I see no reason why it wouldn't - but neither do I thinks it wise to say it did.

I don't really see why the jury can't be out on an assertion for which there is no evidence for, but no reason to suspect.

So on the subject of alien life I am agnostic.

I will play this silly game of cat and mouse rather than debate, what is obviously not what you intend.Do you honestly not understand what i mean when i say the formula for life? Given certain chemical compounds,unknown,combined with certain circumstances we have the outcome of sustainable life.You can maintain that life in its initial formation was a one off with creation as its cause or it will form on each occasion when the right compounds and circumstances initiate its arrival, you choose.
Ill leave the debate on fate to another occasion as this formula for life appears to be a very difficult subject to comprehend.

I see no reason why it wouldn't - but neither do I thinks it wise to say it did.

I don't really see why the jury can't be out on an assertion for which there is no evidence for, but no reason to suspect.

So on the subject of alien life I am agnostic.

So you say that while admitting that I cannot be absolutely certain, due to the fluid nature of knowledge, that I should just be practically certain? It seems that this point of view could be more conducive of dogmatism than mine, but it does seem coherent, at least in the realm of the practical.

Speaking from the ideal of absolute knowledge, no, I cannot say that there are no pink unicorns from(not on, I never said on, so your little talk about the climate of mars was unwarranted) mars, but you suggest I simply eliminate the ideal in line with the principal of parsimony? So that as truth is subjective, so is knowledge?

Absolutes and ideals are all impractical and in contrary to the principal of parsimony though, are they not? They are indeed unwarranted abstractions derived from the more appealing aspects of what actually is.

The first objective statement is wrong Geoid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but I understand what you mean. The fact of the matter still stands that even if I am certain about the fact that X does not exist, I have no way to verify that; so it seems that undiscovered or potential objects should just sit in some ontological limbo where they are ignored until they have been shown to exist.

I would assert that making an ontological claim in the negative is just as flawed as making a false one in the positive, so that the correct application of parsimony would be to simply make no judgment at all and refuse any discourse beyond pointing out that the ontological claim being made is in error as it is unverified.

1. The universe was caused by unwilled, natural circumstances.

2. The universe was caused by willed, supernatural agency.

The first explanation is the parsimonious one. Refusing to adopt either explanation is ignoring the principle of parsimony.

I'm not even trying to argue about god, I'm saying that the principal of parsimony is not used correctly if you have a situation where a judgment is not warranted, yet it is made, and the principal of parsimony is then applied during the judgment.

I would say that there is no logical reason to make a negative ontological assertion when it is not for totally practical purposes, so that if we are observing a phenomena rigorously we don't claim that the devil is holding up our stones, as it were. Otherwise, it seems more correct to simply show that an ontological claim is a false positive without asserting the negative, as there is no way to confirm a negative ontological claim unless it is tautological(like that there are no round squares).

It is strong enough for practical purposes to simply assert that something is a false(unverified or unwarranted) positive. With this level of refutation, one would not stray outside of the principal of parsimony, acknowledging that it is absurd to rely on an ontological false positive, for nearly anything could be introduced this way.

I'm not even trying to argue about god, I'm saying that the principal of parsimony is not used correctly if you have a situation where a judgment is not warranted, yet it is made, and the principal of parsimony is then applied during the judgment.

I have already agreed that it is more practical and parsimonious to disregard the idea of a creator as it is an unverifiable entity. I'm just saying that is is enough just to disregard such an entity and to assert to anyone who is claiming its existence that they are taking an unverified position rather than flat out refuting the possibility. That is all. That is the only reason I might consider myself a weak agnostic, because the other positions seem too absolute in their formulation.

It is almost a matter of semantics, but I think that it is more correct.

Am i wrong in asking for a reasonable answer to when life became possible not the circumstances that created life but the formula?To say it became possible at a certain time denies the possibility that it could have happened before or since.Formulas describe ,they dont actually perform.If it only ever happened once it smacks of creation not evolution.There appears a fear in admitting this fact by our confirmed atheists.

Right. The "parsimony" argument is often introduced by hardcore physicalists as a strategy for "dismissing" something they want to eliminate as a possible feature of reality. But if we trim descriptions of reality that require more descriptors, we've not applied parsimony. The issue is always if reality is properly explained with fewer principles.

