'Skeptics frequently talk about Occam's Razor. They use it to choose between alternative explanations for something, especially where no one alternative has been either proven or disproven. But what is it?
Many people will tell you it says, "Choose the simplest solution". But it doesn't say choose the simplest solution. Opponents of Occam complain that it will not necessarily help you choose the correct solution. But Occam's Razor does not pretend to choose the correct solution. So what is it and what is its point?
Occam's Razor actually says:
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate",
which is translated as
"plurality should not be posited without necessity."
The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349).
The archaic English needs to be interpreted for modern times. What it means is this:
Do not invent unnecessary entities to explain something.
An example
Suppose I have a cat. One night, I leave out a saucer of milk, and in the morning the milk has gone. No one saw who or what drank the milk. Lets say there are two possibilities:
1. The cat drank it or 2. The milk fairy drank it
Occam tells us to reject option 2. This is because option 2 requires us to invent an unnecessary entity - the milk fairy. It is an invention because we have no proof that the milk fairy exists. And it is unnecessary because there is a plausible explanation that does not require the milk fairy - the cat. (We know he exists.)
Note: we haven't proven that the cat drank the milk. Or disproven the milk fairy option. Strictly speaking, we keep an open mind about both options. But Occam says that if you insist it could be the milk fairy, you have invented an unnecessary entity. And why would you do that?
Note also that strictly speaking, both solutions are equally simple. The cat hypothesis is only simpler in that you haven't had to invent a new, unproven entity. Also note that there are additional options that we could choose if we abandon Occam. For example, it could have been ghosts, or aliens, or the boogieman or Santa Claus. Why choose one of these over the others when there is an equal lack of proof for any of them?
Occam Applied
Occam can be applied to a myriad of supposed paranormal events, including ghosts, psychics, UFOs, people who talk with the dead, reincarnation, the soul, spoon benders, near death and out of body experiences. Usually, the paranormal explanation for these phenomena cannot be disproven, and this is often given as the reason we should consider the paranormal explanation. But Occam says go with the natural explanation for now, until any new evidence challenges it. But if there is a natural explanation and you believe, without proof, that the paranormal one is possible, you are inventing the milk fairy. '
So now tell me how you come up with "A Reasonable Explanation to Not Believe in the Human Soul"
I want to hear your explanation, not just "see above." I know what Occam's Razor says. But apply it to not believing in the human soul, please, like with the milk and cat story.
Occam's razor is actually quite simple: Don't jump to conclusions.
Something people do when faced with the unexplainable. They just stick a convenient story behind it so that it gets rationalized and can become part of rationalization.
e.g. The saucer of milk was drunk by the milk fairy.
This now becomes a valid argument in the eyes of those who made it and thus can be used in other instances, for example:
The cat is getting thinner everyday, that must be because the milk fairy is stealing his saucer of milk.
A whole carton of milk just disappeared from the fridge last night, it must be because the milk fairy was particularly hungry.
My neighbor told me that a gallon of orange juice she left out on her porch disappeared last night. It must be the milk fairy's cousin, the orange juice fairy
It's why the mythologies of religion are so complex because as one erroneous explanation is applied as the premises of another erroneous explanation it becomes one big convoluted mess.
Oh what tangled webs we weave...
Things like: Hera hated Heracles which was why he was subjected to a lot of challenges but in the end Zeus recognizes his son and brings him to Olympus. (sounds more like a telenovela eh?), and it's only one of the simpler plots of greek mythology.
Or how about, if you walk under a ladder, backtrack immediately so you will regain the luck you have lost and it's recommended to throw salt over your shoulder.
Or how about leaving milk and cookies for Santa Claus and a sock for treats and you don't get presents that's because you've been a really naughty boy.
Or how about the elaborate cleansing and prayer rituals of muslims?
Or the partaking of the wafer... er host... on Sunday with wine to celebrate Jesus' last supper and it's supposed to be his flesh and blood as evidenced by that miracle in which the host started bleeding. Ouch.
If only they took the time to take the simplest explanations, the whole flimsy house of cards built on ridiculous premises that we call religion would never have existed.
And tommysguns, Relativity was built on existing valid premises which would pass the Occam's razor test, religion is not.
Since even believers can't agree on a definition of a soul, nor does anyone know where it is, or what it looks like, or what it does, or what it means. . . .
I think it's reasonable to say there's no such thing. But I also think the "explaining" part is for those making the claim. So if you say there's a soul. . . present your evidence.
What's being ignored in favor of Occam is the option to wait six hours for further emerging evidence: if the cat (assuming it's an adult cat) starts squirting diahrrea into the litter box, you have PROOF he drank the milk.
Occam is supposition applied to theory. Diahrrea is evidence and, therefore, proof.
I like detective novels. Yes, I know... it's a shitty analogy (OHHH, couldn't resist!)
1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life 2 a: the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe 3: a person's total self 4 a: an active or essential part b: a moving spirit : leader 5 a: the moral and emotional nature of human beings b: the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c: spiritual or moral force : fervor
So I'd need clarification from the OP. Our Sed has looked at this in a religious context; we haven't.
But even then, I do not immediately conclude that the strange light in the sky I saw was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, or maybe a host of angels practicing synchronized flying. I still gravitate toward the simpler explanations - it might be an unknown natural phenomenon like ball lightning, or simply something artificial like the Chinese conducting tests of new aircraft (LOL) or someone with a really powerful light source playing with it on the clouds.
The main difference is that I recognize that it is UNKNOWN and I can't explain it. I do not give it a convenient rash explanation that is based solely on supposition without facts. Therein lies the rift in the thinking between a skeptic and a believer.
It is an UNKNOWN factor, and thus can't be used in future rationalizations. I simply relegate it to the whole slew of UNKNOWNS in the back of my mind waiting for explanation. Worth wasting time investigating probably when the means are possible, but not worthy in itself as a premise.
