Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Mr. Argon

Evolution of Spirit

32 posts in this topic

Please share your own views on how you perceive Evolution of Spirit. I will start with a quote which may serve as a starting point to discussion.

-------------------

Modern, or so-called exact science, holds but to a one-sided physical evolution, prudently avoiding and ignoring the higher or spiritual evolution, which would force our contemporaries to confess the superiority of the ancient philosophers and psychologists over themselves. The ancient sages, ascending to the UNKNOWABLE, made their starting-point from the first manifestation of the unseen, the unavoidable, and from a strict logical reasoning, the absolutely necessary creative Being, the Demiurgos of the universe. Evolution began with them from pure spirit, which descending lower and lower down, assumed at last a visible and comprehensible form, and became matter. Arrived at this point, they speculated in the Darwinian method, but on a far more large and comprehensive basis.[2]

This first stage of "materialization of spirit" is sometimes called involution and it is related to the "Doctrine of Emanation":

In its metaphysical meaning, it is opposed to Evolution, yet one with it. Science teaches that evolution is physiologically a mode of generation in which the germ that develops the foetus pre-exists already in the parent, the development and final form and characteristics of that germ being accomplished in nature; and that in cosmology the process takes place blindly through the correlation of the elements, and their various compounds. Occultism answers that this is only the apparent mode, the real process being Emanation, guided by intelligent Forces under an immutable LAW. Therefore, while the Occultists and Theosophists believe thoroughly in the doctrine of Evolution as given out by Kapila and Manu, they are Emanationists rather than Evolutionists. . . The controversy between the followers of this school and the Emanationists may he briefly stated thus: The Evolutionist stops all inquiry at the borders of "the Unknowable"; the Emanationist believes that nothing can be evolved--or, as the word means, unwombed or born--except it has first been involved, thus indicating that life is from a spiritual potency above the whole.[3]

In theosophy, evolution has a much profounder meaning than the Darwinian theory. Evolution is a process in nature arising from an innate impulse in all things in nature to unfold their potential. It is similar to the Hindu concept of svabh€va n (Sk. For “innate disposition,” etc.). The concept is therefore closer to the idea of EMANATION since the impulse and the pattern is essentially coming from within, although external factors do play a part in its material aspects. The energy behind this impulse is FOHAT.

The impulse comes from the spiritual MONAD in its two aspects: the universal monad, and the individualized monad. The primordial or universal monad or spirit descends into matter — an “involutionary” process, that is, spirit involving itself into grosser material form. This results in the individualized monad. Thereafter the immersed monad re-ascends to its former universal state.

Edited by Mr. Argon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Argon said:

Please share your own views on how you perceive Evolution of Spirit. I will start with a quote which may serve as a starting point to discussion.

-------------------

 

I like what you say. Great minds think alike. Theosophy and Vedic traditions are way beyond physical science which restricts itself to what is detectable by the physical senses and instruments. Science describes physical evolution but does not see it in the context of the bigger picture.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I like what you say. Great minds think alike. Theosophy and Vedic traditions are way beyond physical science which restricts itself to what is detectable by the physical senses and instruments.

I've been arguing about this unfortunate issue on a few topics already, but you are the first person that actually expressed clearly this starkly prononced attribute of science. The attribute which I tried to bring attention to in a few posts already.

Edited by Mr. Argon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it is closely connected with a theosophical view of the Evolution, the doctrine of Emanation should also be considered for a more complete view;

Emanation

 

The change in Nature or in its parts arising from their inherent inner impulse to change or become. This impulse, according to theosophical philosophy, is the driving principle behind EVOLUTION, causing nature or its organisms and systems to change and mutate. Evolution is thus an unfolding of the natural potential of nature and its parts.

This view is at variance with biological evolutionary theory where change is due to the random variations of genetic factors in each succeeding generation, and these changes result in differing capacities of the offsprings to adapt to the environment, wherein the fittest variations survive, and others become extinct. The doctrine of emanation also differs from the creationist view that the universe or its objects were created by a deity out of nothing. In emanation, the cosmos is a manifestation of the primordial unmanifested state, called in the theosophy as the First and Second Logos, becoming the Third Logos or creative deity, from which the universe comes from; in Hinduism, Brahman unfolds into BRAHMA; in Sufism, AIN SOPH manifests as the Tree of Life. In Christian mysticism, it is the Godhead becoming God and the universe.

