Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote?

"AJA" <ahnemann DeleteThis @optonline.net> wrote in news:FHeeh.4$_t3.3@newsfe12.lga:

Thanks, Ann. I've read that essay a few times, and what struck me about
the passage I quoted originally was it's unexpectedness -- wish I could
remember more of the exact language that Lewis used, or the source. (Of
course, at the time, I had supposed that Occam's Razor stood pretty much in
the same relation to Western thought as the excluded middle.)

> You might look at CSL's essay 'On Obstinacy of Belief' in the
> collection, _The World's Last Night_. At any rate, the essay is a
> good discussion of CSL's thoughts about proof, belief, etc. I've
> nothing more exact, yet.
>
> Blessings,
> Ann
>
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

Roberto Abajo wrote:
> "AJA" <ahnemann.RemoveThis@optonline.net> wrote in news:FHeeh.4$_t3.3@newsfe12.lga:
>
> Thanks, Ann. I've read that essay a few times, and what struck me about
> the passage I quoted originally was it's unexpectedness -- wish I could
> remember more of the exact language that Lewis used, or the source. (Of
> course, at the time, I had supposed that Occam's Razor stood pretty much in
> the same relation to Western thought as the excluded middle.)

It is a useful tool for laying the burden of proof etc. , the problem
is, there are are going to be occasions when the apparent simplest
explanation is not going to be the actual one. If I understand
correctly, in particle physics these days they use any formulation
where the math works, whether it is simplest or not. There are going to
be times when the added "green gremlins," though not a logical
necessity, are going to be there nonetheless.

Daryl
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

Roberto Abajo wrote:
> I think the reason they prefer to follow the math rather than reason in
> physics nowadays is that so many of the elaborate, contra-intuitive,
> "useless" mathematical constructs, after they were thought of, turned
> out to be very applicable to the new structures that appeared to be the
> way the world actually was. Perhaps this argues a connection between
> Mind and Matter (or matter's laws) at some deep level, perhaps not.
>

Henry Stapp at the U of California has written papers with the central
thesis that the synapses in the brain are so small that the quantum
effects are significant, therefore the mind can effect whether a neuron
will fire or not (collapsing the wave-function.)
We know that our observation has an effect on reality and this would
provide a ready connection between the spiritual and natural.
In addition to the example you cited in your post there is one that
strikes closer to home. In order to form RNA from its constituent
compounds it is required to climb an energy well. Living things, as
they exist here, are counter intuitive, (despite what Carl Sagan says),
shouldn't happen at all.

Daryl
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

"darylgene@aol.com" <darylgene DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in
news:1165766791.235199.324110@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:

> It is a useful tool for laying the burden of proof etc. , the
> problem
> is, there are are going to be occasions when the apparent simplest
> explanation is not going to be the actual one. If I understand
> correctly, in particle physics these days they use any formulation
> where the math works, whether it is simplest or not. There are going
> to be times when the added "green gremlins," though not a logical
> necessity, are going to be there nonetheless.
>
> Daryl

Of course logically simple is not always correct in the real world --
we must, in the final analysis, adopt our thinking to reality. Consider
the whole phenomenon of symbiosis -- how likely is it that creatures
would come to live in and be dependent upon symbiotic relationships?

I think the reason they prefer to follow the math rather than reason in
physics nowadays is that so many of the elaborate, contra-intuitive,
"useless" mathematical constructs, after they were thought of, turned
out to be very applicable to the new structures that appeared to be the
way the world actually was. Perhaps this argues a connection between
Mind and Matter (or matter's laws) at some deep level, perhaps not.

Whether we consider the "green gremlins" as actually there or not must
depend on the results of experiments, I should think. (For instance,
there is a certain sub-atomic particle, produced in the ionosphere by
atomic collisions and moving very nearly at light-speed, which is of
such brief life that it ought never to be found in the "cosmic rays"
detectable at the earth's surface. The fact that it is found there
anyway is a strong indication that the time-dilation predicted by
special relativity is a reality -- and any subsequent theory which
obsoletes special relativity must adequately explain that particular
phenomenon, among others.)

RA
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

Roberto Abajo wrote:
>
> Interesting -- the epiphenominalists perhaps would say that neurons firing
> compose mental activity, and not the other way about.


The implications of which leave them without reason, and aware only
incidentally. If neurons fire simply due to electro-chemical-physical
forces then it would be impossible for a "person" to change that fact
through intention, thought would take place quite beyond their control,
at the very, very best it would be arational. Of course, you could
actually dispute who "they" were themselves, not thinking beings
evidently, but loci where nature is doing what we (complicated...
again nature, not us would be doing the defining) have defined as
thought.

