Occam’s razor is a heuristic. It doesn’t tell us whether a statement is true or false. It simply suggests that, given two equally likely competing explanations the simpler one is the one to bet on.
What exactly does this mean, grienspace? That science has no theories about how people are born? About how they learn to think? About how their brains work? About emotions? None of those things are true.
Little tip. That makes your view less valid, not more. It’s the same way nutjobs figure out the government is beaming mind control rays into their toaster and that only their tinfoil hat can keep them safe. I’d be more careful before I went bragging about it.
**
And yet oddly when you don’t know…
**
it makes you think you’re in the better argumentative position. When you get a point, come back and discuss it. “I don’t know anything about the subject, therefore you’re all stupid and X is true,” isn’t much of a debate, certainly not a great one.
**
Actually, we’re all in a giant computer recontsruction of the early 21st century. The machines keep us here so they can use our bodies to generate energy. But one day, Neo will come again, and He shall save us with the power of Kung Fu.
See how much fun it is to spout mindless, bare, unprovable assertions? Everyone should try it!
Wow, I think I struck a nerve big time. i merely presented my view and defended it when it was attacked. Where do you guys get the idea that I think opposing views are stupid?
Well, dear, perhaps that’s because they do. Although I think “silly” and “delusional” are their perferred words of choice.
It’s been nice to see some thoughts on the subject from others I am not familiar with.
Thanks again, lekatt.
According to the norse/Asatru view the soul is made up of many different parts, some of which go on after your body dies and some of which do not. The essence is that your person is more than the sum of it’s parts. Here’s a few components to an Asatruar’s model of the human soul. There is the Hyge or “High” which is rational thought, Mynd which is your memories and the functions surrounding it, Willa which is the basic source of voluntary self assertion, the aedem or ‘breath of life’ the animating principle that links the soul with the body which is severed and destroyed when you die, the Hama which is a preserving energy that contains the soul when it exists outside of the body (sorta like a ghostly skin), the Orlog which is your individual wyrd or 'law… the sequence of your life’s events and their consequences, the Maegen which is the stuff of the soul… the energy that composes it contained in every thing in the universe (think The Force as in star wars), the Fetch which is a guardian spirit or conscience (said to flee the wicked), the Mod which is… actually VERY complicated… the totality of being, the Wod which is the seat of your passions and inspiration. There is also the Lich which is your meat form, it of course dies. Now the interesting bit is that when you die your lich goes as well as your aedem but the rest of your soul may depart in different ways… they do not necessarily stay unified as the being you think of as yourself. And there is no such thing as an ‘eternal soul’. Some Asatruar believe for instance that part of your soul (your fetch for instance) can be reborn to become part of one of your ancestor’s souls. Can I prove any of this? Nah… really not interested in doing it even were it possible. Do I feel this is a more plausible model of the indefinable things that make me ME as opposed to the judeo-christian sort of soul? Yep, it’s usefull to me as a model if it turns out to be false… it won’t matter one little bit if the atheists are right unless the christians are right, ;> then who cares. This is the best way for me.
You know the funny thing is that in all the years I have been involved in these debates, I am hard-pressed to recall a time when a skeptic actually responded to a supernaturalist’s/paranormalist’s/theist’s claims by simply calling them “silly” or delusional".
I HAVE heard the anti-skeptics claim that we prefer these tactics at least 300 times though.
I think part of the reason for this is that we skeptics are wont to point out that, in order for an extraordinary claim to be rationally justified, all non-extraordinary potential explanations must be eliminated logically or empirically.Delusion and misunderstanding are non-extraordinary explanations adn common culprits behind many of these supernatural/paranormal claims throughout history.
Therefore when we mention that you(you being the supernaturalist/paranormalist) have given us no reason to rule out delusion/misperception/fraud/deceit as explanations, the anti-skeptics tend to jump to the conclusion that we are calling them delusional and silly.
OR states that we do not unnecessarily MULTIPLY our entities for explanation.This means that if the combustion engine can be explained WITHOUT inoking genies or gremlins then we do not posit the existence of such entities to explain how the engine operates.
DOes this mean that no gremlins ever tinker with your car engine?
No.
It DOES mean that such a claim is unwarranted though.
Had to do this, sorry. The paragraphs below were collected just from this thread. I wonder where you have been posting.
" think that basing a philosophy on the extremely dubious idea that something without form or substance can posess any attributes at all, let alone the incredible attributes some assign to it, was the silliest concept that ever sprang from the mind of man."
“I’ve heard people say this before, but I think the distinction is illusory. I think most people in this type of discussion use ‘mind’ to talk about the functions of the cerebrum, which is most certainly part of your brain. In any case we’re talking about something that’s clearly physical. I don’t know if the soul is the single silliest concept people have ever invented - I think there are some related concepts that are equally silly - but I agree with Czarcasm in general anyway. Doesn’t seem to me that anyone’s posted anything here regarding a soul that falls outside the realm of wishful thinking.”