“Upon inaugurating an active period, says the Secret Doctrine, an expansion of this Divine essence from without inwardly and from within outwardly, occurs in obedience to eternal and immutable law, and the phenomenal or visible universe is the ultimate result of the long chain of cosmical forces thus progressively set in motion” (SD I:4).

Helena P. BLAVATSKY considers the process of emanation to be but the expression of an innate law in nature. It is a view, she wrote, espoused since ancient times in both East and West — Kapila, Manu, Kabbalah, the Alexandrian and Chaldean philosophers, and even in Genesis of the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 33:2, the term esh dath, commonly translated as “fiery law” but should have been rendered as “fire according to the law,” refers to this doctrine of emanation. Blavatsky wrote that “the correct rendering of the passage should be ‘from his right hand went [not a fiery law, but] a fire according to law’; viz., that the fire of one flame is imparted to, and caught up by another like as in a trail of inflammable substance. This is precisely emanation” (Theos. Glossary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution exists, for example according by the Hindus. See The  Ocean of Story, by Somadeva. Somadeva was a Hindu Sivaist priest and in his book  he hinted by the prose the spiritual ideas Sivaism. According to them, higher beings are the result of evolution. People who obtain supernatural powers  through meditation could be between lower supernatural beings, siddhas, vidyādharas , Daitias...etc

Edited by Lumpino
correction
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution in my opinion is a healing, a coming together - unity.

The ideal, in my opinion, is when the body and mind work harmoniously, then the spirit can be more easily recognise and even manifested. So the question becomes how do we best heal ourselves and each other?

Evolution, is in a sense, anything that shall help us Home.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A short excerpt about Logos mentioned above;

 

 

Throughout the millennia, every spiritual philosophy – both East and West – has clearly taught the existence and necessity of the Logos.

The key to the understanding of this concept is found in the word “Logos” itself, which is a Greek word equating to “Speech,” “Word,” “Verbum,” and “Voice.” It is actually a Platonic term, although the concept itself predates Plato by long ages. The whole idea behind the literal meaning of the word “Logos” is that It is the EXPRESSION in manifestation of the subjective, silent, and ever concealed Absolute.

The Absolute is the One Infinite Eternal Divine Principle, the Supreme and Ultimate Reality, which is beyond all definition, description, and comprehension. It is the One Life, the One Element, the One Immutable Essence and Energy which is Existence Itself and which is itself entirely unmoved and unaffected by anything, regardless of whether the Universe is in existence at the time or not. It is the true Divine Self or Higher Self of all because It is really the one and only Reality.

The Infinite, in order to actually be infinite, cannot have anything finite about Itself whatsoever, or It would cease to be the Infinite, seeing as that word literally means “not finite in any way.” Thus it is absolute, which – in philosophical terminology – means entirely different from and unconcerned with the relative; “relative” meaning the entirety of manifested existence, yet at the same time being the source and substratum of all manifested existence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Argon said:

The Absolute is the One Infinite Eternal Divine Principle, the Supreme and Ultimate Reality, which is beyond all definition, description, and comprehension.

Compare this with Tao.

 

The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and
unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and
unchanging name.

(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven
and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all
things.

Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.

Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development
takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them
the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that
is subtle and wonderful.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29.10.2017 at 3:51 AM, Mr. Argon said:

 Thereafter the immersed monad re-ascends to its former universal state.

Of course, without loss of self-consciousness?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Coil said:

Of course, without loss of self-consciousness?

 

You think so? It is a great question though. In fact the question which is extremely important and I can't give an answer to that. If you can - go ahead.

The Absoulute is Unity, and has Polarity only as a potential, so when the Individuality returns into Unity, what then?

Edited by Mr. Argon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Criticising biological evolution because it doesn't have anything to do with spiritual evolution.. Really?

Why not criticise gravity because people can't fly like superman?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr. Argon said:

You think so? It is a great question though. In fact the question which is extremely important and I can't give an answer to that. If you can - go ahead.

The Absoulute is Unity, and has Polarity only as a potential, so when the Individuality returns into Unity, what then?

