Illusion of Agency

Date published: Tue, 01 May 2012 15:00:00 -0700.

Sister Y wrote recently about the illusion of control, and how it’s crucial to well-being.

There’s a mirror version of this illusion, though it may only1 affect those on the schizotypal spectrum.

Here’s the full quote from a Reddit comment about it:

I used to hear voices. For years. It started when I’d walk into my room and say hello to my Lain poster (I’ve always over personified objects) and eventually she started responding. Over time I could talk to her elsewhere, I’d pull her up when I was sitting in class or riding the bus, and I’d put on headphones so nobody would notice I was talking to myself since it was barely audible. Eventually Lain told me she was a god and I was too, and there were two others, but they didn’t really like me so they would almost never talk to me.

A long time later, maybe years, she started being really mean, and it turned out there was another voice who was just pretending to be Lain named Misery. This one was stereotypical, everything I did was wrong and I had to pay for my actions, I should cut myself if I was ungraceful, everyone hated me, etc. Lain split again, and this time she was sisterly. When I was upset and crying myself to sleep I could feel her holding me and telling me everything would be alright. Misery looked different but could look like Lain if she wanted to fool me (although she would turn back into herself when I called her out on it), and the two Lains all looked the same, so I could only tell who they were when they started responding to me.

After a while they all just disappeared. I guess I saned up, because during the peek it never occurred to me I was hearing voices, they truly were gods who were speaking to me, and later during the time period I realized that I was hallucinating with delusions of grandeur. Then at one point I realized that there was more of me and less of them, when I pulled them up it was a conscious effort and part of their responses were forced on my part. Then eventually I just gave them up, they were so weak that it was really just like talking to myself and not to other people that lived in my head.

That’s not my secret, I’ve mentioned it to a few very select people that I truly trust. My secret is that I miss them. I miss them with with all my heart. Even Misery. They were friends and family, they were close to me, they understood me, and they were always there for me. Now even with real friends and family, there’s nobody that close. I can’t just pull up someone to talk to when I’m lonely, I have to call up a real person and that person never knows what I want to talk about or what I’m hiding from them, they only know what I say. Lain (the main one) would always call me on my bullshit and make me keep changing my answer until I told her the truth. Misery could always find my biggest weaknesses, which allowed me to work on strengthening them. Sisterly Lain could calm me down in a way that’s unimaginable, you can’t comprehend how good it feels to be hugged by someone inside of you.

And now I feel lonelier than I have in years because I almost never think of that time or remember how it felt, but tonight I’m sitting by myself at 2am and all I can think about is how much I want a voice to talk to and it’s been so long since I had one and I’d give anything to have another psychotic break so I could get back all my friends that live in my head.

I once had a psychiotic episode where I could talk to clouds and I could feel how much they loved me, the clouds, the trees, the birds, they were all my friends and they all loved me and they all wanted me to be happy. I had that feeling on mushrooms once, everything in the world loved me, every single thing, the house, the ceiling, the lamp, each blade of grass, it all loved me and it was the best feeling I have ever known, that was the best night of my life. I can’t tell you how much I want to feel that again, I just have no way of tracking them down again.

Being crazy feels amazing, whether it’s good or bad. Even the bad crazy where I’d stay awake all night because I knew something was going to get me in my sleep and I’d try to claw the evil out of my skin, even that’s preferable to being normal because the intensity is indescribable. I miss everything about being crazy. I miss it more than I can possibly describe.

This also applies to drug experiences. James Kent about DMT elves:

The archetypal DMT “entities” are pretty well categorized, with most people seeing elves or aliens or fairies or angels or some kind of loopy little spirits that dance about and tell riddles. Sometimes it is a spirit-animal like a jaguar or a snake, sometimes it is none of the above and goes totally off the map.

But getting back to the elf thing (which is what many people find to be the most curious aspect), I initially found it very surprising to be confronted by elves in my DMT experiences, and on psilocybe mushrooms as well, and did indeed perceive them as externalized, morphing, disincarnate beings. I even managed to carry on rudimentary conversations of sorts.