I remember an incident where a statue of the virgin mary started to ooze a reddish substance from her eyes. It was proclaimed as a miracle. Yet priests wouldn't let anybody touch it nor analyze it. The reason was found out later that it was rust stains or somesuch and not blood (I was very young when the issue came out). There you see that most of the religious are afraid of finding out the real reason and are much more prone to make another unsupported explanation so that it will fit in more comfortably into their own web of unsupported explanations.
Afraid to open the eyes and see that the things they hold sacred are much more mundane phenomena.
Caslon6000 saidSo now tell me how you come up with "A Reasonable Explanation to Not Believe in the Human Soul"
I want to hear your explanation, not just "see above." I know what Occam's Razor says. But apply it to not believing in the human soul, please, like with the milk and cat story.
I am with Caslon. You have just copied an article that does not have much to do with the title. Yes, it mentions the soul but only in the most casual way. Perhaps you could put some original thought into this and describe how Occam's razor theory actually affirms your disbelief in the human soul... with an example pertaining to your subject rather than a cat at the milk bowl. You have made it clear that YOU believe it doesn't exist in your previous postings but this article only states that it is much easier and more logical to believe what is proven rather than create a "mythical" experience to explain the unexplained. This reasoning is nothing innovative or enlightening. Turning your back on every illogical experience or unexplained theory and simply choosing the most simplistic answer based on what we already assume to be correct would deny most of the advances we make as human beings in our quest to understand the universe. Ultimately every discovery just leads to more confusion.
meninlove: I'm talking about it in the religious context but not specifically. I did not even cover the soul. LOL
Funny thing is, the Old testament (read: jewish) version of the soul is not this immortal invisible thing that outlives the flesh, but simply life itself (as evidenced by the terminology used in which the term is synonymous with 'Breath' and 'Living Thing'). When one dies, the soul DIES with it. The concept of resurrection for them is really resurrection - reconstituting the body and thus the mind/soul with no out-of-body consciousness in between. Christians think that as soon as the body dies it goes to heaven. The old testament says that when the body dies, it dies, including the soul. It only goes to heaven at the apocalypse when it is resurrected.
Note that that version of the soul fits in the provable spectra of science and that is Soul = Consciousness = Mind/Body.
No purgatory, no ghosts, and whatnot. The modern myths of the soul is a hodgepodge of misconceptions, mistranslations, and superstitions.
That's why I felt it necessary for the OP to describe what he refers to when saying 'soul' - there are all kinds of interesting references to the word's origins.
Ancient Greeks had it as 'psyche', as an example to add to your own.
Sedative saidmeninlove: I'm talking about it in the religious context but not specifically. I did not even cover the soul. LOL
Funny thing is, the Old testament (read: jewish) version of the soul is not this immortal invisible thing that outlives the flesh, but simply life itself (as evidenced by the terminology used in which the term is synonymous with 'Breath' and 'Living Thing'). When one dies, the soul DIES with it. The concept of resurrection for them is really resurrection - reconstituting the body and thus the mind/soul with no out-of-body consciousness in between. Christians think that as soon as the body dies it goes to heaven. The old testament says that when the body dies, it dies, including the soul. It only goes to heaven at the apocalypse when it is resurrected.
Note that that version of the soul fits in the provable spectra of science and that is Soul = Consciousness = Mind/Body.
No purgatory, no ghosts, and whatnot. The modern myths of the soul is a hodgepodge of misconceptions, mistranslations, and superstitions.
Again sed, you are referencing religion when the OP has not suggested that this was a religious discussion. Knowing his penchant for stirring controversy, I am guessing that was his point, but for all practical purposes, the soul most certainly can die with the person or that energy can continue on. It can have an endless variety of ending places based on the fact that it is energy. You can"t disprove the souls existence simply because your can find fault in religion.
As for arguments that science wouldn't have progressed this far if Occam's razor was consistently applied. Note that as zeebyaboi said, Occam's razor is only for usage in unexplainable phenomena at the absence of PROOF.
When proof comes into play, it's a whole different ballgame. And it's called the Scientific Method.
The modern myths of the soul is a hodgepodge of misconceptions, mistranslations, and superstitions.
EXACTLY... Why does everyone assume that they are relieved of this confusion and misunderstanding just because they believe they have it right. You can be no more certain than someone who believes can. That is the beauty and the curse of spirituality.
mnjock, I'm making examples of religion because it is the direct opposite of Occam's razor. Note that I do not even make exclusive comparison with religion but also to mere superstition and folklore.
I am not making a religious discussion, merely stating examples in the religious context.
I could make a nonreligious example, like when a car suddenly stops, the driver assumes something's wrong with the Engine when it could actually be quite simple... no gas. LOL
The applicability of Occam's razor is why it is necessary to always look at and prove/disprove the SIMPLEST explanation you can find as opposed to jumping immediately at the most complex reason (often unprovable).
Sedative said The applicability of Occam's razor is why it is necessary to always look at and prove/disprove the SIMPLEST explanation you can find as opposed to jumping immediately at the most complex reason (often unprovable).
Ok, then prove the soul does not exist using Occam's razor using the actual definition of soul.
"I think, therefore I am" .....The simple meaning of this phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not he or she exists, that is in and of itself proof that he or she does exist.
Is that Occam's Razor-y enough?
[edit] ...as proof that the soul exists in the Webster's dict. 1st meaning?
If you are using the term as it is understood by definition, versus superstition, religion and most of the other examples referenced, it is virtually impossible to prove the soul does not exist. Which is my problem with this post and the other references sited. The soul is a lot less abstract than some would have you believe.
Sedative said The applicability of Occam's razor is why it is necessary to always look at and prove/disprove the SIMPLEST explanation you can find as opposed to jumping immediately at the most complex reason (often unprovable).