 

Man does not lose his higher individuality (Jivatman-spirit) but his consciousness expands to the cosmic consciousness of the Atman -formless consciousness. It is said that the Jivatman is one of the Divine Sons, derived from the One; and the Atman is the One supporting the Divine Plenty.

Thus there is no dissolution of individuality in the One but the growth of oneself to the cosmic Man-Essence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that people make things they  can see or experience, but don't know or understand, into something  mystical. They create explanations, connections and beliefs around  those things. This helps them make sense of the thing, but  they may be incomplete or even false .

Science helps us know and understand the real nature of all things and and thus removes the mysticism, but it doesn't necessarily destroy or undermine the existence of real things like  human spirit or enlightenment 

I think science is already learning what these things are, and helping us understand them. This can only be a good thing, because knowledge sets us free, makes us all equal,( if we all have the knowledge) , and gives us power.

Spirit IS innately a product of human self aware consciousness. If you don't have that level of consciousness, you don't have spirit because it requires awareness of the spirit to posses it . Science in many disciplines form cognitive sciences, to psychology, to neuro biology, is investigating the nature of human spirit and self conscious awareness.  it is new and complex but they are making progress, like those seeking to cure cancer, and one day we will have a much more complete understanding of the nature of spirit Some might see this as disappointing. I see it as exciting.    Rather than just a few attaining enlightenment, and connecting to the universal or cosmic consciousness, science should be able to find a way for all (or any who wish to)  , to achieve those states of mind. This will bring a huge benefit, and improvement, to all of humanity 

 They have already found that such states of mind occur more often in people with larger pre-frontal cortexes, suggesting that there is a specific part of the brain which is responsible for, or enhances, these experiences in individuals,  and why some humans have them, and others do not 

Ancient philosophers and "psychologists" were not superior nor were their philosophies or doctrinal beliefs.  There were some brilliant individuals, but all lacked the knowledge and understandings available to almost any human today.  Go to a modern thinker of high intelligence and you will find more highly evolved ideas concepts thoughts and philosophies often  built upon the ancient's, but improved.  A person can ONLY make sense of their world and self through knowledge Without knowledge the y only have mind which is useful but  tends to error if it lacks accurate data.  Thus a modern philosopher with access to knowldge from the cognitive sciences can make a far more accurate construct of human mind and nature than an ancient one  Some may still argue for Descartian dualism ,but others may see the integration of mind and matter, or the physical 

Although each of these arguments for dualism may be criticized individually, they are typically thought to share a common flaw: they assume that because some aspect of mental states, such as privacy, intentionality, truth, or meaning cannot be attributed to physical substances, they must be attributable to non-physical substances. But if we do not understand how such states and their properties can be generated by the central nervous system, we are no closer to understanding how they might be produced by minds. (Nagel, 1986, p. 29). The question is not, "How do brains generate mental states that can only be known directly by their possessors?" Rather, the relavent question is "How can any such thing as a substance, of whatever sort, do these things?" The mystery is as great when we posit a mind as the basis of these operations or capacities as when we attribute them to bodies. Dualists cannot explain the mechanisms by which souls generate meaning, truth, intentionality or self-awareness.Thus, dualism creates no explanatory advantage. As such, we should use Ockham's razor to shave off the spiritual substance, because we ought not to multiply entities beyond what is necessary to explain the phenomena. Descartes' prodigious doubt notwithstanding, we have excellent reasons for thinking that bodies exist. If the only reasons for supposing that non-physical minds exist are the phenomena of intentionality, privacy and the like, then dualism unnecessarily complicates the metaphysics of personhood.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/dualism/

 

a. Arguments from Human Development

Those eager to defend the relevance of science to the study of mind, such as Paul Churchland, have argued that dualism is inconsistent with the facts of human evolution and fetal development. (1988, pp. 27-28; see also Lycan, 1996, p. 168). According to this view, we began as wholly physical beings. This is true of the species and the individual human. No one seriously supposes that newly fertilized ova are imbued with minds or that the original cell in the primordial sea was conscious. But from those entirely physical origins, nothing non-physical was later added. 