Daryl
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

"darylgene@aol.com" <darylgene.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in
news:1165816970.533219.168280@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:

> Henry Stapp at the U of California has written papers with the central
> thesis that the synapses in the brain are so small that the quantum
> effects are significant, therefore the mind can effect whether a neuron
> will fire or not (collapsing the wave-function.)
> We know that our observation has an effect on reality and this would
> provide a ready connection between the spiritual and natural.
> In addition to the example you cited in your post there is one that
> strikes closer to home. In order to form RNA from its constituent
> compounds it is required to climb an energy well. Living things, as
> they exist here, are counter intuitive, (despite what Carl Sagan says),
> shouldn't happen at all.
>
> Daryl

Interesting -- the epiphenominalists perhaps would say that neurons firing
compose mental activity, and not the other way about. However, it is well
documented that some trained Yogis can "by taking thought" produce
objective results, e.g.slow their heartbeats, etc., not to mention the
common experience that the steady practice of disciplined concentration
sometimes leads to objective results.

From an engineering/physics standpoint life is itself supremely improbable.
It seems to go against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that
in any closed system entropy (a measure of disorder) tends to *increase*
over time. How the counter-entropic, self-perpetuating reactions that tend
to decrease entropy got started in the first place still generates much
controversy

RA
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

Roberto Abajo <replies.DeleteThis@ng.only> writes:

> From an engineering/physics standpoint life is itself supremely improbable.
> It seems to go against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that
> in any closed system entropy (a measure of disorder) tends to *increase*
> over time. How the counter-entropic, self-perpetuating reactions that tend
> to decrease entropy got started in the first place still generates much
> controversy

The "closed system" in this case is the Universe.

One can consider a human being a machine that takes structured stuff
(plants and animal proteins) and converts it to less structured stuff
- heat energy.

The plants structure comes from absorbing enormous amounts of solar
energy, which was again created by converting matter into energy.

The amount of hydrogen atoms that had to "die" to create energy enough
for me to compose this message is quite absurd.
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "15000 atheists in London rioted today
The RockBear. ((^)) after a blank sheet of paper was found
I speak only 0}._.{0 on a cartoonist's desk"
for myself. O/ \O -anon.
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

"darylgene@aol.com" <darylgene DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in
news:1165884489.431988.100010@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> The implications of which leave them without reason, and aware only
> incidentally. If neurons fire simply due to electro-chemical-
> physical forces then it would be impossible for a "person" to change
> that fact through intention, thought would take place quite beyond
> their control, at the very, very best it would be arational. Of
> course, you could actually dispute who "they" were themselves, not
> thinking beings evidently, but loci where nature is doing what we
> (complicated... again nature, not us would be doing the defining)
> have defined as thought.
>
> Daryl

Rather like the rabid behaviorists who defined thought as "sub-vocal
behavior" thus refusing to deal with the whole problem of
consciousness. (Almost as though someone who had had their vocal nerves
cut lost the power of thought.)

Still, I understand that particular brand of doublethink is no longer
practiced as quite so openly nowadays, most behavorists admitting --
especially if they aren't speaking *ex cathedra* -- that we do think.
(Once Comintern was closed down to appease Russia's capitalist
allies in "The Great Patriotic War" (WWII), I don't nelieve it was ever
reopened.)

RA
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:14:46 UTC, Roberto Abajo <replies.TakeThisOut@ng.only> wrote:

> Rather like the rabid behaviorists who defined thought as "sub-vocal
> behavior" thus refusing to deal with the whole problem of
> consciousness. (Almost as though someone who had had their vocal nerves
> cut lost the power of thought.)
>
> Still, I understand that particular brand of doublethink is no longer
> practiced as quite so openly nowadays, most behavorists admitting --
> especially if they aren't speaking *ex cathedra* -- that we do think.

One doesn't have to engage in "vulgar behaviorism" (by parallel to "vuglar
Marxism") to be unconvinced by the Balfour - Lewis attempt at proving the
existence of the transcendent from the existence of thought. The silliness
of the classic behaviorists is rather a red herring. For a non-behaviorist
who seems to have been unimpressed by it even after Lewis plugged the
major hole that had been pointed out, try Elizabeth Anscombe.

The possibility of quantum effects in the synapse, mentioned by Daryl, is
most interesting, and I'm glad to see that someone is talking about it. In
those famous lectures Feynman made a passing reference to the difficulties
of determinism on a purely physical basis, without even invoking quantum
effects, given the tininess of variation that could be amplified in the
brain to something huge. (In effect he was talking about chaotic systems,
well before Chaos Theory came up.)