Ok, then prove the soul does not exist using Occam's razor using the actual definition of soul.
Unprovable and should be treated as such. What's wrong with saying 'I don't know'?
The problem here is, the existence of the soul is a result of supposition that could be disproved, but it is not based on perceivable evidence in itself. To put it simply, it is a supposition based on supposition, not the typical supposition based on observed phenomena which is when Occam's razor can be applied directly.
No one has claimed to have seen a soul (ghost phenomena aside, in which Occam's razor can be applied) as defined by religions. Without even observed phenomena it is pointless to find reasons for it.
Again, here you see the difference. You will believe it exists without evidence and call it faith, I will believe it doesn't exist unless there's evidence. I do not put shame in saying 'I do not know' and therefore give it no power over my future decisions. I will not even be ashamed if future studies do prove a soul, because my current position is simply that it's unknown and irrelevant.
For example, I will not worry that eating shellfish might endanger my soul, or that drawing satanic images might make my soul unclean precisely because I do not even know if there is a soul or not.
Mere conjectures is what makes me question, but proof is what makes me believe. That's a skeptic.
Mere conjectures makes a believer believe, proof to them is irrelevant, which is why you still see creationists obstinately refusing the myriad evidence presented to them against creation.
I wonder every now and then about consciousness, what makes me aware, what happens after I die. But I do not put weight on any of my musings because they are unsupported and should remain as such until the day we have the means to investigate it.
Sedative saidAs for arguments that science wouldn't have progressed this far if Occam's razor was consistently applied. Note that as zeebyaboi said, Occam's razor is only for usage in unexplainable phenomena at the absence of PROOF.
When proof comes into play, it's a whole different ballgame. And it's called the Scientific Method.
THANK YOU, SED!!!! Finally, somebody gets me. It's early in the morning for me, but apparently the Scientific Method is still in effect. And that brings me to another idea: Allow us to consider the material, or if you will, the "stuff" or the construction, of the soul. We pretty-much can rule out matter. As to energy, that's a good possibility. Or it could be something else. Depak Chopra defined the soul as "not energy, or matter in terms of atoms and quarks, but it is instead The Silent Spaces Inbetween." Lex Luthor (through the writing of Elliot S! Magin), after many pages of tight calculations, found there WAS such a thing as the soul after he asked himself "Where do thoughts go once they've been thought?" Do they fly off into the Ozone layer? Do they drop toward the pull of gravity? A tiny, minute, yet measurable change takes place in the physiology of the brain when a new bit of information is considered. Does that make a thought a physical concept? Luthor came to call the stuff of soul, which he felt was neither matter nor energy, GAS WAVES. Whatever it is, I can tell you we know this: Neither matter nor energy can be destroyed OR created, ONLY transformed, according to what we have observed scientifically. That means that, if the soul IS energy, it never dies, since science has shown thus to be the case. So, The Old Testament is incorrect in the idea that, if the soul is energy, it dies. It simply transforms into another pattern or another state. Many Native Americans, shamans, and others of that persuasion (myself included) tend to thing that the physical is MADE MANIFEST by the energetic, in other words, we as living beings (and that includes the Earth herself, for she is in fact alive even though our Western science is still struggling with how to define her "life force" as well as that of other worlds) are simply PATTERNS OF ENERGY made manifest by conscious thought. I have personally encountered the souls of those people and animals I have known in this life and who have died. I am empirical enough to know when I'm hallucinating and when I'm not. I'm also aware enough to know that we "know" very little in this area, which is why I still say the Lakota have the best term for it: Wakan Tanka - The Great Mystery.
Whatever it is, I can tell you we know this: Neither matter nor energy can be destroyed OR created, ONLY transformed, according to what we have observed scientifically. That means that, if the soul IS energy, it never dies, since science has shown thus to be the case.
We have scientific proof that our personalities - or souls - are created by electrical activity within our brains. We know when that electrical activity stops, that we are dead. We know that the remaining energy within our dead brains is dissipated into the environment as heat.
It makes me wonder if it's appropriate to apply Occam's Razor to this problem because it is not an inexplicable phenomenon in the absence of proof.
I think it might be fair to say that our souls don't die, but I am certain that they contribute to global warming. Now there's a problem worthy of Occam's Razor.
peterstrong saidwhy are ghosts, souls, and spirits of ancestors { Native American culture } so pervasive in all cultures and religions thru out human history?
Because through most of human history, we have been a primitive and frightened race (maybe still are) and we invent all sorts of things to explain life's mysteries and terrors. The fact that these "answers" have been similar across cultures doesn't speak to their truth, it speaks to the total absence (for primitive people) of any other material explanation.
Notice that the most literally Bible-obsessed in this country are almost always the least-traveled, least-sophisticated, and least-intelligent citizens.
mnjock2003 saidIf you are using the term as it is understood by definition, versus superstition, religion and most of the other examples referenced, it is virtually impossible to prove the soul does not exist. Which is my problem with this post and the other references sited. The soul is a lot less abstract than some would have you believe.
Ok which definition? swimbikerun obviously meant the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic soul.
Souls have different meanings in different cultures, from the ancestor ghosts of Shinto, the gaean consciousness of Native American souls (which included things like rocks and the sky), the transferrable sentience of Buddhism/Hinduism (which included all living things), to the immortal consciousness of the Christians/Jews/Muslims (which only encompasses humans), so on and so forth.
Dictionary definitions are general definitions, including poetic and everyday usage, in which case it could mean anything from emotions to the 'core neurons' which house the consciousness in neuroscience that makeumyne referred to (in which case, it is subject to scientific method and not occam's razor).
The fact alone that the definition runs gamut in a variety of fields, cultures, etc. makes it hard to pinpoint exactly which you mean. And the fact that most of it references to something abstract (spiritual/religious context) makes it even more confusing.