b. The Conservation of Energy Argument

Others argue that dualism is scientifically unacceptable because it violates the well-established principle of the conservation of energy. Interactionists argue that mind and matter causally interact. But if the spiritual realm is continually impinging on the universe and effecting changes, the total level of energy in the cosmos must be increasing or at least fluctuating. This is because it takes physical energy to do physical work. If the will alters states of affairs in the world (such as the state of my brain), then mental energy is somehow converted into physical energy. At the point of conversion, one would anticipate a physically inexplicable increase in the energy present within the system. If it also takes material energy to activate the mind, then "physical energy would have to vanish and reappear inside human brains." (Lycan, 1996, 168).

c. Problems of Interaction

The conservation of energy argument points to a more general complaint often made against dualism: that interaction between mental and physical substances would involve a causal impossibility. Since the mind is, on the Cartesian model, immaterial and unextended, it can have no size, shape, location, mass, motion or solidity. How then can minds act on bodies? What sort of mechanism could convey information of the sort bodily movement requires, between ontologically autonomous realms? To suppose that non-physical minds can move bodies is like supposing that imaginary locomotives can pull real boxcars. Put differently, if mind-body interaction is possible, every voluntary action is akin to the paranormal power of telekinesis, or "mind over matter."

d. The Correlation and Dependence Arguments

The correlation and dependence argument against dualism begins by noting that there are clear correlations between certain mental events and neural events (say, between pain and a-fiber or c-fiber stimulation). Moreover, as demonstrated in such phenomena as memory loss due to head trauma or wasting disease, the mind and its capacities seem dependent upon neural function. The simplest and best explanation of this dependence and correlation is that mental states and events are neural states and events and that pain just is c-fiber stimulation. (This would be the argument employed by an identity theorist. A functionalist would argue that the best explanation for the dependence and correlation of mental and physical states is that, in humans, mental states are brain states functionally defined).

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21. 11. 2017. at 11:47 PM, Mr Walker said:

Dualists cannot explain the mechanisms by which souls generate meaning, truth, intentionality or self-awareness.Thus, dualism creates no explanatory advantage. As such, we should use Ockham's razor to shave off the spiritual substance, because we ought not to multiply entities beyond what is necessary to explain the phenomena.

THE FALLACY OF OCCAM'S RAZOR

 

Occam’s Razor is actually a vestigial remnant of medieval science. It is literally a historical artifact: William of Ockham employed this principle in his own 13th century work on divine omnipotence and other topics “resistant” to scientific methods. The continuing use of parsimony in modern science is an atavistic practice equivalent to a cardiologist resorting to bloodletting when heart medication doesn’t work.

And it is in the life sciences where Occam’s razor cuts most sharply in the wrong direction, for at least three reasons.

1) First, life itself is a fascinating example of nature’s penchant for complexity. If parsimony applies anywhere, it is not here.

2) Second, evolution doesn’t design organisms as an engineer might – instead, organisms carry their evolutionary history along with them, advantages and disadvantages alike (your appendix is the price you pay for all your inherited immunity to disease). Thus life appears to result from a cascading “complexifying” process – an understanding of organisms at the macroscale will be anything but simple.

3) Third, we know that the even the simplest rules of life (click the button at the upper left, labelled “Enjoy Life”) can give rise to intractable complexity. Unless you’re a biophysicist, the mechanisms at your preferred level of analysis are likely to be incredibly heterogenous and complex, even at their simplest.

Of course, some disciplines have injured themselves with Occam’s razor more than others. A theoretical cousin of Occam’s razor, maximum parsimony, has been quite useful for understanding evolutionary relatedness. Yet similar methods have led to particularly disastrous results in psychology. For several decades experimental psychology was dominated by an approach known as radical behaviorism, in which concepts related to “thinking” and “mind” were quarantined from mainstream journals.

Likewise, Occam’s Razor cut deep and wide through developmental psychology. How many apppropriately complex theories of development were excised in favor of those advocating four or five tidy “stages” of cognitive development? The entire field is lucky to have survived the ridiculous nature-vs-nurture debate, a false dichotomy itself grounded in the pursuit of parsimony.

Thus, the utility of Occam’s Razor is highly questionable. Theories which it would soundly eliminate are usually questionable for other reasons, while useful theories might be discarded for a lack of parsimony relative to their over-simplified competitors. The theory which states “height determines weight” can do a reasonable job of providing evidence that seems to support that theory. And it’s highly parsimonious – Ockham would love it! But the theory which says “nutrition, exercise, and a collection of more than 100 genes predict both height and weight” is highly unparsimonious, even though we know it’s better than its competitor theory. Statisticians have quantified the appropriate penalty for various theories based on the number of variables they involve, but the more theoretical modes of quantitative science have yet to catch up.

