Seraphim

"Seraphim, I believe this article goes a long way to explaining your personal experiences at age 8.
<a href="http://www.enformy.com/!demons.html"" target="_blank">http://www.enformy.com/!demons.html"</a>

"... Piaget's theory of cognitive development (Wadsworth, 1971), animistic thinking appears during the pre-operational period. Two- to seven-year-old children project that all objects, living or nonliving, think as they do, believing that objects are sentient, animated by spirits, and motivated by purpose. Normally, animistic thinking is outgrown by age 12, though not all children make the transition. Cultural influences are powerful inhibitors of mental growth."

"Autistic thinking supports primitive thinking in adults because it is a process of self-reference: I would not believe in something that is not real. I believe in demons; therefore, demons must be real. This principle of autistic certainty supports stigmatic labeling—characterizing the whole person by a single property, real or imagined. Thus stigmatic labeling is not limited to the mentally ill."

My reply : what is wrong with this picture? Maybe the fact that a 8 year old wouldn't know what the hell is a Demon enough to go into hysterical fit and goes offline for a WHOLE freaking day without as much as an hour's memory.

This kind of things may happen in a society in the West where parents over-protect their children to the extend that they developed a sense of fear of the unknown and grow up thinking that some supernatural creature is after them, but in the East, children are allowed to go out as young as 5 years old and play unsupervised.

I didn't tell you want I was doing then, did I? I was playing by a river side with two of my cousins when I "fainted" for no apparent reason.

"Common law was derived directly from the animistic premises of Canon Law. Good people were thought to be animated by good spirits such as the Holy Ghost, whereas bad people or mad people where considered animated by evil spirits such as Satan. According to animistic theories, evil spirits deserve punishment. In practice, however, the people occupied by those spirits suffer the punishment. In Salem Village under Puritan law, people designated as witches—not devils—were hanged. Today the mentally ill—not demons—are relegated to the streets or prisons under modern instruments of persecution: the commitment laws."

My reply : This statement could mean a thing IF you are a Christian or a Muslim. To a 8-years old, such description of good and evil is nothing.

"The stigmatization of the mentally ill can be eliminated only by overriding the primitive legal-religious thinking that dominates our culture. Obtaining knowledge by applying the empirical method must replace presupposing knowledge by applying the axiomatic method. Among specific actions needed to expunge stigmatic labeling, psychiatrists must decertify psychiatrists who practice alienism, replace the APA with an organization dedicated to psychiatric science, and persuade lawmakers to replace legal commitments based on volition. Only by succeeding in such actions can psychiatrists earn respect for their profession, secure understanding for their patients, and avoid being designated as the jailers of the mentally ill."

My reply : Hmph ... sounds like psychiatricts are out to haunt your society more than any demons could in mine ... (Sarcasm).
If you think it is my family who cause me to go cuckoo, then you should seen the fear in their faces (which at that time looked odd) when I emerged out of the darkness of the room where I was for few hours. I swear, they must have thought I going to jump on them and rip their hearts out. Such fear cannot be fashioned by telling fairy tales to youngsters.

The Lone Ranger

Seraphim:

With respect, this game is growing tiresome. I don’t really have the time for this, and while I don’t wish to sound harsh, your seemingly complete lack of understanding of basic science and the principles of logic makes things difficult.

You’re completely missing the point. The point of Ockham’s Razor is that one should not propose unknown mechanisms to explain something when known mechanisms will do the job just as well.

Far from being a problem for science, it is one of the most useful and important tools we have.

The supernatural fails utterly as a means of “explaining” anything, because it simply substitutes one question for another. “Supernatural” means unexplained; therefore, a supernatural “explanation” is a contradiction in terms.


Incorrect. God as an “explanation” utterly fails the test of Ockham’s Razor. Think about it: You’re saying that an unproved entity of an unknown nature employed unknown energies gathered in an unknown manner from an unknown source and manipulated them in an unknown way for an unknown purpose . . . and that’s why we’re here.