“Wrong, wrong, WRONG! – no-one has ever demonstrated any ability to see auras. No-one! Never! Some have claimed to be able to do so, whether they are self-deluding or fraudulent matters not one bit – the simple fact is that they simply cannot”
“Yes, but they’re only seeable by delusional people, and who cares what they think? (Well, besides you, obviously.)”
“The idea that “soul = aura” is certainly one that I can subscribe to. They’re both fantasies, the only difference is that delusional people believe they can “see” auras.”
Love
Leroy
**
I could care less if you arrived at your point by reading chicken entrails and tossing bones!Humans are rational thinking creatures.Rationality is the only way we consistently know ANYTHING about our reality.
If you have a brain you use reason(barring any physical/mental handicaps of course) and we have yet to uncover any “faith-brain” by which we can understand our universe by some means other than reason.
Maybe they prayed it up there!
I am not sure what you are getting at here.Are you suggesting that until science shows you every single detail of ever instance of every event which has happened since the big bang then anything you want to believe is true must be considered true??
Unfortunately the way the human belief mechanism works it would not matter even if we COULD show you everything you asked to know because the believer will deny evidence which contradicts or does not support his beliefs and will seek out and find the “patterns” which confirm his presuppositions.
???
You are so missing the point.Your room without light analogy is a false one because in such a scenario I would not have lost my eyesight but would instead be in a situation where conditions did not exist by which the tool of eyesight could be employed.This analogy is comparable to the following:
I carry a hammer around everywhere I go and I also pound in nails frequently.However, I claim that I pound the nails using my fists and the hammer is just for show.IF this claim be true then taking all of the nails out of the walls for miles around does not render my fist an ineffective “hammer”.
Let me try a slightly different angle here:
Soulists/NDE’ers hold to the claim that even after the termination of the physical brain, the mind and “self”(sum of all experiences and knowledge and personality) live on in the afterlife.
However if someone wallops me in the head with a bat adn I live but suffer tremendous brain damage, I become a vegetable.
If my mind and “self” are a function of the “soul” and the physical brain is an unnecessary component then I should not have difficulty thinking, comprehending etc. when my physical brain is so damaged.
If you posit that the soul is “trapped” adn cannot perform it’s function of thought/comprehension/personality while the phyical body lives then you are only presenting us with more questions:
Does the brain “imprison” the soul and if so then how much brain damage must occur before the soul can ‘escape’?
Why should the ability to think be hampered at all in such a scenario even if the soul is “imprisoned”?If this capability IS hampered then how is the sould able to perform it’s excape function at all?
Why are we unaware of this allegedly interactive, existing part of us?I cannot see my inside parts but I am aware of my heart beating and if someone kicks me in the torso I am aware of my stomache/lungs.Why is there nothing that simalarly indicates a “soul”?
I have no idea how to answer that as it does not make much sense.
some parts of buddhism (im not going to say all parts of buddhism on the grounds that it is a very varied religion) say that the equivalent of the soul is teh “anata” (japanese for “you”) which is a random bundle of memories and emotions which is the part of humans (or any living thing) whcih is recycled in reincarnation. however an argumnt against this is that there are more and more people born than die so where do the new “anatas” come from, there are a number of answers to this so here are 2
1: when two souls bond which were meant to bond a new “anata” is formed (this is basically through sexaul reproduction)
2: there are a number of realms or plains in which one can be reincarnated to/from and so there are no new souls formed just a lot more old souls from various plains/realms
do you think we could have some info from cecil on this?
You should notice that the sceptic’s usual first response is, “Oh yeah, prove it,” – you should be familiar with this because it has been asked of you a thousand times, and where you care to respond it is never with citations that bear the least bit of scrutiny.
The thing is, it would be so easy to test the claim that somebody can see auras, that it beggars belief that it could be true and yet unproven. There really are only two explanations for those who claim this ability, self-delusion or fraud.
What are we to say, “um yes, you’re right, there must be a vast conspiracy in the scientific community to suppress these facts”? And it must be a far-reaching conspiracy and include me – I’ve known several people that have claimed some “special” power (clairvoyance, ability to see auras, talk to the dead, whatever), yet none have been able to demonstrate one jot of their claims.
I would champion the cause of anyone who personally demonstrated to me such an extraordibnary ability, really, I would be out there preaching the word, and what’s more, that is true of every sceptic I know.
I don’t know if that surprises you, but you should bear it in mind when you address us sceptics – we really do not have an agenda, save to seek for the truth, our only attachment is to certain ideas of how the truth can be arrived at.
What I noticed about your post is that you didn’t quote all of my post, only the paragraphs that you could use. You also didn’t say anything about not being correct in your previous statements.
I call this not being honest and straightforward and is primarily why I don’t usually get into these debates.
The jury is already in on life after death. There is plenty of scientific data and studies that show this. I am referring to my first posts in this thread.
