Kevin's Watch

Fist and Faith wrote:Aaaaaanyway....

Does that mean we're back on topic?

--A

Avatar wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Aaaaaanyway....

Does that mean we're back on topic?

--A

oh i hope not...

Avatar wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:Aaaaaanyway....

Does that mean we're back on topic?

Heh

Is there a track to get back on in this thread

That kinda talk will get you banned from the Close, bud!

i am waiting for the orthodox viewpoint before we lose this thread...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Let me begin with a quote from Jack Vance's Demon Princes. It is from early in the book, for those fearful of quotes!

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.

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.

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.)

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!
(Until I want nonexistance. Then I go to sleep.)

As far as communication, it really just depends on the level the conversation is going in. I am pretty good at meeting people part way, but right now it seems like I bring people into a theoretical realm much more than I bring myself into a practical realm some of the time. But, I am sitting here typing on a computer and people both on and off the computer seem to treat me about as well as they ever did. So.....ya, I would say that I'm pretty smart but lack focus.
(Note that I would question this statement if I thought I could bring others around to, for instance, no longer calling people stupid, but I recognize that "stupid" can be a useful, functional word.)

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...

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.

...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...

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.

Avatar wrote:Yeah...I dunno if I actually want to go that far...

--A

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?

No, it's ok...

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.

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.

--A

Vraith wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Zarathustra wrote:

Vraith wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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."
It isn't at all unreasonable [wasn't at one point anyway] to say "I see everything is caused by something, we can make simple things, so something greater than us made us and all the complicated things." You have to know a lot more stuff before that idea starts looking unreasonable.
I absolutely believe...and there is a fair amount of historical/anthropological/archeological evidence to support it...science and religion initially came from the same mindset, even were often the same people.

Avatar wrote:

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.

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.

--A

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.

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!

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.

holesty wrote: I WANT EXISTENCE!

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).

H wrote:(Until I want nonexistance. Then I go to sleep.)

Yes. Just yes.

I experienced my whole life simultaneously on DMT

Sheesh, I dunno. Once has generally been enough for me...

--A