-SOURCE-

 

keep on shaving...

Edited by Mr. Argon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr. Argon said:

THE FALLACY OF OCCAM'S RAZOR

 

Occam’s Razor is actually a vestigial remnant of medieval science. It is literally a historical artifact: William of Ockham employed this principle in his own 13th century work on divine omnipotence and other topics “resistant” to scientific methods. The continuing use of parsimony in modern science is an atavistic practice equivalent to a cardiologist resorting to bloodletting when heart medication doesn’t work.

And it is in the life sciences where Occam’s razor cuts most sharply in the wrong direction, for at least three reasons.

1) First, life itself is a fascinating example of nature’s penchant for complexity. If parsimony applies anywhere, it is not here.

2) Second, evolution doesn’t design organisms as an engineer might – instead, organisms carry their evolutionary history along with them, advantages and disadvantages alike (your appendix is the price you pay for all your inherited immunity to disease). Thus life appears to result from a cascading “complexifying” process – an understanding of organisms at the macroscale will be anything but simple.

3) Third, we know that the even the simplest rules of life (click the button at the upper left, labelled “Enjoy Life”) can give rise to intractable complexity. Unless you’re a biophysicist, the mechanisms at your preferred level of analysis are likely to be incredibly heterogenous and complex, even at their simplest.

Of course, some disciplines have injured themselves with Occam’s razor more than others. A theoretical cousin of Occam’s razor, maximum parsimony, has been quite useful for understanding evolutionary relatedness. Yet similar methods have led to particularly disastrous results in psychology. For several decades experimental psychology was dominated by an approach known as radical behaviorism, in which concepts related to “thinking” and “mind” were quarantined from mainstream journals.

Likewise, Occam’s Razor cut deep and wide through developmental psychology. How many apppropriately complex theories of development were excised in favor of those advocating four or five tidy “stages” of cognitive development? The entire field is lucky to have survived the ridiculous nature-vs-nurture debate, a false dichotomy itself grounded in the pursuit of parsimony.

Thus, the utility of Occam’s Razor is highly questionable. Theories which it would soundly eliminate are usually questionable for other reasons, while useful theories might be discarded for a lack of parsimony relative to their over-simplified competitors. The theory which states “height determines weight” can do a reasonable job of providing evidence that seems to support that theory. And it’s highly parsimonious – Ockham would love it! But the theory which says “nutrition, exercise, and a collection of more than 100 genes predict both height and weight” is highly unparsimonious, even though we know it’s better than its competitor theory. Statisticians have quantified the appropriate penalty for various theories based on the number of variables they involve, but the more theoretical modes of quantitative science have yet to catch up.

-SOURCE-

 

keep on shaving...

The bit you quoted was from a source explaining why the principle of why dualism should be rejected, rather than my own words 

However, in principle, the basic premise of occam's razor is correct.  The most simple and obvious solution is normally the most likely,   and to deliberately seek less likely or more esoteric answers, (because you don't like the simple and obvious ones)  either in science or philosophy, tends one to error .

Even in complexity the most likely answer will be the least complex one  (although this actually misses the basic point of occam's razor, as does the critique you have presented) It warns against seeking complexity before looking for the simple clear and obvious solution. It is correct not just in evolutionary terms but in philosophical and human terms.  Cause and effect is linked.  Seek the basic connection between cause and effect and you have the best chance of finding truth   The two examples your source gives are not examples of the use of occams razor in seeking a solution,  because the y pose the wrong sort of question to which the razor can be applied

A better question would be,  "why does weight generally increase with size/height ? " The (or a t least one) answer, using occam's razor, is that weight is connected to mass, size or height, by a variable  which is fixed within given constants   

To take the concluding paragraph from your own source

“The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be “Seek simplicity and distrust it.” – Alfred North Whitehead

The bolded bit is where/how, one applies occams razor.  The rest explains why it must be applied within the science and understandings we have, not in spite of them  Occam's razor can not be used to change the facts. It's purpose is to discover them and make sense of them as the y are .