The scientific 'soul', however, is observable and though the science of the brain/mind is still in its infancy, already we have made great strides with it both in psychology and neurology. Have you heard of the Direct Neural Interface technologies? A young victim of complete body paralysis is the first benefactor of this technology. It connects the mind directly to a computer, and though it's still very rough, already he can do things completely using only his thoughts. Since consciousness is the prime reason why souls have been theorized in the first place, the fact that the computer can literally read the electrical signals in his brain that constitute his thoughts is astounding in itself. It IS tangible and seems to really be only the electrical activity of the brain. Since it is electricity, when that ceases it is more than safe to assume that thoughts themselves cease, and consciousness disappears. Hence the soul dies.
Still this opens up more questions. if we can replicate the electrical patterns of the brain exactly, can we recreate another consciousness artificially? A deus ex machina? We have yet to know. That's fascinating and it's science, not mere conjecture.
Brady527 saidHow does not believing in a soul improve your life and well-being?
The issue is not simply the belief in the existence of the soul, but the unquestioning belief in anything without proof OR in direct contradiction to existing proof. Still, to answer your question:
I do not worry over pointless guilt on every wrong HUMAN thing that I do... like make love to another man.
I do not spend half my life preparing for something I do even know for sure exists - heaven and hell.
I do not have nightmares over my immortal 'soul' tormented forever in the pits of hell for being gay.
I live my life fully and according to what I really want because I know that this is the only one I have and there's nothing more after (at least that we know of FOR SURE).
I do not waste hours of hypocritical attendance to churches, prayer, guilt trips, and ritual just so I can 'purify' something that no one has even seen, heard, touched, or otherwise proven existed.
I can accept any person on the basis of his self and not his beliefs in a way a Christian can never fully do with a Muslim, as they always worry about the fate of each other's souls.
I am open to ALL evidence be it contradictory to or in line with the existence of a 'soul' because I do not have preconceived notions of what it is supposed to be as taught by religions in absence of all proof.
I am truly the captain of my ship, and the master of my 'soul', as ironic as that sounds. No supreme being to dictate what I should or should not do, but my mere humanity guiding me on what is right and what is wrong.
I am human, a higher form of animal, probably the first to achieve sentience/self-awareness in the history of Terran lifeforms, and i do not pretend to be anything more than what I know I am.
And last but not the least, I can see the Universe with eyes unclouded of judgment and fear. I am open, I am curious, and I see the mysteries of the Universe as what they are - mysteries to be solved. Not 'mysteries' already revealed by some prophet or holy man.
I ask you the same question. What benefits do believing in the existence of the soul give you that isn't achievable without that belief?
(And I hope you will not sidestep this question, as I find most of you do when challenged)
makeumyne said We have scientific proof that our personalities - or souls - are created by electrical activity within our brains. We know when that electrical activity stops, that we are dead. We know that the remaining energy within our dead brains is dissipated into the environment as heat.
It makes me wonder if it's appropriate to apply Occam's Razor to this problem because it is not an inexplicable phenomenon in the absence of proof.
I think it might be fair to say that our souls don't die, but I am certain that they contribute to global warming. Now there's a problem worthy of Occam's Razor.
Actually, we have no such "proof" at all. Most responsible scientists realize that there are still aspects of the nature of consciousness that we do not understand, and at least so far, cannot quantify or qualify scientifically. That's not to say it CAN'T be done, but at this time, we still do not have the technology or instrumentation to do it. And, more importantly, don't confuse personality with soul. Personality is the "clothing" the soul accumulates over numerous incarnations, and is based on ego, which is inherant to the mind and not the soul.
Sedative said And tommysguns, Relativity was built on existing valid premises which would pass the Occam's razor test, religion is not.
This is actually incorrect. Einstein intuitively conceived of relativistic theory and continued his education as a means to prove it.
Ah. But that is exactly the point of skepticism. And you are incorrect, LOL. You make it sound as if he knew about SRT and GRT from the moment he popped out of his mother's womb. (oh wait, that's Jesus, not Einstein)
He 'intuitively' conceived the general notion but still relegated it to mere personal theory while he took the time to learn more about it and finally prove it. He was skeptical even of his own ideas.
He didn't immediately say 'Ah! This is truth!' as a prophet would say, in fact he made a lot of mistakes along the way, which he acknowledges and not cover up (as prophets do). Did you know that he originally used the light as ether theory before he switched to Newton's light particles theory?
And to further disprove your argument that Einstein already knew the theory of relativity before he went on to get educated on the finer points of Physics, he wrote this in 1938 which states clearly when he started thinking deeper into the theory: "The empirically suggested non-existence of such an [ether wind] is the main starting point [point of departure] for the special theory of relativity."
In an earlier letter to another friend, Michele Besso, dating from early 1903, he said that he had merely decided to
"carry out comprehensive studies in electron theory."
The valid premises that I was speaking of is not speaking on the origin of the idea, but on the origin of the proof and therefore credibility. From the most basic - Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Hertz, the hundreds of people behind the fields of studies that forms the bases for the beginnings of Einstein's hypotheses etc. all more or less provable (though of course, updated with time) discoveries; to the more specific to his field of study - Lorentz, Foppl, Faraday, Schwarzchilde, etc.
You only see the man and his direct idea. You don't see the scientists who have made their own discoveries that contributed to the birth of this man's idea. He had a whole army of proven and pending theories behind him made by other men who were skeptical like him, and actually try to prove their brain-farts first before releasing it to the world. That enough to contrast it with religion?
(P.S. still waiting for Brady527's answer, anyone wanna answer in his place? )
Sedative said And tommysguns, Relativity was built on existing valid premises which would pass the Occam's razor test, religion is not.
This is actually incorrect. Einstein intuitively conceived of relativistic theory and continued his education as a means to prove it.
