Does that mean we're back on topic?Fist and Faith wrote:Aaaaaanyway....
--A
Moderators: Xar, Fist and Faith
Absolutely...it really only says we should tend toward the simpler explanation, all other factors being equal. It never says anything at all about the actual truth of anything.Orlion wrote:Sounds like a vivid dream. If it ever happened in any sense at all.
Now, for my two cents on Occam's Razor. I think this concept gets abused a lot (not on this thread...yet). Many use it as a means of defining truth, which it can not do of itself. Just because something is 'simpler' does not mean it is 'reality'. To me, it's just a reminder to try out the 'simpler' before jumping to more elaborate explanations.
Here follows an "orthodox" viewpoint in terms of "orthodoxy" being the belief that existence is better than nonexistence, the belief that life is better than death, the belief that some things are better than others. The truth is that we should try and do as best we can for those who demand loudest and clearest, I think, for demanding something loudly and clearly is, I think, a signal that it is wanted. Persistence, with a small amount of inspiration, should be rewarded.A single road leads from city down to jungle; the prisoner is merely locked out of the city. Escape is at his option; he may flee as far through the jungle as he sees fit: the entire continent is at his disposal. But no prisoner ever ventures far from the gate; and, when his presence is required, it is only necessary to unlock the gate and call his name.
Hmm...it depends. It might be a limitation of youth. But I would say that, unless sommoene really busts my chops, I am going to keep growing into acceptance more than rejection of things. Right now it seems like I am the only one capable and willing of busting my chops as far as this goes. Most others, especially those close to me, seem to want me to give lip service to their own ideas, which is all well and good I suppose...but I am dreaming of our children's children's children's etc and saying YES I want them to go throughout the galaxy and ally, destroy, and protect other races if there are any, or perhaps create races of their own which will some day overtake and destroy us! I WANT EXISTENCE!Do you think that's an inherent limitation of you though, or a temporary limitation of youth?
Are you good at communicating with those who are good at application?
(Dunno; those might be tough Q's.)
Eh, don't worry about it, I compllain about lack of context all the time. It was just to show that I have considered some heady ideas fairly directly and have some practical applications from them.Oh dear... well, I don't understand a lot of that, because I don't know the context and am unlikely to learn it, but...
Or, the recognition that one doesn't know what right/wrong is and is afraid to point towards it. When one receives what might be a message from god, one discounts whether it actually is or not and simply says, "let me share it and hope people do what I think is good, which is to bring peace as most cultures seem to define it." That is to say, for example, I think many cultures at least at times emphasize peace not war, but we should keep in mind the recognition that peace brings corruption - though war, too, can bring corruption....that last bit; that's enough to make a person afraid to use the strength / intelligence / skill he has... knowing that a strength may be used for the wrong end, and cause so much harm...
I want to, but I am worried that others do not, and I want to remain with them! I limit myself for others, and others limit themselves for me! Doesn't that suck?Avatar wrote:Yeah...I dunno if I actually want to go that far...
--A
I still see it used as a justification for god today. My reply is always that "god" isn't a simple answer, let alone the simplest. All it does is beg infinitely more questions.Vraith wrote:It amuses me fairly regularly to move it around in historical contexts...I mean, really...in pre-technological times, attributing everything to some God WAS the simple explanation, so the right choice, according to the razor.
Introducing an infinite supernatural cause never, ever simplifies something that is merely finite and natural. There is a difference between "easy to say in the fewest syllables possible," or "easy for me to use this word as a causal placeholder so I don't have to think about it anymore," and something actually being simple. God is infinitely complex, and as an explanation it can only multiply the unknown. You might as well say, "magical mystery force x." It is not an explanation, much less a simple one. It's an excuse to stop thinking.Vraith wrote:Absolutely...it really only says we should tend toward the simpler explanation, all other factors being equal. It never says anything at all about the actual truth of anything.Orlion wrote:Sounds like a vivid dream. If it ever happened in any sense at all.
Now, for my two cents on Occam's Razor. I think this concept gets abused a lot (not on this thread...yet). Many use it as a means of defining truth, which it can not do of itself. Just because something is 'simpler' does not mean it is 'reality'. To me, it's just a reminder to try out the 'simpler' before jumping to more elaborate explanations.
It amuses me fairly regularly to move it around in historical contexts...I mean, really...in pre-technological times, attributing everything to some God WAS the simple explanation, so the right choice, according to the razor.
Perfectly true, if that's where one stops. But it isn't...even way back then, what was an answer made for questions...the next one being, "What is God, then?" Probably in the context/with the intent of "How can we make him/her/it bring us more deer/stop blowing our houses down."Zarathustra wrote:Introducing an infinite supernatural cause never, ever simplifies something that is merely finite and natural. There is a difference between "easy to say in the fewest syllables possible," or "easy for me to use this word as a causal placeholder so I don't have to think about it anymore," and something actually being simple. God is infinitely complex, and as an explanation it can only multiply the unknown. You might as well say, "magical mystery force x." It is not an explanation, much less a simple one. It's an excuse to stop thinking.Vraith wrote:Absolutely...it really only says we should tend toward the simpler explanation, all other factors being equal. It never says anything at all about the actual truth of anything.Orlion wrote:Sounds like a vivid dream. If it ever happened in any sense at all.
Now, for my two cents on Occam's Razor. I think this concept gets abused a lot (not on this thread...yet). Many use it as a means of defining truth, which it can not do of itself. Just because something is 'simpler' does not mean it is 'reality'. To me, it's just a reminder to try out the 'simpler' before jumping to more elaborate explanations.
It amuses me fairly regularly to move it around in historical contexts...I mean, really...in pre-technological times, attributing everything to some God WAS the simple explanation, so the right choice, according to the razor.
I. LOVE. QUESTIONS. And answering them. I wish I could answer them all truthfully, but the web of lies extends before I was born into this world, as best I can tell. Both in religion and science.Avatar wrote:I still see it used as a justification for god today. My reply is always that "god" isn't a simple answer, let alone the simplest. All it does is beg infinitely more questions.Vraith wrote:It amuses me fairly regularly to move it around in historical contexts...I mean, really...in pre-technological times, attributing everything to some God WAS the simple explanation, so the right choice, according to the razor.
--A
Aggghhh... so in some ways, it's about struggling with problems that are unique and separates you from "the common man." Because you can have so much more you can think about. (ahh, unintended consequences. the day I began to believe in those, my life got a lot harder. I had it easy for a couple of decades or so, lol!) The last time I struggled over wondering, "what if I'm all wrong about this God thing?" my husband has pointed out, "Yes. Intelligent people have it hard.Holsety wrote:Hmm...it depends. It might be a limitation of youth. But I would say that, unless sommoene really busts my chops, I am going to keep growing into acceptance more than rejection of things. Right now it seems like I am the only one capable and willing of busting my chops as far as this goes. Most others, especially those close to me, seem to want me to give lip service to their own ideas, which is all well and good I suppose...but I am dreaming of our children's children's children's etc and saying YES I want them to go throughout the galaxy and ally, destroy, and protect other races if there are any, or perhaps create races of their own which will some day overtake and destroy us!
So I bet Z (who posted a really fascinating post in the MN forum lately; there are connections... you should read it... on the "newbies journey through MN" thread) could tell you (and you'e also figured out for yourself, in a way, that it's essentially the same as a... common problem that everyone has to grapple with (or not).holesty wrote: I WANT EXISTENCE!
Yes. Just yes.H wrote:(Until I want nonexistance. Then I go to sleep.)