 

    

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

However, in principle, the basic premise of occam's razor is correct.  The most simple and obvious solution is normally the most likely,

Can you give a few examples of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Can you give a few examples of this?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-good-example-of-Occams-Razor-being-applied-in-the-sciences

 

What is Occam's Razor?

Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.  Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.

The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. 

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is
"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

Some examples of Occam's razor include the following:

 

  • Event: One of the fence posts is broken. Of possible explanations a) A moose ran through it or B) Some screws fell out of it because it is old, "b" is the likelier explanation.
  • Event: The tire on the car is flat. Of possible explanations a) It has a screw in it and B) A serial tire-flattener came through the neighbor and sliced the tire open, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: It is raining and I saw a bright flash through my curtains. Of possible explanations a) There was lightning or B) Someone is trying to take pictures of me in the house, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A student failed the statistics test. Of possible explanations a) The student needed to study harder or B) The professor changed his answers on the test because he does not like the student, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A car rear-ended another in highway traffic during rush hour. Of possible explanations a) The driver did not expect traffic to come to a stop so quickly in rush hour and therefore did not apply the brakes quickly enough or B) The driver was distracted by an elephant on the side of the road, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A loud noise is heard in an apartment that is next to a busy highway. Of possible explanations a) A bomb was dropped in the immediate area or B) A truck backfired, explanation "b" is more likely.
  • Event: A woman is nauseous several hours after eating at a restaurant. Of possible explanations a) She may have food poisoning or B) She is suffering from stomach cancer, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A roast beef in the oven burns to a crisp after being in the oven for only one hour. Of possible explanations a) Someone came into the house and turned up the oven temperature temporarily and B) The oven's temperature gauge needs to be re-calibrated, explanation "b" is most likely.
  • Event: A dog owner comes home to the trash can tipped over and trash is scattered on the floor. Of possible explanations a) The dog tipped the trash can over and B) Someone broke into the house and sorted through the trash can, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A ball rolls out into the road in a residential area in front of a man's car. Of possible explanations a) Some children are playing ball and it accidentally rolled into the road and B) Someone is maliciously attempting to cause an accident, explanation "a" makes the most sense.

So now you see how Occam's razor works. It usually makes sense to chose the most logical explanation for any given problem or in any given situation and odds are that you will be right most of the time. 

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-occam-s-razor.html
 

Occam's razor is based on the notion that simplicity equals perfection. It fits perfectly with the scientific method -- the series of steps scientists take to prove or disprove something. Indeed, you could make the case that the scientific method was built upon Occam's razor.

But be careful when approaching the razor -- for such a brief statement, it has an uncanny ability to be stretched or bent to fit all sorts of ideas. It's important to remember that Occam's razor proves nothing. It serves instead as a heuristic device -- a guide or a suggestion -- that states that when given two explanations for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one.

Occam’s razor is also used in computer programming. Since writing language for computers is such an enormous undertaking, programmers need to use the simplest route to create an executable command in a program. Enter Occam, a programming language developed in 1983 by David May. May created the computer language as a means of keeping the programming process simple. Who better to name it after than the man to whom the principle of parsimony is attributed, William of Occam? [source: Hyde]

https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/occams-razor2.htm

 

I think the problem appears to come from people misunderstanding and/or misusing, the principle.

 

The principle has also been used to justify uncertainty in quantum mechanics.  Heisenberg deduced his uncertainty principle from the quantum nature of light and the effect of measurement.

Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time:
"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it.  However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals.  It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."

But uncertainty and the non-existence of the ether cannot be deduced from Occam's Razor alone.  It can separate two theories that make the same predictions, but does not rule out other theories that might make a different prediction.  Empirical evidence is also required, and Occam himself argued for empiricism, not against it.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-good-example-of-Occams-Razor-being-applied-in-the-sciences

Some examples of Occam's razor include the following:

