|
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Show me a single thought divorced from the corporeal vessel. You can't, where as I can show the requirement of thoughts on the material. Occam's Razor, for me, says the conclusion drawn from observed evidence is simpler than one that requires inductive reasoning from without, reasoning that must battle it out with a near-infinite multitude of contrary strains of inductive reasoning, all clinging to that one link to plausibility: "You can't disprove me" but none with any tighter grip on reality than the next. |
i think that's a fair interpretation of ockhams razor.
but the problem is, 'observed evidence' tends to avoid the underlying cause of the phenomenon.
i don't think this is a terrible way to think, and as i've written in this thread, i support the scientific method as one way to ascertain the truth of something. however, I think there are other ways to ascertain truth that are just as important.
ultimately, as objective as you'd like to be, you have to realize that every observation you make, every waking moment is subject to your own consciousness, and any claim of true objectivity or conclusive evidence is completely dependent upon that consciousness, which is outside and greater than anything you can measure.
so i guess in 'retort' i will say, 'show me a single brain that exists outside its own consciousness'
really, I am a proponent of science, and I think its ultimate goal is to discover the nature of the spirit and its relationship to dimensional materiality. I think the destiny of science is to reveal to man how to manipulate 'matter' with his mind. I think that in some cases it doesn't hurt to challenge the fundamentals of what one 'knows' in order to approach a problem from another perspective.
Last edited by nefardec on Apr-02-2009 at 01:09
|