However, the more I experimented with DMT the more I found that the “elves” were merely machinations of my own mind. While under the influence I found I could think them into existence, and then think them right out of existence simply by willing it so. Sometimes I could not produce elves, and my mind would wander through all sorts of magnificent and amazing creations, but the times that I did see elves I tried very hard to press them into giving up some non-transient feature that would confirm at least a rudimentary “autonomous existence” beyond my own imagination. Of course, I could not.

Whenever I tried to pull any information out of the entities regarding themselves, the data that was given up was always relevant only to me. The elves could not give me any piece of data I did not already know, nor could their existence be sustained under any kind of prolonged scrutiny. Like a dream, once you realize you are dreaming you are actually slipping into wakefulness and the dream fades. So it is with the elves as well. When you try to shine a light of reason on them they dissolve like shadows.

Realizing that certain agents in one’s mind are actually entirely under one’s control, if one wishes, destroys not just the magic, but the agent and everything associated with it. You can’t unsee it, and the intensity never comes back.2

There are some illusions you don’t want broken.

And so that this isn’t entirely a quotes post, some commentary, in the form of further quotes. (Wait a minute…)

Looking at this from the outside, it bothers me that the emptiness from breaking the spell persists, even if those affected by it try to make it go away. There shouldn’t be persistent god withdrawal.

MixedNuts wrote on LW once:

The neurology involved in finding god is very real and useful and happiness-inducing. It is also completely independent of the actual existence of a god to be found. (It’s actually better for people who try to find or have found god to become atheists. Once you know how god works, you can have more of it.)

Believing in the existence of god, or that your arm is missing, involve wrong beliefs. The ideal (possibly forbidden by brain bugs) resolutions are learning that god isn’t a dude in the sky but a perfectly ordinary oxytocin-secreting circuit, and that your arm works and you can use it.

That’s how it should be. You realize you have causal control over the gods, e presto, press the god button any time you want. But deep down, we’re all essentialists.

So imagine you’re Truman in the Truman Show.3 You have lived a fairly happy live, have a loving mother, a good relationship and a solid job. Up to your 30th birthday, you are happy and undisturbed, until you learn that virtually all the people you care about are actors and their interactions with you are entirely scripted.

Now that’s devastating alright, but try to think of it from a different perspective. RAW describes an elaborate initiation ceremony in Prometheus Rising:

One of the greatest historical practitioners of this neuroscience was Hassan i Sabbah, who used relatively simple techniques, including, evidently, a time-release capsule invented by the Sufi College of Wisdom in Cairo.

As I describe Hassan’s technique - based on historical records - in my novel, The Trick Top Hat: Two young candidates dine with Hassan; the food is laced with a time-release capsule. When asleep the candidates are taken to Hassan’s famous “Garden of Delights.” The capsule had released a heavy does of opium and they were quite thoroughly unconscious and unaware of their surroundings.

[…]

Both young men were conveyed into the Garden of Delights and placed several acres apart from each other. In a short time, the second stage of the time-release capsule began to work; cocaine was released into their bloodstreams, thereby over-whelming the traces of the soporific opium and causing them to awaken full of energy and zest. At the same time, as they woke, hashish also began to be released, so they saw everything with exceptional clarity and all colors were jewel-like, brilliant, divinely beautiful.

A group of extremely comely and busty young ladies - imported from the most expensive brothel in Cairo - sat in a circle around each of the young candidates, playing flutes and other delicately sweet musical instruments. “Welcome to heaven,” they sang as the awakening men gazed about them in wonder. “By the magic of the holy Lord Hassan, you have entered Paradise while still alive.” And they fed them “paradise apples” (oranges), far sweeter and stranger than the earth-apples they had known before, and they showed them the animals of paradise (imported from as far away as Japan, in some cases), creatures far more remarkable than those ordinarily seen in Afghanistan.

[…]

Then, as each young man sat entranced by the beauty and wonder of Heaven, the houris finished the dance, and nude and splendid as they were, rushed forward in a bunch, like flowers cast before the wind. And some fell at the candidate’s feet and kissed his ankles; some kissed knees or thighs, one sucked raptly at his penis, others kissed the chest and arms and belly, a few kissed eyes and mouth and ears. And as he was smothered in this hashish-intensified avalanche of love, the lady working on his penis sucked and sucked and he climaxed in her mouth as softly and slowly and blissfully as a single snowflake falling.