Invocation of the supernatural does not simplify explanations -- it makes explanation impossible. It’s just a somewhat less-than-honest way of saying “I don’t know.”

***

It all boils down to Ockham’s Razor anyway, so that’s all that need be said. Perfectly natural explanations for the supposed existence of “ghosts” exist. To explain "ghostly" phenomena, it is not necessary to assume the existence of “spirits,” nor the existence of exotic forms of energy which behave utterly like any other form of energy ever discovered.

Until and unless ghosts can be demonstrated to exist, and to have properties that cannot be explained by known phenomena, the only logical conclusion is that they probably don’t exist, and that “ghostly” phenomena have perfectly natural explanations.

‘Night,

Michael

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>

Seraphim

"With respect, this game is growing tiresome. I don’t really have the time for this, and while I don’t wish to sound harsh, your seemingly complete lack of understanding of basic science and the principles of logic makes things difficult."

My reply : I don't know about tiring, but your last post was a real pain ... didn't have a headache that size since my company launch a major record rechecking .... never mind ...

I may have lack of understanding of science, but I don't think I have lack of understanding of logic. I see logic differently than you.

To me, it is logical to assume that we do not everything and it is logical to accept something new if it is logical. Illogical things or understanding is simply illusion cast by oneself which could dissappear upon discussion.

To you it seems that logic is base on what we know and everything else which we don't know or don't understand doesn't exist. Illogical things therefore doesn't exist because you cannot understand it.

"You’re completely missing the point. The point of Ockham’s Razor is that one should not propose unknown mechanisms to explain something when known mechanisms will do the job just as well."

My reply : No, I didn't miss anything. What I see from Ockham's Razor is an insult to logic. Why? Because Ockham's Razor is simply accept in front as something you know and don't add anything new because it is hard to do so. That's nonsense.

I personally don't feel that people will learn anything if they follow this guy's ... what you call it? Principle? How are you going to learn new things if you don't bother looking and asking questions?

"Far from being a problem for science, it is one of the most useful and important tools we have. "

My reply : No wonder your societies (those in the West) never reached the amount of civilization as the Eastern societies reached in the past few hundred years ... you had someone else to think for you.

"The supernatural fails utterly as a means of “explaining” anything, because it simply substitutes one question for another. “Supernatural” means unexplained; therefore, a supernatural “explanation” is a contradiction in terms."

My reply : I guess I can accept this.

"Incorrect. God as an “explanation” utterly fails the test of Ockham’s Razor. Think about it: You’re saying that an unproved entity of an unknown nature employed unknown energies gathered in an unknown manner from an unknown source and manipulated them in an unknown way for an unknown purpose . . . and that’s why we’re here."

My reply : Hmph ... you really didn't understand what I said, did you?

When I said Atheist couldn't existed if they follow Ockham's Razor is because it is easier according to Ockham's Razor to accept the simplest answer rather than thinking about it. To me, Atheists are simply people who thinks too much and following this Ockham's Razor, you guys (Atheists) couldn't have possibly existed simply because everything is already decided for you.

Someone could say there is no God and no one could ask Why not like what you are doing now in the thread if they follow this principle. There will be no discussion of pros and cons simply because the simplest answer could have sufficient to satisfy all of you.

If this is logic for you ... I can't think of saying anything that may NOT upset you.

"Invocation of the supernatural does not simplify explanations -- it makes explanation impossible. It’s just a somewhat less-than-honest way of saying “I don’t know.”"

My reply : For you, Ockham's Razor maybe simple way to say "I don't know", but for me, what it said is "It's already been decided, so Shut Up".

"It all boils down to Ockham’s Razor anyway, so that’s all that need be said. Perfectly natural explanations for the supposed existence of “ghosts” exist. To explain "ghostly" phenomena, it is not necessary to assume the existence of “spirits,” nor the existence of exotic forms of energy which behave utterly like any other form of energy ever discovered.

Until and unless ghosts can be demonstrated to exist, and to have properties that cannot be explained by known phenomena, the only logical conclusion is that they probably don’t exist, and that “ghostly” phenomena have perfectly natural explanations."

