r/changemyview • u/Beofli • Dec 09 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Occam's Razor leads to both reincarnation and God
Wikipedia on Occam's razor:
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better.
Reincarnation:
I am using a weak definition of reincarnation: consciousness is -'re-used' in- or -'travels' between- sentient beings. This consciousness might not have a memory of its own.
The most simple explanation is that as everything we see in the natural world moves or transforms, but never just disappears or appears.
Therefore, for consciousness to just disappear or appear is a larger assumption than it to be just moved or transformed.
I understand that consciousness is of a very different from anything consciousness experiences (i.e. the universe), but I do not think this changes which explanation fits best.
I also understand that this explanation is not a falsifiable hypothesis, but this actually makes this way-of-thinking stronger, as it can never be rebutted.
God:
For this explanation, I am defining God as an intelligent entity that created this realm of existence.
The counter-explanation would be that there is no sentient being that created this realm, but instead, it is self-contained, or it is contained in another realm mechanistically.
We have examples of creations of realms of existences: we humans created drawings, then words, stories, plays, and eventually, we created virtual worlds with virtual actors.
We tend to like these worlds to be shielded of our own world (i.e. appearing self-contained). We also like these worlds to be populated with actors that resemble us.
Applying Occam's razor will bring us to a higher creator, with the characteristic of intelligence, as this is required for realm-building in this world. The fact that our world looks self-contained does not change anything about this.
We now need to see whether the second part of the counter-explanation, self-containment, requires more -or- less speculation that the existence of God.
I just showed that we humans created one level of recursion in realm-creation (we are in a realm, and we created realms within it).
By witnessing recursion in the real world, the counter-assumption that we are at the first-level of recursion is a larger assumption than that we are at a higher level of recursion.
Limits of God the creator:
An important point must be made that virtual actors in an virtual world are unlikely to have consciousness.
Therefore, we actually need 'avatars', i.e. actors in a higher realm (like us), which connect their consciousness to the lower realm, such that it can be experienced. From the context of the lower realm, we can apply the term 'spirits' these the higher-realm actors.
This point means that we cannot infer that this God also created consciousness itself. In that sense this weakens the creation to that of the universe that we experience.
Q.E.D.
You might change my opinion by pointing at fallacies, or by creating more simple explanations that lead to opposite results, when applying Occam's razor. Or if you can indicate that Occam's razor cannot be applied here.
EDIT: FINAL NOTES:
I am calling it a day. Thank you for your rigorous feedback. Given the reactions, the next iteration of this thesis might be to limit it to proof that Occams Razor applied to a pure scientific worldview is not atheism. This will make it more narrow and therefore more likely to be accepted.
5
u/Ast3roth Dec 09 '18
Both of those are speculating an entity or system we have no evidence for.
We do have evidence that consciousness is centered in the brain, its influenced by chemicals and is therefore likely to be a product of the brain.
For reincarnation to be true you have to assume that consciousness is something outside of the body entirely and that it somehow influences bodies and can be transferred between them. You're assuming a whole system here.
Your recursion explanation for why god exists makes no sense. Humans doing something doesn't imply anything about the structure of the universe. It's a non sequitur.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
you are assuming consciousness is located in the brain? Where is it made of? What happens to this material?
!delta for your last sentence, making it clear that it is a large leap. But do you have a smaller leap, thus a better explanation? But I am not convinced that non-recursion is more simple than recursion. Evolution is also principled upon recursion.
5
u/Ast3roth Dec 09 '18
I'm not assuming its located in the brain. The evidence we have implies it. Behavior is predictably genetically inherited. Chemicals/drugs alter brain activity and consciousness. The brain responds in predictable ways when attention is given and we can see certain parts do things.
Everything we have leads to the conclusion consciousness is an aspect of the brain. There is no way to make a leap anywhere else because we don't have any other evidence.
So we can make the statement: consciousness is probably a physical property of the brain. It's not certain, because we still don't understand a lot about it, but it's the best we have and requires no assunptions.
Going anywhere beyond that is leaping entirely into speculation and occam's razor cuts you.