  • Event: One of the fence posts is broken. Of possible explanations a) A moose ran through it or B) Some screws fell out of it because it is old, "b" is the likelier explanation.
  • Event: The tire on the car is flat. Of possible explanations a) It has a screw in it and B) A serial tire-flattener came through the neighbor and sliced the tire open, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: It is raining and I saw a bright flash through my curtains. Of possible explanations a) There was lightning or B) Someone is trying to take pictures of me in the house, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A student failed the statistics test. Of possible explanations a) The student needed to study harder or B) The professor changed his answers on the test because he does not like the student, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A car rear-ended another in highway traffic during rush hour. Of possible explanations a) The driver did not expect traffic to come to a stop so quickly in rush hour and therefore did not apply the brakes quickly enough or B) The driver was distracted by an elephant on the side of the road, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A loud noise is heard in an apartment that is next to a busy highway. Of possible explanations a) A bomb was dropped in the immediate area or B) A truck backfired, explanation "b" is more likely.
  • Event: A woman is nauseous several hours after eating at a restaurant. Of possible explanations a) She may have food poisoning or B) She is suffering from stomach cancer, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A roast beef in the oven burns to a crisp after being in the oven for only one hour. Of possible explanations a) Someone came into the house and turned up the oven temperature temporarily and B) The oven's temperature gauge needs to be re-calibrated, explanation "b" is most likely.
  • Event: A dog owner comes home to the trash can tipped over and trash is scattered on the floor. Of possible explanations a) The dog tipped the trash can over and B) Someone broke into the house and sorted through the trash can, explanation "a" is more likely.
  • Event: A ball rolls out into the road in a residential area in front of a man's car. Of possible explanations a) Some children are playing ball and it accidentally rolled into the road and B) Someone is maliciously attempting to cause an accident, explanation "a" makes the most sense.

So now you see how Occam's razor works. It usually makes sense to chose the most logical explanation for any given problem or in any given situation and odds are that you will be right most of the time. 

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-occam-s-razor.html
 

Occam's razor is based on the notion that simplicity equals perfection. It fits perfectly with the scientific method -- the series of steps scientists take to prove or disprove something. Indeed, you could make the case that the scientific method was built upon Occam's razor.

But be careful when approaching the razor -- for such a brief statement, it has an uncanny ability to be stretched or bent to fit all sorts of ideas. It's important to remember that Occam's razor proves nothing. It serves instead as a heuristic device -- a guide or a suggestion -- that states that when given two explanations for the same thing, the simpler one is usually the correct one.

Occam’s razor is also used in computer programming. Since writing language for computers is such an enormous undertaking, programmers need to use the simplest route to create an executable command in a program. Enter Occam, a programming language developed in 1983 by David May. May created the computer language as a means of keeping the programming process simple. Who better to name it after than the man to whom the principle of parsimony is attributed, William of Occam? [source: Hyde]

https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/occams-razor2.htm

 

I think the problem appears to come from people misunderstanding and/or misusing, the principle.

 

The principle has also been used to justify uncertainty in quantum mechanics.  Heisenberg deduced his uncertainty principle from the quantum nature of light and the effect of measurement.

Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time:
"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it.  However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals.  It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."

But uncertainty and the non-existence of the ether cannot be deduced from Occam's Razor alone.  It can separate two theories that make the same predictions, but does not rule out other theories that might make a different prediction.  Empirical evidence is also required, and Occam himself argued for empiricism, not against it.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

Thank you.

Now perhaps you would like to consider this:

 

 

Occam’s razor is a bad name as it is a probabilistic tool : it makes choose the solution with the least potential improbabilities. Bad tool if it is used to remove other solutions (which are likely). It is the « economic knife » of the rational thinker. Moreover, it is a tool of the reductionist logic (search for common rule to different aspects of a system), logical analysis of the scale of self-organization from the top down. The razor is the antithesis of the tools of complexity, that attempt to explain the growing diversity of a simple system. It would be silly example to apply Occam’s razor to the study of art, psychology, or government spending. It is applied in medicine (one diagnosis is offered to the patient) with benefits (it is reassuring to have a name, treatment and prognosis for his illness) and disadvantages (other diagnoses are hidden).

In the end, when Occam’s razor is sharp as knives of the Inquisition, the Earth is the center of the universe, meteorites do not exist, the continents are stationary… because it is so much simpler like that.

 

source

Edited by Mr. Argon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Thank you.

