern

I agree with Mr. Hofstafter.

For now you are probably just have to add Mr. Hofstafter along with C.S Lewis and myself to your internal list of irrational illogical individuals. Quite the list you are drawing up.

Best Wishes

[CoinCube]

And here is a recent communication from Anonymint.

I don’t know with certainty what led to his change of heart but I suspect that he was influenced in part by our discussion and by C.S. Lewis and his excellent analysis of the natural end of purely rational thinking. See: The Abolition of Man

Rationality fails in Prisoner’s dilemmas. Superrationality doesn’t.

I finally figured this out! I am going to explain something that I been trying to figure out my entire life and finally had that eureka moment! I have to credit CoinCube for leading me in the correct direction. But he was not able to articulate the following, which is critical to understanding superrationality. Note this ties into what consciousness and existence really means!

1. Science will never be able to falsify existence. If anyone needs me to explain why, I will later.

2. We have a choice, either we can choose that there is no superrationality and only rationality. In which case, there is no unconditional love because of Prisoner’s dilemmas. And a world fraught with fighting, pain and misery.

3. We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

4. Then if #3 there is no selfishness, no infinite debts for infinite wants, no politics. Obviously we will not entirely achieve that ideal on Earth, but it is a competition to see who can be the most selfless. My grandfather was the most selfless person I have ever known so far. Jesus and love (and candy) was his reason for living.

5. Collectivism and taking from others to give infinite wants to others is the antithesis of selfless. It is entitlement and “give me what is my fair share”, which is a Prisoner’s dilemma. For example, when everyone works as hard as they can, and takes only the minimum that they need, there’s abundance.

[af_newbie]

And here is a recent communication from Anonymint.

I don’t know with certainty what led to his change of heart but I suspect that he was influenced in part by our discussion and by C.S. Lewis and his excellent analysis of the natural end of purely rational thinking. See: The Abolition of Man

Rationality fails in Prisoner’s dilemmas. Superrationality doesn’t.

I finally figured this out! I am going to explain something that I been trying to figure out my entire life and finally had that eureka moment! I have to credit CoinCube for leading me in the correct direction. But he was not able to articulate the following, which is critical to understanding superrationality. Note this ties into what consciousness and existence really means!

1. Science will never be able to falsify existence. If anyone needs me to explain why, I will later.

2. We have a choice, either we can choose that there is no superrationality and only rationality. In which case, there is no unconditional love because of Prisoner’s dilemmas. And a world fraught with fighting, pain and misery.

3. We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

4. Then if #3 there is no selfishness, no infinite debts for infinite wants, no politics. Obviously we will not entirely achieve that ideal on Earth, but it is a competition to see who can be the most selfless. My grandfather was the most selfless person I have ever known so far. Jesus and love (and candy) was his reason for living.

5. Collectivism and taking from others to give infinite wants to others is the antithesis of selfless. It is entitlement and “give me what is my fair share”, which is a Prisoner’s dilemma. For example, when everyone works as hard as they can, and takes only the minimum that they need, there’s abundance.

Superrationality is not possible because no two brains are the same.

IQ, emotional development, personal experiences, religious or political indoctrination influences one’s thinking process.  You are a prime example.

With the same input, two “rational” individuals will deduce a diametrically different result.

Freethinking is the best you can do to remove the cultural, political and religious influences.

[Astargath]

And here is a recent communication from Anonymint.

I don’t know with certainty what led to his change of heart but I suspect that he was influenced in part by our discussion and by C.S. Lewis and his excellent analysis of the natural end of purely rational thinking. See: The Abolition of Man

Rationality fails in Prisoner’s dilemmas. Superrationality doesn’t.

I finally figured this out! I am going to explain something that I been trying to figure out my entire life and finally had that eureka moment! I have to credit CoinCube for leading me in the correct direction. But he was not able to articulate the following, which is critical to understanding superrationality. Note this ties into what consciousness and existence really means!

1. Science will never be able to falsify existence. If anyone needs me to explain why, I will later.

2. We have a choice, either we can choose that there is no superrationality and only rationality. In which case, there is no unconditional love because of Prisoner’s dilemmas. And a world fraught with fighting, pain and misery.

3. We can instead choose to believe in superrational God that loves us and emulate that ideal, thus applying superrational sacrifice to our motivation and decisions. IOW, that everything is motivated by what is best for the other person, not for ourselves. In that case, there are no Prisoner’s dilemmas. The key is recognizing that only selflessness is compatible with unconditional love. And that the choice of a belief (and love) in the unfalsifiable God is a choice that one makes because our existence is but an illusion of our choice in the multiverse. Consciousness is but what we choose it to be. Nihilism will illogically reject this as unfounded, and instead choose no foundation at all, no purpose, no life. Love in the form of selflessness is the only form of life. That is what Jesus came to exemplify. All those who claim that such unfounded belief makes people vulnerable to insane collective actions (e.g. the Inquisition) fail to understand that was a reversion from unconditional love to animalism, Nihilism and Prisoner’s dilemmas, i.e. that was not true Christianity.

4. Then if #3 there is no selfishness, no infinite debts for infinite wants, no politics. Obviously we will not entirely achieve that ideal on Earth, but it is a competition to see who can be the most selfless. My grandfather was the most selfless person I have ever known so far. Jesus and love (and candy) was his reason for living.

5. Collectivism and taking from others to give infinite wants to others is the antithesis of selfless. It is entitlement and “give me what is my fair share”, which is a Prisoner’s dilemma. For example, when everyone works as hard as they can, and takes only the minimum that they need, there’s abundance.

I actually expected something nice, instead its the same bullshit, essentially he found out what, faith? Lol, how the fuck is that an eureka moment, we choose what to believe? No shit, does that mean its true tho? Meh same ol philosophical pile of shit with 0 real evidence about anything.