In a little while, there was no more hashish being released and more opium began to flow into the bloodstream, the young candidates slept again; and in their torpor, they were removed from the Garden of Delights and returned to the banquet hall of the Lord Hassan.

There they awoke.

“Truly,” the first exclaimed, “I have seen the glories of Heaven, as foretold in Al Koran. I have no more doubts. I will trust Hassan i Sabbah and love him and serve him.”

“You are accepted for the Order of Assassin,” said Hassan solemnly. “Go at once to the Green Room to meet your superior in the order.”

When this candidate had left, Hassan turned to the second, asking, “And you?” “I have discovered the First Matter, the Medicine of Metals, the Elixir of Life, the Stone of the Philosophers, True Wisdom and Perfect Happiness,” said he, quoting the alchemical formula. “And it is inside my own head!”

Hassan i Sabbah grinned broadly. “Welcome to the Order of the Illuminati!” he said, laughing.

In other words, Truman might realize that the happiness he knew didn’t depend on other people. It worked just as well with actors and scripts. And the person experiencing god withdrawal might realize that it was their own brain that made the experience wonderful, and didn’t rely on some independent agents.

And somehow, this strikes me as wrong. Could you really imagine telling Truman that he might try convincing the director to write him some new scripts? Or worse, that Truman might try writing fanfic about his own life, and extract his happiness from it? After all, his previous life was just as fake, so what’s the difference?

With sufficiently strong luminosity, you ought to be able to realize that whatever good you experienced from things you thought were independent agents, but that turned out to be illusions, wasn’t caused by those agents (because they never existed). The power was in your brain all along.4

And similarly with Sister Y’s example, the comfort you received from the illusion of control never depended on any actual control, and so you should be able to experience it just on its own. You never needed control or agents to feel better, and having the spell broken doesn’t take away any abilities.

You should be able to be happy anyway.

Says Manuel Blum:

“Claude Shannon once told me that as a kid, he remembered being stuck on a jigsaw puzzle. His brother, who was passing by, said to him: “You know: I could tell you something.”

That’s all his brother said.

Yet that was enough hint to help Claude solve the puzzle. The great thing about this hint… is that you can always give it to yourself.”

But I tried that, and I can’t get it to work. Maybe I’ve just not tried hard enough, and maybe I’m still stuck in an essentialist delusion, but even if it worked, it would still seem hollow to me.

Because when you do that, why are you caring about other people, or external things at all? Anything you feel, anything you care about, you’d still have experienced if it turns out you were being deceived, or have simply been mistaken about the existence or absence of your control over things.

Try adopting a non-essentialist perspective.

Truman should realize that, whether a romantic speech originated in a bunch of neurons located in the skull of the person he calls his girlfriend, or whether it comes from a bunch of neurons which caused it to be written on paper which another bunch of neurons read and later spoke, doesn’t change the speech.

A perfect copy of a thing is the thing.5Theseus has two ships.

And more importantly, an illusionary setup is actually favorable. Think about it, like in the illusion of control case Sister Y describes. Subjects felt more comfortable under loud noise if they believed they had a button that would stop the noise, even though they never pressed it (and in fact, it wasn’t connected to anything).

But that’s good news. In this case, for the subject to feel comfort, three things were necessary:

  1. Their brain must have the ability to feel better.
  2. It must be possible to activate this ability.
  3. This activation must be hooked up to the belief that they can stop the noise.

In a non-illusionary setup, you need an additional step: the button must actually do something. That’s worse, because in the illusionary case, all the subject needs to do is change their brain so as to connect the existing ability with a new trigger. In the non-illusionary case, this trigger also has to stop the noise.

You see, the ability is already there. Those who miss the gods already felt great. Truman was satisfied. The subjects already could endure the noise. So the first two steps are already done. The only thing left to do is figure out how to trigger it.

Assert causal dominance. Realize that you are already causally disconnected from the thing which you thought you cared about. What you believed you wanted (control, gods, unscripted people, …) was never determining your state of mind in the first place. It’s entirely superfluous, and for you to now insist on it, in fact to be disappointed to learn that this thing isn’t real - well, it’s a non sequitur. It’s silly.