Now perhaps you would like to consider this:

 

 

Occam’s razor is a bad name as it is a probabilistic tool : it makes choose the solution with the least potential improbabilities. Bad tool if it is used to remove other solutions (which are likely). It is the « economic knife » of the rational thinker. Moreover, it is a tool of the reductionist logic (search for common rule to different aspects of a system), logical analysis of the scale of self-organization from the top down. The razor is the antithesis of the tools of complexity, that attempt to explain the growing diversity of a simple system. It would be silly example to apply Occam’s razor to the study of art, psychology, or government spending. It is applied in medicine (one diagnosis is offered to the patient) with benefits (it is reassuring to have a name, treatment and prognosis for his illness) and disadvantages (other diagnoses are hidden).

In the end, when Occam’s razor is sharp as knives of the Inquisition, the Earth is the center of the universe, meteorites do not exist, the continents are stationary… because it is so much simpler like that.

 

source

Sure; like any tool it can be poorly used.  That  does NOT make it a poor tool. It just means there are some poor craftsmen who don't know how to use it properly .  :) The examples I  gave show how it can be, and has been, applied very successfully, and why science considers the basic premise still to be very useful. 

You just don't like it because, when it is applied to dualism, it makes visible the holes in that philosophy, to which you have a strong attachment :) The sources i gave also illustrated many other problems with dualism .

  Again, this critique doesn't actually understand or apply to,  the correct theoretical principle of Occam's razor, which i detailed last post.  

Occams razor is NOT designed to "remove other probabilities".  It is designed to explore the most likely of any number of chosen probabilities (but classically two)  by examining which is the most probable based on simplicity of evidences

In the dualistic/ non dualistic comparison it shows that the re are too many complexities, unknowns, and assumptions, in the dualistic theoretical model,   compared with the  non dualistic model  

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

  Again, this critique doesn't actually understand or apply to,  the correct theoretical principle of Occam's razor, which i detailed last post. 

With this - I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Sure; like any tool it can be poorly used.  That  does NOT make it a poor tool.

It is a decent tool for simple limited logical choices.

But Kosmos is anything but simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

It is a decent tool for simple limited logical choices.

But Kosmos is anything but simple.

None the less, the razor can be applied  to seek the most likely answers, both within cosmological questions, and to the nature of the cosmos itself.  The alternative is to overthink things, and assume that an extra layer of  complexity exists, where it really does not, or that  something is too complex for us to know and understand it.

WE then tend to add in belief based assumptions or use mystical magical thinking to make our theories hold together. The razor asks us to look at the available evidences, and use them .

You have to be careful about WANTING the universe to be too weird and wonderful, rather than  relatively simple and practical.  

I would suggest that even your use of a K in kosmos is indicative of a desire to over-complicate things and make a practical thing somehow magical or mystical   (i will  apologise if it is because you are a natural Greek or German speaker) 

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

None the less, the razor can be applied  to seek the most likely answers, both within cosmological questions, and to the nature of the cosmos itself.

By applying the Occam's Razor, what is in your opinion or knowledge of, a Nature of Kosmos itself, is it an interplay of Blind Forces caused by some sort of Randomness, or does it appear as a Creation of Something Intelligent, and what is a Role of Man inside of it?

Edited by Mr. Argon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.11.2017 at 8:14 PM, Mr. Argon said:

You think so? It is a great question though. In fact the question which is extremely important and I can't give an answer to that. If you can - go ahead.

The Absoulute is Unity, and has Polarity only as a potential, so when the Individuality returns into Unity, what then?


I wanted to add that there are still levels and practices that lead to the dissolution of the personality in the impersonal. Even the late Buddhists succumbed to the fact that in order to become liberated one must be freed even from the highest personal, since in their opinion this is a set of Skandhas. Spiritual teachers and books warn since dissolution into Nothing is not the transcendence of consciousness but its elimination and when all the roots of life are circumcised and the spirit enters negative Nothing is hard to come back from there if the goal of final care and not return to the positive being of the universe is set. If this is an intermediate goal on the way to God, then this is a very necessary experience since the experience of Nothing gives man liberation from the physical laws of the universe, its energies and mental dependencies.It is said that a person must perform work in the universe and not find a place where he will remain forever in a passive state.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2017 at 5:17 AM, Crazy Horse said:

Evolution, is in a sense, anything that shall help us Home.

You don't seem to remember what Home was like. Pure Beingness is boring.. That's why we left in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.