Occam's razor and consciousness

[jeffl]

What does this post have to do with Ockham's razor? Did you just throw that in there to add what you presume to be gravitas to your post?

I don't think i'm as political an animal as yourself, sb. I refer to Occam's razor because of a link posted by Asian-American that contained the following by John Bryant:

"As I pointed out in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts ("the Law of Parsimony")."

It got me thinking, hence the thread.

My bet is that you don’t even know what Ockham’s razor is.

My bet is you are once again lying. The reader is refered to the consciousness thread to observe the fact that sb is more aware of names than of content.

What are you talking about? Are you presuming that a perfect intellect would have no choice?

You have no idea what i presume.

That would only be the case if that intellect possessed perfect knowledge. I suppose it never occurred to you that it is not possible for a perfect intellect to know if it has perfect knowledge.

I can tell you i would not presume what it would be like to have perfect intellect; i'll let you handle that.

Thus it will most likely be forced or required at some time in its life to make a choice that in the end is either the result of unconscious desires, educated guess or random chance.

Starboy

Good luck with that.:)

[Starboy]

I don't think i'm as political an animal as yourself, sb. I refer to Occam's razor because of a link posted by Asian-American that contained the following by John Bryant:

"As I pointed out in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts ("the Law of Parsimony")."

Only philosophers practice "scientific philosophy". Most scientists do not study philosophy at all. For most scientists the only philosophy course they take if any is some form of logic.

It got me thinking, hence the thread.My bet is you are once again lying. The reader is refered to the consciousness thread to observe the fact that sb is more aware of names than of content.

What does this have to do with my claim that you do not know what Ockham's razor is? Such an answer is a good indication that I am correct. You see if you knew what it was you would be able to state it authoritatively but you do not. Could it be because yet again you think gibberish passes for knowledge?

You have no idea what i presume.I can tell you i would not presume what it would be like to have perfect intellect; i'll let you handle that.Good luck with that.:)

Do you have a comprehension problem like Merlin? Notice the question marks in my sentences? Questions are not presumptions. But my guess is that you do not respond in a strait forward manner because if you did it would be made obvious that yet again you to not have the slightest notion of what you are talking about. But there is one big tip off as to your lack of intellectual honesty. The fact that you will not admit ignorance is a very big tip-off.

Starboy

[MerlinsByte]

Do you have a comprehension problem like Merlin? Notice the question marks in my sentences? Questions are not presumptions. But my guess is that you do not respond in a strait forward manner because if you did it would be made obvious that yet again you to not have the slightest notion of what you are talking about. But there is one big tip off as to your lack of intellectual honesty. The fact that you will not admit ignorance is a very big tip-off.

MERLIN writes...and this guy thinks its ME that has a problem. Hello starboy! look in a mirror and say...no forget it..

PS I agree with Jeffel.

mb

[jeffl]

For most scientists the only philosophy course they take if any is some form of logic.

Seems they could do with a bit more epistemology.

What does this have to do with my claim that you do not know what Ockham's razor is?

Nothing in particular, except for the obvious.

Such an answer is a good indication that I am correct. You see if you knew what it was you would be able to state it authoritatively but you do not. Could it be because yet again you think gibberish passes for knowledge?

Yeah, look; there's an interesting article, a couple actually, in Scientific American Mind, Number 16, volume 1. One is on page 9, and it's called 'Zen Gamma;' in the consciousness thread, the neural vortecies and 'migrating neruoelectric complex' i refer to would give the results observed in the study. On page 7 there's an interesting article called 'Language Pathway Revealed.' The two articles together, and what i've suggested about the 'flash', are very suggestive. I'm the one who referenced Penrose, and demonstrated in the consciousness thread my understanding of the relevant issues. I will not spoon feed you.

Do you have a comprehension problem like Merlin?

Really sb; you are the one experiencing difficulty with the releveant subject matter, and so dance around the semantic greys of an as yet undefined dialectic.

Are you presuming that a perfect intellect would have no choice?

I made no mention of perfect intellect; why do you ask? Do you not see a difference between 'consciousness' and 'intellect?'

But my guess is that you do not respond in a strait forward manner because if you did it would be made obvious that yet again you to not have the slightest notion of what you are talking about.

'Guess,' is that like a presumption? I would presume that the reader can make the necessary connections between the terms 'occam's razor' and 'law of parsimony.' Also, I'm happy to answer any questions, semantic or otherwise, about how occam's razor relates to notions of 'grounded conscious perception,' from anyone else.