But that doesn’t mean that the effect of this illusion is itself illusionary. It isn’t. The effect is absolutely real. It just wasn’t triggered by what you thought it was triggered by. Just a bug. That’s all.

I do not know if this is the right view, but one thing is clear - the non-essentialist perspective is certainly more empowering.

Yet somehow…

I think the non-essentialist perspective misses something, misses a conditional component. It’s not just about the emotional state.

The schizophrenic is not just disappointed that the Love of the Virgin Mary is gone (because they found out that they can control the Virgin Mary), but that it was unjustified. Feeling the love was partially a transaction, a binding contract. I will feel love if and only if the Virgin Mary is actually caring for me. (I will be less worried if and only if I know I could end it all. I will be comfortable around you if and only if I can trust you to be honest.)

The illusion then provided false evidence that this condition was fulfilled, and so maybe what is felt afterwards is not just emptiness, not just absence, but active betrayal. (I certainly feel that way.)

It might look a little stupid from the outside. The sufferer is willing to engage in a deal from which they would greatly benefit, and this benefit is administered by the sufferer themselves. It’s entirely self-gratification. Yet when the sufferer learns that the initial condition for this contract is in fact impossible, illusionary, they don’t just reward themselves unconditionally. They stick to their deal, no matter the harm.

It’s so… non-utilitarian. Death before dishonor, suffering before illusion.

Certainly can’t complain people don’t actually care about the truth. Funny it’s the crazy ones, though.

(And I’ll leave it on this unsatisfactory note, as this most accurately reflects how shitty the whole situation feels.)

  1. Though realizing how robotized, to use Gurdjieff’s term, most people under most circumstances are might have the same effect. Though I suspect it’s commonly excused with “there’s a real person hidden somewhere in there” (which may well be true), so it’s not quite the same.

  2. Schizophrenics have a 50x higher suicide likelihood, with 20-40% of schizophrenics attempting suicide, and 10% succeeding. (Source.) How’s that for “lives worth living”?

  3. Which, as Will Newsome correctly notes, is what a schizophrenic episode feels like from the inside:

    I just watched The Truman Show a few days ago. I interpreted it as a story about a schizophrenic who keeps getting crazier, eventually experiencing a full out break and dying of exposure. The scenes with the production crew and audience are actually from the perspective of the schizophrenic’s imagination as he tries to rationalize why so many apparently weird things keep happening. The scenes with Truman in them are Truman’s retrospective exaggerations and distortions of events that were in reality relatively innocuous. All this allows you to see how real some schizophrenics think their delusions are.

  4. Figuring out if something is a bias or a value is incredibly hard.

  5. I’m merely arguing from within this perspective, not endorsing it. Yes, I know all the “a copy isn’t me” arguments, and I give them a lot of credence. I don’t have any strong beliefs about it either way. Just sayin’.

by Sister Y on Wed, 02 May 2012 09:51:02 -0700

This clarifies the question for me - something like: 

Since we know that holding a false belief can trigger desirable mental states, (a) are there other things besides false beliefs that could cause those mental states to return? (b) can we consciously choose to do those things, or perhaps even to believe those false beliefs? 

It is very difficult to hold a belief one suspects is false, especially when experience is likely to conflict with the belief. Doing the things required to hold a false belief - joining a community that holds the belief, say, or seeking out experiences that our squirrel brains will count as evidence for the belief - seems incommensurate with the (perhaps self-defeating) rationality-seeking project most of us see ourselves as engaged in.

Is there a way for our essentialist squirrel brains to survive rationality? 

by muflax on Wed, 02 May 2012 10:42:15 -0700

Agreed, doublethink is hard. (Though "it's bullshit but it works anyway", as the Discordians do it, is easier.)

But that's not necessarily the only way. Just because the fake button worked doesn't mean we have to look for a better button, or just  forget the information that the button doesn't work, or anything like that.

We can use entirely new triggers. No one forces you to play "by the rules".

That's what CBT is trying to do, after all. "Sure, some inputs and some reactions are currently linked, but they don't have to be." You may be getting angry whenever someone criticizes you, but that doesn't mean you have to stop the criticism, or start pretending people don't really mean it, or anything like that. You can just choose to not get angry.