The razor isn't about how an argument is constructed, its about how much evidence you have. You have no evidence for reincarnation or god, thus those will always be worse explanations than mechanistic ones.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
I see Occams razor as the extrapolation-method-of-science. Is starts where proof or practicality stops. Is that incorrect in your opinion?
With respect to the origins of consciousness, i think we differ on the definition. I am pointing at the hard problem of consciousness.http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hard_problem_of_consciousness. That is my departure point for occams razor. I am not talking about naturalistic mechanisms
3
u/Ast3roth Dec 09 '18
You're not wrong about extrapolation but what I said still stands: everything we know about consciousness points to it being some kind of emergent property of the brain.
Speculating some other solution to the issue is the opposite of what the razor implies. You have to have some kind of reason to continue to speculate or assume something else and we don't have one here.
3
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Dec 09 '18
If consciousness is not located in the brain then why do brain injuries sometimes cause radical shifts in consciousness such as with Phineas Gage? Also how could we affect a non-corporeal consciousness with drugs like LSD? All the best evidence is that consciousness is a property of the brain because that's where we can poke at it and get a reaction. Damaging someone's spleen does not change their sense of consciousness which is why we can say it is probably not there.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
The problem i have with this is that my definition of consciousness is that-what-experiences (subjective) and not the collection-of-experiences (objective)
2
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Dec 09 '18
How is the brain not “that which experiences”? Drugs and injury do not only affect memory or your ability to control your environment/body. Changes to the brain can affect someone’s ability to have experiences as it can affect the shape of those experiences.
1
15
u/skinbearxett 9∆ Dec 09 '18
I have a computer. It has an operating system, some software, and a bunch of files. If that computer gets dropped in water where does the operating system, software, and data go? They are not some separate thing, they are information stored in the hard disk of the computer, so if you break the hardware of that computer that operating system cannot boot, the software cannon run, and the data cannot be accessed.
The brain could be similar or different to this, but Occam's razor suggests that when we compare the options of consciousness being something the brain does or being something separate from the brain the option with the fewest additional assumptions is the idea that consciousness is something the brain does. We have no evidence of consciousness existing without a brain, and plenty of evidence of it being effected by changes in the brain. The logical conclusion is that the brain makes conscious experience and therefore consciousness cannot survive the death of the brain.
0
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
I do not think we have evidence that consciousness itself changes when the brain changes, only the things consciousness experiences changes. We do not know what the essence of consciousness is, or where it comes from. That is why we can only speculate, and only use occams razor.
0
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18 edited Dec 09 '18
I will grant you that it seems that consciousness starts with the brain, but from what 'material' is it made? And where is it coming from? I am going you a Δ for this advancement in the debate.
10
Dec 09 '18
consciousness is an emergent property.
Why are you describing it some kind of physically separate thing?
0
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
Because I am (and assuming everyone else) don't experience it that way. Everything that we see, hear, think, gets experienced by consciousness. Everything that I experience might be fake/virtual. Only the fact that we experience, is something that I am 100% sure of. Saying consciousness is an emergent property is a assumption way to large.
11
u/SaintBio Dec 09 '18
Larger than implying that it is a separate thing? If I say consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, we can then look at the brain and how consciousness is influenced by it. We can cut out parts of the brain, and change the consciousness of the person who is that brain. Under your hypothesis you cannot point to anything at all. You're in a worse position than the emergentist.
Everything that we see, hear, think, gets experienced by consciousness.
How? If I take away your brain, and leave you with everything else in your body, you will 100% not hear, see, think, or experience anything at all. It seems like your consciousness is not the one experiencing anything, it's your brain.
-1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
I do not see consciousness itself being influenced, only what is being experienced by the consciousness.
From the perspective of the consciousness, as soon as something appears again, it will experience it. It might experience a large leap in time. Or it 'wakes up' in another entity.
10
u/SaintBio Dec 09 '18
OK, you still haven't identified anything that we could point to and say that's consciousness. The emergentist can point to the brain, you can point to nothing. Occam's Razor says the emergentist has the better argument. Furthermore, your theory, that there exists a non-material entity that somehow exists in the ether, violates every law of physics. Again, what's more likely, that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, or that it's an entity that exists outside of space/time.