But there is one big tip off as to your lack of intellectual honesty. The fact that you will not admit ignorance is a very big tip-off.

Starboy

Ya know, you might be right. Please, tell me more about what it's like to be a perfect intellect, uncle sb.

[jeffl]

PS I agree with Jeffel.

mb

Thanks, MB.

[Starboy]

jeffl, I will make it simple for you.

What is Ockham's Razor and why does it have anything at all to do with science?

Starboy

[jeffl]

jeffl, I will make it simple for you.

What is Ockham's Razor and why does it have anything at all to do with science?

Starboy

I will make it simple for you. I find you offensive, and i am not compelled to respond to your posts directly.

Where i come from, Occam's razor is a common term used to represent the application of the law of parsimony to the determination of what is available for reasonable consideration.

The specific point of the thread is that an overzealous application could whittle the essence of consciousness away from the more economically practical 'intellect.' Scientists could look at 'intellect,' thinking they're seeing 'consciousness.'

More generally, the point would be to elucidate the nature of the arrogance trap that is physical being.

[Starboy]

I will make it simple for you. I find you offensive, and i am not compelled to respond to your posts directly.

This may come as no surprise to you but I find your juxtaposition of pseudo scientific gibberish very offensive.

Where i come from, Occam's razor is a common term used to represent the application of the law of parsimony to the determination of what is available for reasonable consideration.

And where I come from parsimony and/or Occam's Razor is nothing more than a bias. It has little to do with actual reality since over time explanations have been getting more complicated and not simpler so direct experience would indicate that parsimony and/or Occam's (Ockham's) razor are completely wrong.

The specific point of the thread is that an overzealous application could whittle the essence of consciousness away from the more economically practical 'intellect.' Scientists could look at 'intellect,' thinking they're seeing 'consciousness.'

What is the scientific difference between 'intellect' and 'consciousness'?

More generally, the point would be to elucidate the nature of the arrogance trap that is physical being.

More pseudo scientific gibberish - "elucidate the nature of the arrogance trap". My you are full of claptrap jeffl.

Starboy

[jeffl]

More pseudo scientific gibberish - "elucidate the nature of the arrogance trap". My you are full of claptrap jeffl.

Starboy

You will do anything to avoid civil discussion of a relevant issue. This is not the first time you've acquired myown position in your own jibberish.

Again, the point of the thread; to avoid the overapplication of what is commonly believed to be reasonable bias, in order that we might see our way to the Truth.

[Dadoo]

Starboy-
This is the Philosophy and Religion board.

[Dadoo]

principle of parsimony

n : the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred [syn: Occam's Razor, Ockham's Razor]

Theories, when applied toward the aim of obtaining a satisfactory explanation of phenomena, yield flawed or circumspect data.
As per conciousness, that it "is", must suffice. "Why" it is cannot be extrapolated using the principle of parsimony, in my estimation.

Religions and ritual and the like have naught to do with conciousness. Directly speaking, they are as connected as a weathervane may be to the house's foundation.
Conciousness cannot be cleaved by concious minds, however clever.

Starboy- explain your point of view so it may be appreciated.
Remember sir, this is a Religion and Philosophy forum.
By your own admittance -gibberish. Show us your genius,
illuminate me, I'm easy. Blow my mind for once. I dare you!

-Can you? Or will you adhere to parsimony's principia and espouse anger, disdain, negativity and arrogance ad nauseaum, as we all expect?
(Those are questions, not statements, right?)

Dadoo

[jeffl]

Religions and ritual and the like have naught to do with conciousness. Directly speaking, they are as connected as a weathervane may be to the house's foundation.

Ofcourse, i disagree. Although, i can work with the analogy. We can talk effectively about the individual consciousness of the human animal; which is as removed from the essence of consciousness as is the foundation of a house from what the house and its occupants are doing. However, what the occupants of the house are doing is often directly related to the weathervane. And depending on the integrity of the house, the weathervane might just indicate that other sorts of shelter should be considered.

Conciousness cannot be cleaved by concious minds, however clever.

If by 'cleaved' you mean 'understood,' then i think you've just identified your problem. Consider the facts that; a) the sense of smell is more directly associated with emotion and memory than the other senses, b) neurons communicate by what could be operationally defined as smell, and c) both the greek and the hebrew spiritual perspectives have burnt offering rituals associated with 'odors pleasing to the Lord.' Given that, on what ground do you say that consciousness has nothing to do with ritual or religion?