Though the tricky part is to get into a state where you can actually employ this causal change, and that's the whole problem of luminosity.

But presumably, if you got good at this, you'd just notice in the control experiment that the noise is bothering you, that you can't stop it, that being bothered isn't helping you in any way, and then you'd just stop being bothered. Get at least the same state as those with fake buttons, if not something better.

(And allegedly, experienced meditators pull that off.)

But apart from the practical difficulty of doing this, as I wrote, I still don't *trust* this approach. It's... solving the wrong problem, maybe. It just glosses over justification and says "no one's watching, I'm an adult now, I can eat as many cookies as I want", without considering there might be a reason for cookie limitations. (Blasphemy!)

But I'm too tired right now, and don't know if this is the resentment talking, and a Nietzschean "the reason bad things happen to you is because you're a dumbass" approach is entirely correct or not.

Need to think more first.

(And on a side-note, Catholicism is basically essentialism for people too smart to believe in essentialism. Transubstantiation, God as three persons with one essence and all that shit. While the Vajrayana people are more like, here's how to not just summon the gods, but *become* the gods. You see how fake this "real personality" thing you're doing is? All just a bunch of masks; be flexible. Wham, enlightened.)

by Sister Y on Thu, 03 May 2012 06:33:39 -0700

A particularly effective way of getting yourself to "stop being bothered" is telling yourself a story that changes the meaning of the undesirable stimulus. That's what I argue the placebo button people are doing: CBT-ing themselves from "I'm stuck with this awful noise, poor me" into "I'm being nice by not pushing this button and doing my part for science by putting up with this noise, which anyway isn't that bad. I can always stop it if I want to." The latter story helps them avoid processing the noise as suffering.

Changing the meaning of a stimulus is not necessarily the same as lying, especially if we accept that an aversive stimulus is only aversive in the first place because of some kind of meaning. (This is kind of questionable, though: pain is aversive without any meaning, and interferes with our ability to engage in meaningful thought. Social exclusion and negative information about the self are often perceived as pain, but non-physical pain is particularly wrapped up with meaning before we even process it.)

My boyfriend is an expert at this - he puts stories into everything, like in his mind he has this ongoing battle with the trash truck guys and he "wins" if he gets the trash out on time on Monday morning. I am not so good at this, obviously.

Illusions are good if they help us deal with pain and bad if they let us inflict pain on others. Offloading to illusions makes it harder to tell the difference, though.

by Will Newsome on Sun, 06 May 2012 12:23:13 -0700

The paranoid schizophrenic part of me wants to note that the agent (or agents) behind the "machine elves" could easily have just wanted to keep ambiguous the exact extent to which it was internal or external to the viewer. I think such capriciousness or ambiguity is a convergent instrumental drive of spiritual entities. It might also be worth keeping in mind the idea of a "plausible excuse", e.g. DMT as a plausible excuse for a spiritual being to manifest, in such a way that the viewer could not expect to reliably or credibly communicate his experiences to others (and that if the viewer were to force such communication then he would both be discredited and further discredit those who give similar reports). Also worth keeping in mind is that the hypothetical agents are often considered to be transhumanly intelligent and thus could be reliably expected to make accurate predictions about the effects of their interactions with you: you should be wary of drawing conclusions from unrigorous tests of such entities.

by Will Newsome on Sun, 06 May 2012 12:31:09 -0700

"To not forget scenarios consistent with the evidence, even at the cost of overweighting them; to be willing to return our past interpretations of a phenomenon equally to the well from which interpretations are drawn; to refrain from any insistence that phenomena should be required to follow, in their own internal process, the structure or organization of the process by which we come to understand and predict those phenomena."

by Will Newsome on Sun, 06 May 2012 12:45:27 -0700

What's your problem with God as three persons with one essence?