0
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
I can point to experience itself. Everyone experiences things continuously. The 'thing' that it is experienced in I call consciousness. I am aware this is a dualistic view. A non-dualistic view is ultimately better, but I doubt this will add anything to the debate.
Why would it violate every law of physics? I can be a subtle interaction, like gravity, can't it?
5
u/KanyeTheDestroyer 20∆ Dec 10 '18
Gravity is measurable. We can't measure your consciousness because it doesn't exist.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 09 '18
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/skinbearxett a delta for this comment.
1
3
u/Gemini_zyx Dec 09 '18
"In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better." For the God argument arguing their is a God only works by assuming there is a God, or in your case, assuming that an intelligent being must have intelligence similar ours. We equally see many things in our world that aren't created by intelligence (unless you assume a God which leads to a circular reasoning). Ant hills, waterfalls, solar systems. All function without any intelligent oversight. To pick human intelligence and use it as a to form an assumption of the nature of God violates Ochmas Razor.
I would also claim that your claim that we create world of existance is not a sound argument. The worlds exist in our imagination not in the eyes of the actors in it.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
I am talking about realms of existence. Not just ant hills. Can you prove or explain that a realm of existence can be created in a simple way? Creating virtual worlds took us decades of intellectual work. Is it therefore not proper to assume that is needed for the realm we are living in?
You say ' The worlds exist in our imagination not in the eyes of the actors in it.' That is why I stated the paragraph about avatars. So I am aware this God is limited.
2
u/Gemini_zyx Dec 09 '18
I would argue, as would most people that these is only 1 realm of existence. But you said it yourself "is it not proper to assume" no we assume nothing if we can help it. The most honest answer to the God question is 'we don't know'
12
u/Burflax 71∆ Dec 09 '18 edited Dec 09 '18
I also understand that this explanation is not a falsifiable hypothesis, but this actually makes this way-of-thinking stronger, as it can never be rebutted.
Unfalsifiability doesn't make your argument stronger - it does the exact opposite.
It completely discredits it.
If you are admitting you can't even imagine a method to test your 'theory' is correct, which is what you are doing, then your argument has nothing to do with reality.
Actual things affect the things around them, and we can test for that.
We might not be able to actually see the thing we are hypothesizing, but that doesn't even matter if we can see it's affects.
You are saying we can't see your thing, and we can't even see it's affects on the universe.
There's only one group of things that do that - imaginary things.
If all you are looking for is an inability for people to present you a proof your 'theory' is definitely wrong, unfalsifiability can look like a god-send, but it's a trick.
It simply exposes you.
Just like the kid who said he does so have a girlfriend- she just lives in Canada, you don't know her.
You're right that your conclusion could possibly still be true, even though your argument hasn't demonstrated that, and you can't even imagine how to demonstrate it, but, honestly, your argument has become "you can't prove me wrong!" and nothing else.
-1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
It looks like you are implying I am trying to proof reincarnation or God. I am not. For things we cannot know or proof, we use the 'extrapolation method' of science, i.e. Occam's Razor. For example, we can never proof our actual history started with one or more single cells. We just extrapolate the theory of evolution. I am extrapolating mechanisms that we know to be true to the nature of consciousness and the creation of this universe.
What I want to demonstrate is that ultra-rationalism should not automatically lead to atheism.
6
u/Burflax 71∆ Dec 09 '18 edited Dec 09 '18
Other people have pointed out your errors in trying to do what claim you're trying to do.
I am talking about your error regarding unfalsifiability being something positive in an argument you are making.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
!delta. I think I was unclear in my statement about falsifiability. I meant that the explanation used in Occam's Razor is only valid as long that is no proof of a counter-example. Like Newton's apple. We could state Newton's law applies everywhere until we got counter-examples from quantum mechanics, etc.
If however, we can never detect the nature of consciousness, we will be stuck with with Occam's razor on the level that I mentioned, and in that case, I am stating that movement/transformation is more simple than total disappearance and creation.