Nonetheless, the idea that Mind (or something) can affect the outcome of
quantum effects is pure conjecture -- one that I like to play with, but
one that can't prove anything, because it's not supported by any evidence.
There are some ongoing experiments to test psychokinetic effects on
quantum systems, but their results are extremely disputable, and have
given rise to new debates between advocates of two schools of statistical
inference -- thus far do these debates splay out when someone tries to tie
them down to something concrete.

--
Dan Drake
dd.TakeThisOut@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

"Dan Drake" <dd.TakeThisOut@dandrake.com> wrote in message
news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-tKvIT9y9SWWd@localhost...
>
> Nonetheless, the idea that Mind (or something) can affect the outcome of
> quantum effects is pure conjecture -- one that I like to play with,

Me too. But in the case of healing it seems more than play, iyw?
Mind/body connection, etc. Seems to have played out in my case and many
I've worked with. But proof, of course is ellusive.
If one doesn't accept 'evidence' such as damaged optic nerves being restored
over night, etc.
I love this debate. Especially if it comes down to trying to find
scientific reasons for the blind suddenly being able to see.
Mary are you still around? What say you about Yoga practices and mind
affecting matter?

Blessings,
Ann


but
> one that can't prove anything, because it's not supported by any evidence.
> There are some ongoing experiments to test psychokinetic effects on
> quantum systems, but their results are extremely disputable, and have
> given rise to new debates between advocates of two schools of statistical
> inference -- thus far do these debates splay out when someone tries to tie
> them down to something concrete.
>
> --
> Dan Drake
> dd.TakeThisOut@dandrake.com
> http://www.dandrake.com/
> porlockjr.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

Thanks for the email. Yes, if I had heard the battle afar off, I'd
certainly have been shouting Aha.



On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:34:30 -0500, AJA wrote:

> "Dan Drake" <dd DeleteThis @dandrake.com> wrote in message
> news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-tKvIT9y9SWWd@localhost...
>>
>> Nonetheless, the idea that Mind (or something) can affect the outcome of
>> quantum effects is pure conjecture -- one that I like to play with,
>
> Me too. But in the case of healing it seems more than play, iyw?
> Mind/body connection, etc. Seems to have played out in my case and many
> I've worked with. But proof, of course is ellusive.
> If one doesn't accept 'evidence' such as damaged optic nerves being restored
> over night, etc.
> I love this debate. Especially if it comes down to trying to find
> scientific reasons for the blind suddenly being able to see.
> Mary are you still around? What say you about Yoga practices and mind
> affecting matter?


I'll have to think about that.


Bree
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

Dan Drake wrote:

>

>
> One doesn't have to engage in "vulgar behaviorism" (by parallel to "vulgar
> Marxism") to be unconvinced by the Balfour - Lewis attempt at proving the
> existence of the transcendent from the existence of thought. The silliness
> of the classic behaviorists is rather a red herring. For a non-behaviorist
> who seems to have been unimpressed by it even after Lewis plugged the
> major hole that had been pointed out, try Elizabeth Anscombe.

You could, indeed still have thought in a purely "natural" world but
it wouldn't be what we suppose it to be, more Nature playing a dirty
trick, making us think we could effect the world, when all along you
just have physics and chemistry
>
> The possibility of quantum effects in the synapse, mentioned by Daryl, is
> most interesting, and I'm glad to see that someone is talking about it. In
> those famous lectures Feynman made a passing reference to the difficulties
> of determinism on a purely physical basis, without even invoking quantum
> effects, given the tininess of variation that could be amplified in the
> brain to something huge. (In effect he was talking about chaotic systems,
> well before Chaos Theory came up.)

I wasn't thinking of quantum effects producing or allowing thought,
more providing a means for the spirit to effect the physical world. We
know wavefunctions collapse simply because they are observed, this
could be something like that. Chaos, unpredictibility etc. still do not
permit reason/ volition/ intention, they just make the world
unresolvable. Thoughts that occur at random are not what we usually
think of when we are talking about reason.

>
> Nonetheless, the idea that Mind (or something) can affect the outcome of
> quantum effects is pure conjecture -- one that I like to play with, but
> one that can't prove anything, because it's not supported by any evidence.

Something is doing something unusual, whether this or something else,
who knows, but I wouldn't be surprised.

> There are some ongoing experiments to test psychokinetic effects on
> quantum systems, but their results are extremely disputable, and have
> given rise to new debates between advocates of two schools of statistical
> inference -- thus far do these debates splay out when someone tries to tie
> them down to something concrete.

You don't have to move the particle to effect it, just observing it
does that.


Daryl
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote? 

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is
because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and
therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
--

Max Planck
 >> Stay informed about: Lewis and Occam's Razor -- more exact quote?