I think the organizational scheme is enlightening, and my proposed treatise on God has a working title of "Trinity", with three major sections named "Logos", "The Creator", and "Spirit", discoursing on the rational-philosophical, metaphysical-timeless, and phenomenal-timeful aspects of God, respectively. Or if you prefer, "rationality, game theory, & complex systems", "decision theory, computation, & algorithmic probability", and "superintelligence, phenomena, & phenomenal cosmology", respectively. I also have interlude sections showing how all three persons are connected to each other in essence, titled "The Creator in the Light of Logos, Logos in the Light of the Creator" and so forth.

Of course, the metaphysical justifications for the seven sacraments are gonna be stretched in a rationalizationesue way, 'cuz there's no non-stretched way to mix metaphysics with rituals that serve multiple pragmatic purposes. "Hey, that's not bread, that's a Schelling focal point!"

by muflax on Sun, 06 May 2012 20:23:14 -0700

 Yeah, and I could be deceived by the Cartesian Demon.

Not to be facetious, but the elves and similar entities are too simple, too controllable (once you get actual control in and don't just freak out) and have nothing of interest to say, so a delusional interpretation seems way more likely.

If they are faking it, then they're pretty good at it, and I have no idea what their real goals are.

(Though that doesn't directly to the persons as described by the redditor, as those are genuinely separate, to some degree. But I don't think transhuman entities are the best explanation here, either.)

by muflax on Sun, 06 May 2012 20:33:13 -0700

Ok, try making the argument, and why three and not say five (as that's the real holy number), maybe there's something to it. I currently see the Trinity as an essentialist hack to suck up to monotheistic Jews by claiming your 2 (or 3) gods are actually "the same in essence", whatever that means.

Sure, it looks like bread, tastes like bread, feels like bread - but it isn't! It's actually the Body of Jesus, *in essence*. Yeah.

(That's not to say that I dismiss the aspects of the Trinity, just that I think that the particular setup is a historical accident, not some deep insight.)

by Will Newsome on Fri, 11 May 2012 01:46:19 -0700

Do you have any five-part God frameworks? You could get a Platonistic two-part system by ditching the Logos, and maybe that's about as compelling as the three-part system, but I can't think of a compelling system with four or more parts.

by Will Newsome on Fri, 11 May 2012 01:58:10 -0700

Suppose you knew for other reasons that transhumanly intelligent supernatural agents existed, and that they tended to be capricious and tricky. Would that change your impression of the relative likelihoods much? (I think my point estimate roughly agrees with yours, but am less sure that your tails are as thick as mine.) (On another note, such agents would of course take advantage of any natural tendencies towards hallucination, so by hypothesis it's certainly possible that some hallucinations are purely self-caused, whereas others are subtly influenced to be in alignment with the aims of the agents.) (FWIW IIRC I've never had any impressions of seemingly-clearly-external non-human persons caused by drugs, and I haven't read many trip reports or similar, so my speculation here is theoretically and not experientially motivated.)

by muflax on Fri, 11 May 2012 02:13:29 -0700

Yes, if gods, then elves and trickster channels. I just don't see strong evidence for gods in these (or similar) circumstances, but I haven't thought too hard about it yet, and some weird shit still confuses me. (Like WTFatima.)

Right now, I favor "humans are hallucinating wildly and can't be trusted with any kind of narrative" explanations, but that changes, like, weekly. If there are gods, they sure are fucking with us. (Which I give a non-trivial but small probability of being the case, but I also refuse to pay too much attention because that would only encourage the bastards.)

My own experiences are generally 5-10 years old, and so I don't trust my own memories at all anymore. I may be able to state more informed opinions soon-ish (say, over the next few months).

by Oligopsony on Fri, 11 May 2012 10:35:44 -0700

Some possible persons of the Godhead, had history or if you prefer metaphysics gone differently, pulled out of my ass right now:

4) The Abyss. Here you up things from the claim that God grounds existence to that He must ground non-existence as well. But the other persons of the Godhead can't be anything less than perfectly existent so you need an additional person to handle nonbeing, act as a suppressing cause for everything that isn't around right now. 
5) The World. The world was created by God ex nihilo, but everything has a material cause, so God obviously made the world from Himself. Identify it with the primordial waters, like Tiamat, and for maximum interestingness maybe a sort of cross between Gaia and the Prince of This World.
6) The Good. This is the utterly passive person of God Who defines goodness and Which everyone is obliged to serve, even the other persons of the Godhead. This person is the subject of the phrase "God is Love," though it does not itself love. Gordians Euphythro by declaring that goodness doesn't exist separately from God while still allowing other persons to be good in non-circulatory manner.