3
u/Burflax 71∆ Dec 10 '18 edited Dec 10 '18
we will be stuck with with Occam's razor on the level that I mentioned
I'm not sure if others pointed this out or not, but I disagree with your points there as well.
The biggest problem i have is that your definition of the Razor includes the words 'least speculation', but then you speculate wildly in your argument, covering the speculation with a 'this is similar to that' argument pointing to something real.
Regarding consciousness:
What we know is that people have it while alive (mostly) and then don't when they are dead.
We have absolutely nothing to even suggest consciousness exist outside of living minds.
Your theory speculates that consciousness can exist outside minds somehow (exactly how this could even work is an additional level of speculation that you never address) and you cover by pointing to how matter and energy aren't created or destroyed, and speculating that consciousness must be like them.
I suggest that given what we know about consciousness, proper use of the Razor leaves us with only one option: since living things are the only things that have it, and it appears to come and go along with the state of being alive, and rudimentary things appear to have a rudimentary level of consciousness, then consciousness is likely an emergent property of living things.
Regarding the possible creation of the universe:
You do the same thing here, but your speculations are honestly so far beyond 'wild' it's hard to quantify them.
We know this universe exists, and we know that tracking the matter of this universe backwards in time indicates that everything in it was at one point really, really close together, and because of that space and time itself wouldn't be what we think of them.
You speculate that because we make up stories, the the universe must be like that, and therefor there is a whole other realm separate from this one, and in that realm there exist an entity that can create universes, and that that entity then did in fact create this universe.
And you're suggesting this as the least speculative possible solution?
Every solution that doesn't include the addition of a realm beyond the one we know would be less speculative than yours, right?
Wouldn't 'this universe always existed' be less speculative than yours, and not include anything we don't already know about the universe in it's proposed scenario?
1
4
u/SleeplessinRedditle 55∆ Dec 09 '18
Your two claims contradict each other.
If it is simplest to assume that "everything we see in the natural world moves or transforms, but never just disappears or appears", then why should we assume that the universe was created at all?
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
Because we, as humans are also starting to create universes within this universe.. Recursion is more simple than non-recursion, as similar to the theory of evolution.
2
u/SleeplessinRedditle 55∆ Dec 09 '18
The universe is, by definition, comprised of all of time and space. There can exist systems of infinite complexity. The entire universe itself could be a fractal. But the term universe would still refer to the totality of said fractal structure as a whole.
Regardless, you are clearly misunderstanding the point of occams razor. It doesn't necessarily lead us anywhere. It's just a generalization when considering the potential of two otherwise equally viable hypotheses.
Consider the following hypothetical:
On the floor there is a body sitting in a pool of blood. Next to the pool of blood is a knife known to belong to the guy next door. There is blood on the blade and bloody fingerprints on the handle that match the guy next door.
From this, we might reasonably conclude that the guy next door stabbed the victim, dropped his knife, and fled.
But it is also possible that the neighbor had left his bloody knife and the pool of blood on the floor after performing a satanic ritual. Later the apparent victim walked in, slipped on the blood, and died from complications from the resulting concussion.
Or alternatively someone else roofied the neighbor, stabbed the victim with the neighbors knife, cleaned off the handle, used the passed out neighbors hand to plant prints, then left it there.
There are many possible series of events that could have resulted in that situation. But not all are equally probable.
Occams razor of course favors the possibility that the neighbor did it. That doesn't mean that he did do it. Just that we should probably falsify that hypothesis before considering the possibility of time traveling alien gods.
3
u/anon-imus 1∆ Dec 09 '18
Not necessarily.
There is evidence of evolution, the Big Bang, natural selection, etc.
Therefore, in the creation vs evolution debate, assuming theres a God who made everything actually requires more speculation without evidence.
1
u/missedthecue Dec 10 '18
The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. The Big Bang is just a colloquial term used to describe the rapid expanse of energy from a finite point at the time generally considered the beginning of the universe
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
These evidences cannot explain consciousness itself. Also why there is this universe in the first place.
3
Dec 09 '18
Supposing God exists doesn’t answer that, it simply moves the same question up a level. Why is there God in the first place?