Ah. But that is exactly the point of skepticism. And you are incorrect, LOL. You make it sound as if he knew about SRT and GRT from the moment he popped out of his mother's womb. (oh wait, that's Jesus, not Einstein)
He 'intuitively' conceived the general notion but still relegated it to mere personal theory while he took the time to learn more about it and finally prove it. He was skeptical even of his own ideas.
No, intuiting a concept is not the same as knowing it, which is exactly the statement I made. There's an ocean of difference between intuitively believing you're going to hell and knowing for certain. Even so, during his lifetime, only the mathematical prooof existed, not a direct measurement of relativistic effects. So, provided you're willing to have faith in math, which I do, there are a great number of things that are "proven" to exist without directly demostrable effects.
I think many people of a religious persuasion start out at essentially the same point. Regardless of educational background or experience, they sense the existence of something outside of a mere mundane existence. What they choose to do with this should be a moot point but unfortunately ends up having enormous social and political effects. Skeptics will search and find answers for themselves, ultimately arriving at a conclusion they are satisfied with, if not necessarily comfortable. Non-skeptics will accept what is spoon fed to them and live with the consequences.
As for the modern translation of Occam's Razor, I am having some trouble jumping from the archaic to the modern translation. It seems a bit of a stretch and I would wonder if it accounts for probabalistic (and relativistic) effects, as philosophical postulates rarely do, not that it matters to the discussion.
I think a pertinent question to add to this discussion would be "What is the value in measuring the properties of a soul?" It seems there would be little practical knowledge to gain and would still fall short of proving the existence of God, which is really at the heart of the question.
I think (and I admit reading only about a third of the posts) that Occam's Razor and other rational methods of explanation work if there is nothing out there (or in here) that is closed to intellectual analysis, which is just one relatively small part of mental/psychological functioning.
For me, questions of G*d, the soul, and probably some other stuff are ultimately closed to intellectual analysis. So, for me, Occam's Razor and other rational methods of explanation can't be dispositive in these matters.
Would love to answer this question, but still waiting for your definition of 'soul' so I can.
I don't propose that there is a thing called a soul. Whatever someone might call a 'soul', what ever their definition is with respect to a spiritual component, doesn't exist. Let's start with the Merriam-Webster def.:
1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life 2 a: the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe or god
Here is the more formal statement of Occam's Razor: Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
Using it to postulate the existence of God seems to be rather old ground and it seems using it to argue for the existence of a soul would require some circumstance that wold require the potential existence of a soul. Based on that, we'd need Swimbikerun's natural explanation for effects that might otherwise invoke the need for a soul.
Have you got one of those sitting around somewhere?
Sedative said And tommysguns, Relativity was built on existing valid premises which would pass the Occam's razor test, religion is not.
No, intuiting a concept is not the same as knowing it, which is exactly the statement I made. There's an ocean of difference between intuitively believing you're going to hell and knowing for certain. Even so, during his lifetime, only the mathematical prooof existed, not a direct measurement of relativistic effects. So, provided you're willing to have faith in math, which I do, there are a great number of things that are "proven" to exist without directly demostrable effects.
And it's exactly what I meant in my original post that you replied to. And math is a form of proof in itself since it is rigidly logical. The different operations can be reversed/rearranged to try and come up with the same solution which is a very high form of proving indeed.
JustJohn Skeptics will search and find answers for themselves, ultimately arriving at a conclusion they are satisfied with, if not necessarily comfortable. Non-skeptics will accept what is spoon fed to them and live with the consequences.
We agree on that one.
JustJohn I think a pertinent question to add to this discussion would be "What is the value in measuring the properties of a soul?" It seems there would be little practical knowledge to gain and would still fall short of proving the existence of God, which is really at the heart of the question.
I've already asked Brady527 this question.
Sedative I ask you the same question. What benefits do believing in the existence of the soul give you that isn't achievable without that belief?
(And I hope you will not sidestep this question, as I find most of you do when challenged)
JustJohn Based on that, we'd need Swimbikerun's natural explanation for effects that might otherwise invoke the need for a soul.
Erm. Why is he the one being asked? LOL. He doesn't believe in it.
For me, questions of G*d, the soul, and probably some other stuff are ultimately closed to intellectual analysis. So, for me, Occam's Razor and other rational methods of explanation can't be dispositive in these matters.
In other words, please let my nonrationality be.
And why is that?
This is always the answer I get. As if God and the soul are somehow inviolable to questioning, and yet you accept the word of other people readily enough telling you what they are! Is it fear of knowing? And yet why do you read holy books or go to holy men for knowledge on these spiritual matters?
You mean a priest can tell you anything he wants about the soul and you'll believe it while you'll pooh-pooh a neuroscientist's findings?
This reminds me of a traditional warning of stage magicians in the Philippines, before they do a magic trick they'll always yell out Walang kokontra!, which means 'No doubts!' with the additional warning that too many doubting people in the audience can make a magic trick fail.
Dont laugh but i i read that computers now are so powerful and can process such amounts of data that the scientific method itself will end up being relegated to second place, and correlation will be the most reliable method to gather information. All that thanks to google.
"The new availability of huge amounts of data, along with the statistical tools to crunch these numbers, offers a whole new way of understanding the world. Correlation supersedes causation, and science can advance even without coherent models, unified theories, or really any mechanistic explanation at all."
JustJohn I think a pertinent question to add to this discussion would be "What is the value in measuring the properties of a soul?" It seems there would be little practical knowledge to gain and would still fall short of proving the existence of God, which is really at the heart of the question.
I've already asked Brady527 this question.
Sedative I ask you the same question. What benefits do believing in the existence of the soul give you that isn't achievable without that belief?
(And I hope you will not sidestep this question, as I find most of you do when challenged)
JustJohn Based on that, we'd need Swimbikerun's natural explanation for effects that might otherwise invoke the need for a soul.