My reply : I don't think there will be any usefulness in attempting to prove anything with such a "great" principle (sarcasm ... can't help it) such as Ockhlam's Razor (I wonder what it cuts?) governing your train of thoughts ... I just hope the train you are on leads you somewhere.

Good night, time for me to fly as well.

echidna

Apologies to LR for quoting his words in the following harsh context, but ...

su·per·sti·tion

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2. a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.

(emphasis mine)

AbbyNormal

Okay, I've been lurking quietly on this thread, but I've seen this misunderstanding of Ockham's Razor a couple of times now. Ockham's razor does not say anything about "take the easiest solution" or "don't learn anything new". That is not what it implies at all! Perhaps stating it this way will help: "All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". Note, "simplest" is not the same as "easiest". The principle serves as a warning to not over-complicate explanations.

An example: while typing this, I just picked up a can of Nestea and took a drink. What brought the can to my mouth? Explanation A: friction between my fingers and the can allowed the can to move up from the table to my mouth and back down again. Explanation B: the moment I touched my fingers to the can, the God of Lifting Things wrapped Invisible Divine String around the can and my hand, insuring they would stay together while I took a drink, and then cut the String the moment I put the can down. I'm sure there are other possibilites, I'm sure other people on this board can think of even more outlandish ideas. BUT, Ockham's Razor tells us that Explanation A is the most likely, and really all that is necessary. By adding the God of Lifting Things, I've add yet another layer, unnecessarily, that now needs to be addressed.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Regards,
AbbyNormal

Oxymoron

Nope - our first, a little girl.

You misunderstand - REM-like phenomena have been observed, so I am as sure as one can be with our present knowledge that my daughter is dreaming. I am wondering what she dreams about.


Since the world we perceive is entirely a "software" construct, there seems no a priori reason why we can't frig with the mechanisms to have visions of anything we choose. Of course, whether that maps to the world out there is a completely different issue.

I know less of my world than I want to. I know what I don't know (if you see what I mean), which is most of it. I am joyous to have lived in an age when I can know as much as I do.

I don't really like the word 'know', though. Everything is just a hypothesis in my head that either "works" - can testably be validated or falsified against the world out there - doesn't work (in which case it is a useless hypothesis), or simply cannot be tested (which is also a useless hypothesis).

Seraphim

By echidna

"Apologies to LR for quoting his words in the following harsh context, but ...

su·per·sti·tion

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2. a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
c. Idolatry.

(emphasis mine) "

My reply : hmph ... As if your statement wasn't an insult either ...

Who was talking about supertition? If you assume that people in the East pump children with scary stories to scare them silly, you are pretty much mistaken.
Most what I know about ghosts etc comes from my own quest to seek understandings in later years of my bizarre ability (if you wish to call it) to see things that others can't see.

By AbbyNormal

"Okay, I've been lurking quietly on this thread, but I've seen this misunderstanding of Ockham's Razor a couple of times now. Ockham's razor does not say anything about "take the easiest solution" or "don't learn anything new". That is not what it implies at all! Perhaps stating it this way will help: "All things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". Note, "simplest" is not the same as "easiest". The principle serves as a warning to not over-complicate explanations. "

My reply : My principles of logic is this "When ALL the possible possibilities had been eliminated, the most logical possibility that remains, no matter how small the possibility is must be the answer".

If you are wondering where I got this, try Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes ... you may stop laughing now.

By Oxymoron

"Nope - our first, a little girl."

My reply : Either way, best wished to your wife. How did you found out the sex? I thought sex organs don't appear till 7th month of pregnancy.

"You misunderstand - REM-like phenomena have been observed, so I am as sure as one can be with our present knowledge that my daughter is dreaming. I am wondering what she dreams about."

My reply : Maybe she is dreaming the same dreams your wife is having, or things that she saw the day before. Information is stored in the brain by chemicals (laymen's term), right? Maybe some of this chemicals get into the foetus through your wife and give the baby a first view of the world. Logical assumption only.