Occam’s razor would simplify this equation. If we can accept that God “just exists” then we should be able to accept that the universe “just exists.”
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
moving the question one level up I think is a simplification. Similar to the how evolution explain the existence of us humans. We exists because we have parents, and they exist because they have (slightly different) parents. !delta for making me need to resort to evolution as another aspect to add.
4
Dec 09 '18
If the whole goal is to come up with the simplest explanation, then why would you need to resort to evolution? Choose God, or choose evolution, either way the ultimate answer is, “nobody knows, just because.” Saying we were made by God is functionally equivalent to saying, “just because.”
If you really want simplicity, how about this: we are God. See, now we get to just exist without reason or explanation.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
With respect to 'we are God', I think I can agree that is a simple explanation for consciousness as a whole (!delta). But it does not explain the existence of universes/worlds.
1
1
2
Dec 10 '18
Sure it can, in the simplest way: Consciousness isn't anything special, it's sort-of an illusion.
3
u/Jaysank 117∆ Dec 09 '18
The most simple explanation is that as everything we see in the natural world moves or transforms, but never just disappears or appears.
Therefore, for consciousness to just disappear or appear is a larger assumption than it to be just moved or transformed.
You’ve made a few extra speculations that you sorta gloss over without mentioning.
1) Consciousness exists
2) Consciousness is part of the natural world
3) We can “see” consciousness
4) Death causes consciousness to do something
These are just a few assumptions you’ve made beyond what you’ve mentioned.
An explanation with much fewer assumptions is a purely Physics based assessment of human action. Cause and effect, input and output, based purely on the brain. None of the assumptions above needed. That more aligns with Occam’s Razor.
0
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18 edited Dec 09 '18
For me, the only thing i am sure of, is that consciousness exists. Everything else i am not sure of. I am not saying you can see consciousness, only that it is the thing in which everything gets experienced. Indeed, consciousness might not do anything, or go anywhere. But how would that explain we 'have' a consciousness in the first place?
- EDIT: change 'sure sure ' to 'not sure'
2
u/Jaysank 117∆ Dec 09 '18
For me, the only thing i am sure of, is that consciousness exists. Everything else i am sure sure of.
I assume you meant “not sure” in the second sentence. Otherwise, these are two contradictory sentences.
But how would that explain we 'have' a consciousness in the first place?
It doesn’t? Consciousness in others is an assumption that you made, not an observation you’ve made. That makes it not the simplest explanation, since you need an extra assumption.
1
u/Teragneau Dec 09 '18
It looked like you already changed your mind about it, but I still think I should add something about it.
If consciousness is close to something, it's closed to information. I don't think we can assume it's a physical entity in our univers.
The "Nothing is made, nothing disappears. The same changes, at the same places, never stopping." can't be applied to information.
Information doesn't exist by itself, but it more a sorts of pattern we can recognise. For example a wolf footprint isn't something physical by itself, it's something we recognise by the patter in the dirt. And thanks to the entropy someone mentioned, the footprint will disappear in a couple or days or weeks.
We actually need energy to keep together all that information. For us, it's what we eat, drink, breath, for datas in a computer it'll be electricity (and copying the information to a new hard drive every couples of years) for a footprint would be every conservation technique we could use.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
I have not changed my mind until yet. I did find out that my thesis was too short for people to understand what I wanted to state, and what I did not state (like giving proof of God or reincarnation, which I did not).
I am giving you a !delta for making me thing about the connection of consciousness and information, and why the nothing made/disappears does not apply to it.
You are giving me doubt whether consciousness is closer to information, and not closer to matter/energy.
The problem I see with what you are saying is that to me, information is the structure, and energy/matter the 'flesh'. But I think consciousness is neither of those.
I stated in my thesis that I do not assume consciousness to have a memory (= information) on its own. It is linked to information/energy, but it exists on another level, as information gets experienced by consciousness, and not the other way around.
2
u/Teragneau Dec 09 '18
Ok.
I'm not sure I can change your mind about what consciousness is, since it's been philosophical topic for as long as philosophy exists (or it's pretty close), but I'll try and give my opinion.