Erm. Why is he the one being asked? LOL. He doesn't believe in it.
Sorry, I missed the Brady527 question and would assume a reciprocal reply after mine.
The existence of a soul, regardless of it's form, fills at the very least an emotional void that allows them to reconcile with their own ego and mortality. In the absence of a quantitative proof, I would offer that it does measurably improve some people's outlook qualitatively.
As for swimbikerun, well, he did start the thread and proposed using Occam's razor to argue out of the existence of a soul. Based on the use of the principle, we can't do that unless he can provide the effects produced by a soul that might otherwise be explained by some more reasonable hypothesis of his. He has not yet done so.
Interestingly enough, Occam, or Ockam, was a Theist himself and did not disagree with all church teachings.
JustJohn said The existence of a soul, regardless of it's form, fills at the very least an emotional void that allows them to reconcile with their own ego and mortality. In the absence of a quantitative proof, I would offer that it does measurably improve some people's outlook qualitatively.
Which can also be done without believing in the soul. Which is precisely why it is confusing why they would choose a more complex reason when a more simple one would suffice easily. Especially when the complex reason takes so much out of their life and causes so much damage, historically speaking.
JustJohn said
Interestingly enough, Occam, or Ockam, was a Theist himself and did not disagree with all church teachings.
Indeed he, he was a monk after all. LOL. But it certainly didn't make him popular with the Pope. Occam didn't originate it, either. There are plenty of parallel and derivative principles, like an earlier one by Aristotle:
"Nature operates in the shortest way possible."
It's simply common sense.
Here is an interesting anecdote about the previously mentioned Einstein:
Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." Taken to its logical conclusion this philosophy becomes positivism; the belief that there is no difference between something that exists but is not observable and something that doesn't exist at all. Mach influenced Einstein when he argued that space and time are not absolute but he also applied positivism to molecules. Mach and his followers claimed that molecules were metaphysical because they were too small to detect directly. This was despite the success the molecular theory had in explaining chemical reactions and thermodynamics. It is ironic that while applying the principle of economy to throw out the concept of the ether and an absolute rest frame, Einstein published almost simultaneously a paper on Brownian motion which confirmed the reality of molecules and thus dealt a blow against the use of positivism. The moral of this story is that Occam's razor should not be wielded blindly. As Einstein put it in his Autobiographical notes "This is an interesting example of the fact that even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices."
Occam's razor is limited in that, it itself doesn't prove or disprove anything. And results of using it solely in absence of proof should never be taken as absolute truth.
If I had to choose over whether my car stopped because the engine died or because I had no gas, and I had no way to check it. I would choose the no-gas hypothesis, but I wouldn't bet my life on it and go buy gas without waiting until after I have the means to check and see if that hypothesis is correct. Much less go out and buy a brand new engine.
Because there have been instances when the seemingly simpler explanation is the wrong one (like Mach's assertion that molecules do not exist even when given proof that contradicted him). Getting more data and evidence can fix that easily enough.
All in all, probably the best among all the versions of this principle is also from Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Brady527 saidHow does not believing in a soul improve your life and well-being?
It improves life and well being because it moves me out of the realm of speculation about the very nature of existence towards a more objective view. It is better to see the world for what it is rather than for what I'd like it to be.
Which can also be done without believing in the soul. Which is precisely why it is confusing why they would choose a more complex reason when a more simple one would suffice easily. Especially when the complex reason takes so much out of their life and causes so much damage, historically speaking.
Here is an interesting anecdote about the previously mentioned Einstein:
Occam's razor is limited in that, it itself doesn't prove or disprove anything. And results of using it solely in absence of proof should never be taken as absolute truth.
If I had to choose over whether my car stopped because the engine died or because I had no gas, and I had no way to check it. I would choose the no-gas hypothesis, but I wouldn't bet my life on it and go buy gas without waiting until after I have the means to check and see if that hypothesis is correct. Much less go out and buy a brand new engine.
Because there have been instances when the seemingly simpler explanation is the wrong one (like Mach's assertion that molecules do not exist even when given proof that contradicted him). Getting more data and evidence can fix that easily enough.
All in all, probably the best among all the versions of this principle is also from Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
You are an interesting fellow indeed. I pulled out some of the previous verbage as well as some points I didn't feel needed addressing. You can always call me on those later...
There is actually a somewhat secular definition of the soul that is described as a state of self awareness arrived at after much study and reflection. Not every one "automatically" has one. My favorite interpretation of this is stated as an acquired corporate intellectual property in "The Meaning of Life" but that's another thread. I would argue that belief in, or even the existence of a soul is not the cause of the damage you mention. It is belief in the state of one's own soul as interpreted by authority figures that leads to problems.
If we take even the secular definition of a soul as a state of personal awareness (some would call it self-actualized), I believe your first point is somewhat nullified. It takes real intellectual effort and reason and does not necessarily depend on a supernatural cause. It can, I'd certainly concede that, but it is not a requirement.
Drawing on your car example, I would extend it by including people who could just as easily accept the explanation that their car "gave up the ghost" as a reason for not working. They would accept this because they are ignorant, of below average intelligence, intellectually lazy, or some combination therof. In every case, for them at least, the car losing it's soul is actually a far simpler explanation than combustion engines and refining oil.
So, are you arguing against the existence of a soul based on corrupt religions?
There is actually a somewhat secular definition of the soul that is described as a state of self awareness arrived at after much study and reflection. Not every one "automatically" has one. My favorite interpretation of this is stated as an acquired corporate intellectual property in "The Meaning of Life" but that's another thread. I would argue that belief in, or even the existence of a soul is not the cause of the damage you mention. It is belief in the state of one's own soul as interpreted by authority figures that leads to problems.
If we take even the secular definition of a soul as a state of personal awareness (some would call it self-actualized), I believe your first point is somewhat nullified. It takes real intellectual effort and reason and does not necessarily depend on a supernatural cause. It can, I'd certainly concede that, but it is not a requirement.