Now it is alright with me if skeptics choose to not believe the scientific studies, I really don’t care. I have nothing to gain or lose either way. What I am concerned with is the misinformation and slanderous statements skeptics use in describing spiritual people. In this respect they surely do have an agenda of attacking anything and anyone that dares say their alleged materialistic world is false.
So, if you can show me some real biological proof that memory is stored within the brain, or any other function of the mind (spirit) I will preach your materialistic world for you.
If you damage your brain, then the mind (spirit) can not use it as well as before it was damaged. Like a television set with tuner problems; there is nothing wrong with the signal (spirit) it just can’t get through the damaged tuner.
Read about it, at the bottom of my writing is a link to more scientific stuff, if you want to read it. Just try to refrain from calling me silly or delusional, it makes me think badly of you.
Love
You seem to not understand that it is common practice in debating to quote only the part you are responding to. Failing to quote something when you don’t plan on addressing it is not deceitful, it is common courtesy, and is expected. If you feel that one of your points was not addressed, then bring up that specific point in your response and ask that it be addressed.
You have linked to only one scientific study, and I do not think that you have actually read the study that you linked to. It makes no assertion that life after death exists, or that NDEs are real. Let me repeat myself The study that you linked to does not show that life after death exists. If you insist that the study shows that life after death is real, then you are lying, plain and simple.
Well, it’s not fine with me when people like you lie about the results of scientific studies. I do care.
If the fact that brain damage often results in the loss of memories (and sometimes the inability to form new memories) isn’t enough to convince you, then I don’t know what could.
If you want to assume that the brain is an antenna, then fine, but first you need to clarify a few things.
Do all animals have a “spirit” interacting with them via their brain? If not, then why is there a need to assume that humans have a spirit while other animals do not?
Is the physical brain completely incapable thought? If so, why? If not, then why do we need a “spirit” to duplicate what the brain can already do by itself?
By what method does the “spirit” interface with the brain? If our brain can pick up “spiritual” signals, and our brains are made of ordinary matter, then why can we not build “spirit” detectors to monitor the signals traveling between the “spirit” and the brain?
From that webpage:
Not quite true. While the brain is somewhat flexible, most areas have known purposes that are the same in everyone.
That does not follow. Otherwise, you need “something” to control everything in the world that is unique. A spirit for every snowflake. A fairy for every fingerprint. A pixie for every plant.
Further, that line of reasoning simply pushes back the question an extra level, without actually answering it. If a unique brain requires a unique spirit to make it unique (never mind genetics and environmental factors), then what makes each spirit unique? Surely, each spirit must have yet another spirit to account for its uniqueness.
If I dam up a river, it will find a way to re-route itself to arrive at the ocean. The re-routing is indicative of a controller for the river.
Or maybe whoever wrote that quote has no idea what he/she is talking about. You can guess which one I find more likely.
Basically, the concept of “the-brain-as-an-antenna” has zero factual basis, as well as requiring many additional layers of complexity in order for it to work. That doesn’t bode well for that particular concept.
Occam’s razor is not a good thing to invoke in the realm of science. An example is the idea of “caloric”, or of Aristotle’s theory of why an object falls when above ground, or the Greek idea of the four elements. While Occam’s razor is useful in mundane every day life, the simplest solution in science is hardly the correct answer. Not necessarily saying anything about the contents of this thread, but it is something to keep in mind.
I disagree. Occam’s Razor doesn’t mean that simplicity is the only method for deciding if an explaination is valid. It just states that, all other things being equal, the simplist explaination is the best.
Now I’m not saying that the Razor is never wrong, but the only times that we ever realize that it is wrong is when we get new evidence. In other words, things are no longer equal.
I’m saying in a lot of sciences, Occam’s razor has as much chance as being wrong as in being right. This is because in any situation on the bleeding edge of science, we are rarely aware of all information and variables in a situation.
lekatt,
Besides being normal convention to only include the portions of a post that one is responding to, the elided parts of the post were clearly indicated by “<snip>”. The two statements that I left in were were chosen for one specific reason – I had posted them originally.
I would like you to withdraw the comments you made about me above.
Fat chance unwashed.If it’s one thing I have learned it’s that rabid anti-skeptics do not employ the phrases “I was mistaken” , “I am sorry” and “You(the skeptic) make a good point which I hadn’t thought of.”.
Remember Lekatt has stated that logic means nothing to him and is inapplicable to existential debates.From this position NOTHING but “I agree with Lekatt” will hold any water to him.
The funniest thing is that he accuses you of being ‘selective’ with your quoting even while HE is busily quoting out of context and such to support a mischaracterisation of US!
I could imagine OR being less applicable in “soft” sciences/behavioral science and such but that is irrelevent anyway.OR is ENTIRELY applicable in existential debates simply because is IS logically fallacious to UNNECESSARILY multiply entities for expalnation!
In the case of “borderlands science”, this just goes right back to Joe Random’s point about “all things being equal”.Read the last sentence of his last post above.