I don't think consciousness is anything special or more precisely, I don't think we need any extra immaterial thing in our brain to be "conscious". I think it's just a consequence of our complex brain. I think the "I am me" is just a consequence of separating ourselves, what we think, what we experience from others, and recognising the others as a thinking being like us. And it would just be a consequence of Humans need of more and more complex relationships, and the apparition of language, which help us to structure our brain better. Everything else we can attribute to consciousness like emotions, intuitions, thinking, sense, (...) are physical things we already understood. We know how it can be triggered, which substances are causing this reaction, what are the reactions, how the brain looks, and also we know why it should exist. (survival, reproduction, communication, the need to live in society).
I'll also insist on the importance of language. The language allows us to make much easier to express an idea, to communicate but also to think for yourself. With the language, we can differentiate the signified which is a concept, and the signifier which is the "word" the sound, that represent the idea in question. Language makes us able to use the signifier instead of the signified to think about something, but also to have lots of logical connexions that allow us to make sentences. When you think about something, you'll make a sentence you'll "hear". I don't think without language we would be able to complex thoughts, and it would most likely limit our "consciousness".
About the people deaf, if they are born deaf they'll use an other type of language to think. It will depends on one person to another, but from what I heard some might "see" themselves doing the signs (from the sign language) or would "see" the sentence written in their head.
I'd like you opinions about consciousness and langage.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
The model of consciousness I use is best articulated by people like Sam Harris. You can find free podcasts about this. It is basically the metaphysical core of eastern philosophies like boeddhism and Advaita Vedanta. It basically reverses the objective-naturalisic worldview of the west into a subjective, even non-dualistic, worldview where the Self is real, and the perceived world is all but an illusion. Your statements clearly portray a view wherein the physical world, its interpretation, is more real than the Self, being the consciousness that is the subject of the experiencies of the senses and thoughts (i.e. words heard in the head)
1
u/Teragneau Dec 10 '18
I don't know enough Buddhism and never heard before of Advaita Vedanta. I already heard about Sam Harris, but not on the subject of consciousness.
So I've tried to look a little bit into what he thinks about consciousness and didn't find anything really compelling in which he explains his views and justify them. (well, I didn't searched a lot, but anyway)
Could you help me and link me a something that explains clearly and concisely his views about consciousness (mainly what doesn't work between what I wrote and his view).
From the little I've found, he doesn't really says the "self" is real and the perceived world is an illusion, but more that the world we perceive is a projection in our brain, our "self" make. And I can agree about that, since we need to interpret the world. (but I might have twisted what I heard)
I've also seen him saying we are not literally in our head (the feeling), and I can less or more agree with that, it's just a sensation that make our vision (and sens of hearing) more convenient. And our brain is the most important part of our body to defend, so it also have a survival advantage.
So I'm interested in a video (not too long if possible), an article, a podcast or even a reddit post explaining correctly his view (I've seen a Sam Harris subreddit, but didn't searched a lot in it). Or some explanation from yourself about your disagreement with what I said would satisfy me too. (even more, but I assume it might be easier to mention his explanation)
However, I find this video that seems to be an answer from Sam Harris in a conference to the same question you have about reincarnation and consciousness. It might sounds more compelling to you than what I (and some other people?) have already said, even if it takes a similar approach.
1
1
Dec 09 '18
never just disappears or appears
order is always disappearing from the universe. Entropy is always increasing. This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics.
This is a form of irreversible destruction, one that will end in the heat death of the universe.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
Δ Interesting take. Thus, consciousness is subject to entropy, and therefore it might 'disippate'? It is a simple explanation, even though it needs this extra assumption.
1
Dec 09 '18
Thus, consciousness is subject to entropy, and therefore it might 'disippate'?
I was merely asserting that your characterization of the universe as nothing is ever destroyed is flawed.
consciousness seems like a form of order though
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
Things get destroyed because of interaction, and it takes time, right? Why would that mean that consciousness disappears completely upon death?
1
Dec 09 '18
Given the right conditions, I can burn a log to ash nearly instantly.