And I have pointed this out in several posts. The definition of a 'soul' varies according to colloquial usage. Science believes in a soul in the sense that it is the awareness, the consciousness, the sentience of the central nervous system. That in itself is intangible (mostly) but undeniably exists because we are all aware of our own existence. The mini-cybernetic circuits that control the vehicles we call our bodies. It can be argued thus that the soul is the CNS. Then again, the CNS does not survive death. The death of the brain means the death of the individual, and that is where the definitions of most religious 'souls' diverge from that of Science.
JustJohn said Drawing on your car example, I would extend it by including people who could just as easily accept the explanation that their car "gave up the ghost" as a reason for not working. They would accept this because they are ignorant, of below average intelligence, intellectually lazy, or some combination therof. In every case, for them at least, the car losing it's soul is actually a far simpler explanation than combustion engines and refining oil.
Exactly why it shouldn't be made simpler. And you don't take any of your hypothesis as theory because you have yet to prove it.
An ignorant driver would say the 'car gave up it's ghost' but what about other explanations at the same level of ridiculousness and simplicity? Like 'my wife tampered with the engines', 'God struck down my car', etc.
Which would he choose? In the same way a believer in inundated with religions in trying to explain the fundamental mysteries of the Universe. Which would he believe? Allah? God? Buddha? Ahura Mazda? Brahma? Each are in the same plane of complexity, each explain the mysteries convincingly in their own way, and each are vastly different factually from each other.
The simple answer is 'I don't know'. What is asked is simply that the driver not jump into hasty conclusions. Until he can check it out. Once he starts checking his car out, he should start disproving the simplest to the most complex reasons as any good troubleshooter does.
'Did it lose it's ghost?' is the first question. No way to check. Hence that avenue is left behind and he moves on to the next. 'Have I enough gas?', that can be proven, so he starts checking the fuel levels, etc.
JustJohn said So, are you arguing against the existence of a soul based on corrupt religions?
I am not arguing for the existence nor the nonexistence of the soul. Given that majority of the supposed 'truths' of Religion is unprovable or outright false, it is natural to assume that the entirety is false, since they are interconnected. Souls are central to most religions, and none of them can agree to a single definition either.
I don't know if a soul exists or not, and I recognize this. Until I or Science has the means to check its existence, I will go with the simplest reason that will impact my life least - it doesn't.
Yet that conviction isn't written in stone either. If someone can prove the existence of the soul and leave no doubts, I can switch easily enough to the CORRECT reason precisely because I place no significance to the earlier reason - it did not have enough proof.
Now consider this religious example - a 'splinter' from the 'true cross' is proven by dating and other methods to be NOT from the cross. How do you think the religious will react? Would they believe science? Hell no, even if scientists who examined it showed them reams of data and reiterate the tests very few of them would be convinced that it is indeed NOT from the cross.
Which is why I'm the agnostic atheist type of atheist. I recognize that I can never prove God, and is open to the possibility of his existence. But I do know that ALL religions today have major or minor lies woven into them that has been exposed over and over, enough for me to know that these manmade 'gods' are false and I can't claim allegiance to ANY of them. Especially with the bloodstains on their altars. Hence a similar stand. Which of the reasons can affect my life least and cause least damage to myself or my fellowmen - simple: He doesn't exist, or if He does, is simply unknowable and thus irrelevant to my humble existence.
swimbikerun said It is better to see the world for what it is rather than for what I'd like it to be.
Bless my soul!
"God does not play dice with the universe." - Albert Einstein
Einstein said lots of fascinating things, my personal favorite being,
"Generations to come will scarce[ly] believe that such a one as [Gandhi] ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." -- Albert Einstein
What I would enjoy seeing is Ockham's Razor applied to Swimbikerun's statement posited as a question.
Is it better to see the world for what it is rather than for what I'd like it to be?
I think JustJohn's translation of Ockham's Razor is most correct
"Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."
Theory No. 1 - It is better to see the world for what it is rather than for what I would like it to be. Theory No. 2 - It is better to see the world for what I would like it to be rather than for what it is.
Better for what?
I don't have a dataset to back it up (by the way the article on correlative data replacing the Scientific Method is pretty damned fascinating and highly probable) but my wild guess is that theory no. 2 is better, where better means - makes life easier and more endurable.
Sed - the suppleness of your mind is pretty breathtaking.
My question for you is this. If you accept that the limits of theoretical physics pretty soundly argue against the possibility of interstellar travel, why would you spend so much time and artistic energy creating universes and worlds that can never exist?
Do you take it on faith that the apparent barriers to interstellar travel are false and that with time, greater understanding will render present theory obsolete?
"It's a chemical reaction that's all" - Cole Porter
Great leaps of predictive intuition have often been later confirmed by scientific discovery.
Is it truly "Cogito ergo sum" or does a semiotic carpet unfurl before us wherein our perception of reality (interpreted through blunt linguistic instruments like speech and mathematics) conform to our intuition (even our collective intuition - or oversoul if you like) and plays out like the music of the spheres played upon a harp of billions of superstrings resting gently on that infinite tapestry?
Which is simpler? Which is the shortest path?
"There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same." - Chinese Proverb
I enjoy Herman Hesse, as I believe you do too? Here is a little treatise I find illuminating.
Herman Hesse (1877-1962) German poet and novelist, awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1946, "found in Indian thought an answer to his yearning for deliverance from "ego" and from the tyrannical dictates of temporality. Indian thought offered the most radical possibility of undoing the curse of individuation, of annihilating the "idiotic one-after-the-other" by the postulation of the eternal simultaneity of nirvana.
The positive attitude of the Bhagavad Gita also appealed to Hesse.
"The marvel of the Bhagavad-Gita is its truly beautiful revelation of life's wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion."