Or that the baby simply looking at the dreams your wife dreaming by somehow by connecting herself to your wife's REM, like watching TV or listening to radio by tuning into the proper channel. Why I say this is because I read somewhere that mother and child have strong mental link for the first few years, maybe this is the reason.

"Since the world we perceive is entirely a "software" construct, there seems no a priori reason why we can't frig with the mechanisms to have visions of anything we choose. Of course, whether that maps to the world out there is a completely different issue."

My reply : OK, acceptable.

"I know less of my world than I want to. I know what I don't know (if you see what I mean), which is most of it. I am joyous to have lived in an age when I can know as much as I do.

I don't really like the word 'know', though. Everything is just a hypothesis in my head that either "works" - can testably be validated or falsified against the world out there - doesn't work (in which case it is a useless hypothesis), or simply cannot be tested (which is also a useless hypothesis). "

My reply : Acceptable also.

galiel

Um, no. You can stop right there and skip the rest. The difference between the scientific method and irrational faith and superstition is that the scientific method depends on specific, universally accepted (and, I might add, time-tested and proven most effective) processes.

Logic is a defined mathematical construct with specific, limited rules. It doesn't come in 21 zillion flavors like religion or individual concepts of god.

There is no concept in logic of relativity or point-of-view or "seeing" logic differently; that is the wonderful thing about it, it is a universal language that applies to everyone, everywhere, objectively, and independent of whether you believe in it or not, and independent of what your specific philosophical beliefs are.

To for a good introduction to standard logic, I recommend the "Mission Critical" site of San Jose Sate University, <a href="http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html" target="_blank">http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html</a>
To zero in specifically on the logical fallacies, I recommend another site:
<a href="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm</a>

One of the best resources for critical thinking in general is The Center For Critical Thinking at <a href="http://www.criticalthinking.org" target="_blank">http://www.criticalthinking.org</a>

A great, concise and very clear introduction to the discipline of critical thinking can be found on their site as well:
<a href="http://www.criticalthinking.org/K12/k12class/Oconcept.html" target="_blank">http://www.criticalthinking.org/K12/k12class/Oconcept.html</a>

For a good understanding of the scientific method, I recommend Massimo Pigliucci's essay, The Scientific Method: How We Acquire Knowledge, at <a href="http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/scientific_method.html" target="_blank">http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/scientific_method.html</a>

While you're there, you may be interested in checking out the rest of his outstanding site. I recommend, in particular, his essay: "Rationalism, skepticism, and other “isms”: How do we know what’s out there, and where “there” actually is", at <a href="http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/rationalism_other_isms.htm" target="_blank">http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/rationalism_other_isms.htm</a>

Seraphim

"Um, no. You can stop right there and skip the rest. The difference between the scientific method and irrational faith and superstition is that the scientific method depends on specific, universally accepted (and, I might add, time-tested and proven most effective) processes.
Logic is a defined mathematical construct with specific, limited rules. It doesn't come in 21 zillion flavors like religion or individual concepts of god."

My reply : You are right since my logic seems to be illogical to you.

1. ... scientific method depends on specific, universally accepted (and, I might add, time-tested and proven most effective) processes.

Universally accepted (?) and time tested and proven effective process? BS
Your methods is made by people have least understanding of human nature. Universally accepted indeed ... (sarcasm). You can't even explain the possessed-like experience I and a few others have other than throwing a lot of crap such as our parents and families fill our thoughts with scary thoughts and told us to go and have a fit! Universally accepted my foot!

In your society, no two head-shrink will accept the same things without applying his or her own defination of things and fools who sat through both will take his or her pick and walk away with this "excuses" this so-called "experts" made for them.

2. Logic is a defined mathematical construct with specific, limited rules.

In my opinion, your logic is a closed-circuit logic where you define the world with what you know and all your assumption is based on that alone. IF this is what you call logic, that's your problem.

My logic is very simpler - consider ALL possibilities and eliminate it one at the time, the possibility that remains, no matter how little it could be should be the answer. You don't like it, that your problem also.