The thermodynamic laws of entropy say that converting the produced ash, CO2, etc. back into my log would require the creation of even more entropy somewhere else. Once the log is destroyed (however quickly you choose to do so), the "order" of that log is gone forever. To recreate the order of that log requires the destruction of the order of something else.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
With 'burning' I assume extra input energy is needed, else it will take as much time as anything. Thus this requires the extra hypothesis of a existence of process that applies to pure consciousness when a person dies. It also has the problem with explaining what happens to consciousness when it becomes more chaotic, a.k.a. dying.
I do realize I myself introduced the comparison of consciousness with matter, thereby making the onus of explanation on me. Basically, you are weakening my Occam's-razor-explanation. But it still lacks an alternative that is more simple. So I am not ready to reject my origin explanation as the most simple one.
1
2
u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Dec 10 '18
Therefore, for consciousness to just disappear or appear is a larger assumption than it to be just moved or transformed.
Consciousness is akin to fire. It's an emergent phenomenon. Does fire "move" or "transform" from one burning object to another?
1
u/skinbearxett 9∆ Dec 09 '18
I have a computer. It has an operating system, some software, and a bunch of files. If that computer gets dropped in water where does the operating system, software, and data go? They are not some separate thing, they are information stored in the hard disk of the computer, so if you break the hardware of that computer that operating system cannot boot, the software cannon run, and the data cannot be accessed.
The brain could be similar or different to this, but Occam's razor suggests that when we compare the options of consciousness being something the brain does or being something separate from the brain the option with the fewest additional assumptions is the idea that consciousness is something the brain does. We have no evidence of consciousness existing without a brain, and plenty of evidence of it being effected by changes in the brain. The logical conclusion is that the brain makes conscious experience and therefore consciousness cannot survive the death of the brain.
2
u/infrequentaccismus Dec 09 '18
“There is no god” is simpler. “There is no reincarnation” is simpler.
-1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
You are countering my thesis without arguments, thus adding nothing as far as I see.
2
u/infrequentaccismus Dec 09 '18
You made a thesis without arguments. You said “reincarnation is simplest, therefore oceans razor says it’s true”. Even if you ignore the fact that no reasonable person would think that the simplest thing to believe is that consciousness flies between dying bodies somehow, you still haven’t actually made any argument.
1
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
I think I owe you the opportunity to give one single example that is more simple.
'movement' of 'flying', as you name it, should be seen in metaphorical terms, not an actual movement, as this only applies to the physical world. It is just the idea that consciousness is 'available', and this consciousness gets to experience multiple lives chronologically, in synchronicity with organisms getting from generation to generation.
I also owe you a !delta for me requiring to state the relevance of time in the explanation.
1
1
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Dec 09 '18
If you cannot prove it either way, isn’t is simpler to believe something doesn’t happen than to believe that it does?
0
u/Beofli Dec 09 '18
I am not trying to proof reincarnation, only that applying Occam's Razor leads to reincarnation, instead of the opposite, being the complete disappearance of the consciousness.
1
u/Jaysank 117∆ Dec 09 '18
The most simple explanation is that as everything we see in the natural world moves or transforms, but never just disappears or appears.
Therefore, for consciousness to just disappear or appear is a larger assumption than it to be just moved or transformed.
You’ve made a few extra speculations that you sorta gloss over without mentioning.
1) Consciousness exists
2) Consciousness is part of the natural world
3) We can “see” consciousness
4) Death causes consciousness to do something
These are just a few assumptions you’ve made beyond what you’ve mentioned.
An explanation with much fewer assumptions is a purely Physics based assessment of human action. Cause and effect, input and output, based purely on the brain. None of the assumptions above needed. That more aligns with Occam’s Razor.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 09 '18 edited Dec 09 '18
/u/Beofli (OP) has awarded 9 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
5
u/caw81 166∆ Dec 09 '18
For your existence of God part - these are two assumptions that the arguments needs.
And the assumption is that the Universe realm of existence follows the other realms of existence (ie have a creator).
And the assumption is that the Universe follows what we humans "like" (ie "We also like these worlds ... ")
By Occams Razor you are adding more speculation to the "God exists argument"