Hesse claimed that Yoga had an invaluable effect upon him as a means of improving his powers of concentration. Yoga and Maya are the background to the events portrayed in The Glass Beads Game.
He visited India in 1911 and the study of ancient Hindu texts affected Hesse deeply and had great influence on his works. The threefold sequence of sensual love, wisdom, and self-denial experienced by the poet Bhartrihari is interpreted by Hesse as the result of humble and wise humanity. In the Journey to the Orient, Hesse says about India:
"It is not only a country and something geographical, but the home and the youth of the soul, the everywhere and nowhere, the oneness of all times."
Of the books I have ever read Hesse's "Magister Ludi (the glass bead game)" and Frank Herbert's "Dune" stick with me as the two treatises that most closely resemble the physical functioning of processes that are unseen and, therefore, ostensibly magical, spiritual, or soulful. Those processes turn out to be mastery of extant forces unseen only by those without eyes to see.
Isn't it interesting that there are such profound parallels between the cosmological implication of superstring theory, n dimensional models of reality, particles posited to exist but unconfirmed (The Higgs Boson, for example) and the fairly esoteric cosmology of ancient and modern philosophers, writers, and monks who thought that Grand Unification meant precisely that - that everything is one and nothing simultaneously.
When you look at the glass bead game carefully you realize that it isn't magic, it is physics. The leap of faith (arguably an act of the soul) isn't a leap at all, rather it is a zillion tiny nano-steps.
Carlos Gringo said "For me, questions of G*d, the soul, and probably some other stuff are ultimately closed to intellectual analysis. So, for me, Occam's Razor and other rational methods of explanation can't be dispositive in these matters.
In other words, please let my nonrationality be."
Sed asks why?
Why is a perfectly good question (maybe it is the ultimate question). My answer would be this. Some meals satisfy me without requiring that I understand the methods behind their creation, their composition, or their origin. I am happy to just be there with them and accept them as they are. In some cases my willful not knowing renders the experience more pleasant. Satisfying is enough to satisfy me, and I don't need to look any further.
My not needing to look further does not imply that further doesn't exist. I could take it as an article of faith that there is an entire food chain standing behind the plate that sits in front of me, indeed if I wanted to get really dizzy I could imagine a chain of causality infinitely long that would precisely explain my caviar and ice-cream souffle (actual dish - had recently - incredible).
However, if I apply Ockham's Razor to the meal in front of me the simplest explanation of my pleasure is to be had in the eating of the meal and not in its rational analysis.
ursamajor said "It's a chemical reaction that's all" - Cole Porter
Great leaps of predictive intuition have often been later confirmed by scientific discovery.
Is it truly "Cogito ergo sum" or does a semiotic carpet unfurl before us wherein our perception of reality (interpreted through blunt linguistic instruments like speech and mathematics) conform to our intuition (even our collective intuition - or oversoul if you like) and plays out like the music of the spheres played upon a harp of billions of superstrings resting gently on that infinite tapestry?
Which is simpler? Which is the shortest path?
"There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but the view is always the same." - Chinese Proverb
"And beware the paths that lead you over cliffs. You may not be able to enjoy the view." - Sedative Proverb
ursamajor"The marvel of the Bhagavad-Gita is its truly beautiful revelation of life's wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion."
Isn't it interesting that there are such profound parallels between the cosmological implication of superstring theory, n dimensional models of reality, particles posited to exist but unconfirmed (The Higgs Boson, for example) and the fairly esoteric cosmology of ancient and modern philosophers, writers, and monks who thought that Grand Unification meant precisely that - that everything is one and nothing simultaneously.
When you look at the glass bead game carefully your realize that it isn't magic, it is physics. The leap of faith (arguably an act of the soul) isn't a leap at all, rather it is a zillion tiny nano-steps.
Never heard of Hesse, sorry. But yes I am aware of the similarities between Eastern Philosophies and new findings in Physics. The Wave-Particle theory and the double slit experiment, the quantum entanglement theory, etc. Also the benefits of meditation/yoga/etc.
Note that Eastern Religions are strongly symbolic. Not literal like Western Monotheisms. I admire Eastern religions for their acknowledgment that not everything is known. Even their real afterlife is unknown. In fact their religion meshes in quite comfortably with science... IF you don't take it literally, as it was never meant to be. Their Gods are in a sense, similar to Greek gods (that is - mere representations of physical/philosophical concepts), but much more complex. The Trimurti itself for example is not three literal gods to be worshiped, but the three cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction personified symbolically.
Not so much religion as poetic science - philosophy.
There is no shame in investigating metaphysics or parapsychology, again I have not denied the possibility of its existence and yet it must be done by the rules. Lord knows what would happen if some man suddenly declares himself Messiah, Mahdi, Avatar, or if another Rasputin rises. Beware the false prophets, the Bible itself says (ironic I know, LOL).
ursamajor saidI am happy to just be there with them and accept them as they are. In some cases my willful not knowing renders the experience more pleasant. Satisfying is enough to satisfy me, and I don't need to look any further.
ursamajor said I think JustJohn's translation of Ockham's Razor is most correct
"Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."
Theory No. 1 - It is better to see the world for what it is rather than for what I would like it to be. Theory No. 2 - It is better to see the world for what I would like it to be rather than
... it waz teh cat allong!
)
Even so, during his lifetime, only the mathematical prooof existed, not a direct measurement of relativistic effects. So, provided you're willing to have faith in math, which I do, there are a great number of things that are "proven" to exist without directly demostrable effects.
Especially when the complex reason takes so much out of their life and causes so much damage, historically speaking.
But yes I am aware of the similarities between Eastern Philosophies and new findings in Physics. The Wave-Particle theory and the double slit experiment, the quantum entanglement theory, etc. Also the benefits of meditation/yoga/etc. 