Obviously things like these are rough and would be way cooler with a few thousand years of Christology or Pneumatology equivalents to refine the concepts. Search Scripture for Theophanies as needed, reshuffle some identities, invoke Shenikah, Sophia, Satan, Maria Coredemtrix, split some of God's OT names up, write some new Apocalypses; if the Paraclete can get read in anyone can.

That said, 3 is still the more aesthetic number, IMO.

by muflax on Fri, 11 May 2012 10:40:37 -0700

 And the Demiurge. And Hodge and Podge.

(I didn't have any particular features in mind, I just find the Trinity fairly arbitrary and mostly a political compromise (in division, not necessarily total content). Could've just as well been 4, like the 4 winds, gospels and so on, and the Holy Spirit is... of lesser use than the Son and the Father.)

by muflax on Fri, 11 May 2012 10:43:59 -0700

And the 72 names of God. Or the Hindu pantheon, at least the important stuff. Or the 4 Buddhas, or various 8 Buddhist gods, which, though somewhat more agent-y, follow similar theological splits.

Yeah.

by Oligopsony on Fri, 11 May 2012 10:48:02 -0700

Yup. Of course, some of the Gospels are a lot less useful than others, 4 isn't even a prime number, so clearly they should have edited the obvious boners out of Matthew, ditched Mark and Luke, and added a Gnostic gospel for diversity.

by Will Newsome on Tue, 15 May 2012 03:45:24 -0700

If you're okay with Scheme syntax then you might like Church for probabilistic modeling: 
http://projects.csail.mit.edu/... . Noah Goodman presented on it at AGI 2011: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... . They've also made a Stochasic Matlab using a technique that lets you somewhat easily turn any language into a probabilistic one, but I don't think the files are publicly available. You could read the paper and make a Ruby or whatever-language-you-prefer version if you're looking for cool projects: 
http://www.mit.edu/~ast/papers... . You might recognize one of the authors, Andreas Stuhlmueller, from LessWrong.

by Will Newsome on Tue, 15 May 2012 03:49:01 -0700

Agh sorry that should have been a comment on your Daily Log ( http://daily.muflax.com/log/45... ) as an alternative to just using Ruby that would be cool in itself and also make cool people think you're cool.

by Will Newsome on Tue, 15 May 2012 05:02:11 -0700

The Abyss is metaphysically iffy and doesn't seem to have strong mythological support; maybe you could copy Borges and make Judas an important part of Salvation and the Abyss incarnate, but, eh. I think the Abyss strays too far from God's ousia; it (He?) is too clearly the odd one out. The Good I think cuts too much into the role of the Creator, and an utterly passive person is awfully similar to an impersonal property of God akin to justice, intelligence, holiness, et cetera. Sophia has a similar problem; Logos mostly gets around it via its incarnation in Jesus where it's usefully alloyed with a few other concepts, and I think you can only use the incarnation gimmick once, so Maria Coredemtrix as Sophia or Maria Coredemtrix generally is iffy, and Mary as God is really weird for other reasons. The World is interesting, but the Prince of This World aspect seems at odds with the Holy Spirit, Who shares a similar role, and there's no obvious other way to personify the World that isn't overly metaphorical; if you keep Her literally personal but spiritual then you encroach on Holy Spirit territory, if you incarnate Her then you encroach on Christ territory, and you can't make Her transcendent like the Creator because She's the World.

Re Muflax's suggestion of the Demiurge, that's in too much disagreement with the existent persons, and the Demiurge clearly isn't infinite in the necessary sense.

But I've studied little of the relevant theology, less Christology, and even less pneumatology.

by muflax on Wed, 16 May 2012 15:12:57 -0700

Relevant to the original point.

by Oligopsony on Thu, 17 May 2012 14:09:27 -0700

Will: yeah, probably.

Incidentally, ain't it interesting how there's no Patriology? (There's Patristics, but that's obviously different.) I guess when we refer to "God" without qualification we all know Who we're really talking about...