"There is no concept in logic of relativity or point-of-view or "seeing" logic differently; that is the wonderful thing about it, it is a universal language that applies to everyone, everywhere, objectively, and independent of whether you believe in it or not, and independent of what your specific philosophical beliefs are."

My reply : If you believe this crap, then you will believe anything a head-shrink tells you.

"To for a good introduction to standard logic, I recommend the "Mission Critical" site of San Jose Sate University, <a href="http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html"" target="_blank">http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html"</a>

My reply : Exactly what makes you so sure that this "logic" even fits into Ochklam's Razor? What I see if simply dos and don't of what you consider as logic and whether it can be applied in real-life is something I find unconvinced.

"To zero in specifically on the logical fallacies, I recommend another site:
<a href="http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm"" target="_blank">http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm"</a>

My reply : the titles is interesting enough, I will read through it later.

"One of the best resources for critical thinking in general is The Center For Critical Thinking at <a href="http://www.criticalthinking.org"" target="_blank">http://www.criticalthinking.org"</a>

My reply : The attempt to open this site caused my PC to have illegal error. The site itself cannot load properly ... says so much for your so-called critical thinking part (Sarcasm).

"A great, concise and very clear introduction to the discipline of critical thinking can be found on their site as well:
<a href="http://www.criticalthinking.org/K12/k12class/Oconcept.html"" target="_blank">http://www.criticalthinking.org/K12/k12class/Oconcept.html"</a>

Qoute from the site :
"Our basic concept of critical thinking is, at root, simple. We could define it as the art of taking charge of your own mind. Its value is also at root simple: if we can take charge of our own minds, we can take charge of our lives; we can improve them, bringing them under our self command and direction. Of course, this requires that we learn self-discipline and the art of self-examination. This involves becoming interested in how our minds work, how we can monitor, fine tune, and modify their operations for the better. It involves getting into the habit of reflectively examining our impulsive and accustomed ways of thinking and acting in every dimension of our lives."

My reply : Thank you for showing how weak your logic is. From my point of view, you had FAILED the critical thinking defination itself.

It says a critical thinking is to take charge of your own mind YET here, you are applying logic from men already dead and rotten somewhere who never seen you nor seen how you life your life. Where the hell is critical in that sort of thinking? You are nothing more than a puppet who choose science instead of religion to follow, you are not thinking, you are just following what other have said.

"For a good understanding of the scientific method, I recommend Massimo Pigliucci's essay, The Scientific Method: How We Acquire Knowledge, at <a href="http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/scientific_method.html"" target="_blank">http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/scientific_method.html"</a>

The qoute from the site :
"Breadth of view is one of the essentials of our profession. The interplay of ideas and the oblique uses of knowledge are often of extraordinary interest.

(Sherlock Holmes, in Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Valley of Fear)"

My reply : Do you know what it means? To me it simply meaning taking new views and bring forht result from the interplay of this ideas and views. What do you understand from it?

"While you're there, you may be interested in checking out the rest of his outstanding site. I recommend, in particular, his essay: "Rationalism, skepticism, and other “isms”: How do we know what’s out there, and where “there” actually is", at <a href="http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/rationalism_other_isms.htm" target="_blank">http://fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/Essays/rationalism_other_isms.htm</a> "

My reply : I'm not interested to know what dead men thought of me or what I do, WHY? Because they - coming from different society, time and condition of living couldn't have possibly know how someone from the East could have felt and did.
IF you can find an Eastern philosphy such as this, indulge me.

echidna

Seraphim, that article obviously flew so far over your head I didn't bother responding. I probably should have so I apologise. To clarify, you missed the point ... again.

Honestly, I don't mind arrogance so much when it comes with some intellectual ability, but I assure you, yours is quite misplaced.

Maybe it's that as your second language you don't grasp the articles which are written for English speakers, but so far I can't recall you actually understanding a single link I've posted. Oddly we have quite a few people for whom English is a second language but by and large they understand better than your good self. You should spend more time reading and less typing.