Something we've not explained properly with physical principles alone, for instance, is the level of organization in the universe, especially life. Oh sure, there's an explanation alright, but it is woefully inadequate. The typical physicalist is one long fallacy of composition; that is, he thinks describing all the parts and interactions of a highly organized setting (like a living being) has completely accounted for everything.

What about how all the components got organized into a living system in the first place . . . why, we've got the Miller-Urey experiment, the organizing behavior of crystals, autocatalytic reactions, and other limited physical self-organization. Some researchers see as more significant the spontaneous formation of organic molecules, such as amino acids, nucleotides, and the development of proteinoid microspheres. Yet such self-organization are impotent examples because they can't be shown to join together and then keep developing, but rather they remain isolated structures that only advance for a few steps or in repetitive patterns.

So when someone wants to remain open to the possibility the universe is consciousness somehow and that might be what contributes the apparent missing principle of organization, that's when the atheist and physicalist, closed to anything but their own beliefs, start talking "parsimony." Hell, for the sake of parsimony, why not eliminate all physics and just say God created it all; you can hardly get more simplistic than that.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part. This is mainly a matter of semantics, and so let me try and clarify my point to you. There is little to no difference between disregarding the existence of an entity and stating that the entity doesn't exist. As I stated earlier, I don't believe in absolute certainty because of the problem of skepticism. I view knowledge as a practical concept, and so I believe that we can only be practically certain about synthetic propositions. That practical certainty is what gives me the confidence to say that supernatural agents do not exist, but I am not stating an absolute. I am open to the possibility that supernatural agency does exist, but only in the sense that anything is possible in the face of the problem of skepticism. My position as a naturalist atheist is not absolute, and I am perfectly willing to drop the position when the existence of supernatural agency is positively confirmed. Until then, I hold that supernatural agency doesn't exist on the grounds of a practical epistemology.

The principle of parsimony applies to more than just the argument between supernaturalism and naturalism. The principle of parsimony is a result of the practical theory of knowledge. It is applied by physicalists in the debate between supernaturalism and naturalism because it applies. If you don't believe in, or value, practical knowledge, then you don't believe in, or value, knowledge at all. This is why you would make the absurd statement that we should abandon physics in favor of supernaturalism as a parsimonious resolution. Choosing the more simple explanation does not mean to dumb it down. Choosing the more simple explanation means to choose the explanation that is more practical, demonstratble, and corresponding with available evidence.

I understand parsimony very well (probably before you were born), and I didn't say we should abandon physics or embrace supernaturalism. I can't figure out if you don't know how to read, or if you just want to strawman me to death! Just for your information, I am not religious nor do I believe in supernaturalism, yet I also don't think physicalness can account for everything.

Since consciousness is clearly possible, I lean toward thinking the entire universe is naturally conscious somehow, and that contributes the organizational elements physics cannot account for.

Two examples that irritate the crap out of me (appropriate to mention in a thread about what's irritating about atheists) are when physicalists gloss over the fact that they have no organizing principle that would explain the organization behind life (yet somehow it is "parsimonious" to get rid of God and embrace physicalism anyway). And the second is the claim that since life did evolve over time, because common descent is essentially proven, and since adaption does take place, that proves life evolved via the adaption mechanisms . . . so it is therefore "anti-parsimonious" to see a possibility for something more than physicalness behind evolution.

Except . . .

The examples of physical self-organization physicalists give to fill in the evidence gap have never, ever been observed turning evolutive; a few steps of self-organization that soon turns repetitive is the best you can get (as in what crystals, PCR, etc. do).

And yes, life evolved over time, adapts, and descended from a common ancestor(s) -- no doubt. But there is no good evidence that the adaptive mechanisms (random mutation and natural selection) do anything more than make minor adjustments to extant organ systems. There is absolutely no reason for the objective, purely uncommitted thinker to leap to the unsupported conclusion that simple adaption has evolved entire organisms.

You will never get a devoted physicalist-atheist to admit they mislead the public when they claim they essentially have life and evolution explained; instead you will hear how we all should get rid of faith and that silly God delusion in favor of the physicalist god. :nonooo:

So my disdain is aimed at the dishonest use of parsimony offered by physicalist/atheist "believers" who use it as a tactic to win debates; when Occam's razor is legitimately relied on for theory maintenance I love it.

You made a sarcastic remark in regards to choosing the more simple explanation, remember? . . . I was just throwing it back at you by explaining what it means to choose the simplest explanation, as you were using it as if I were saying to dumb it down. You're making it seem as if rejecting supernatural explanations based on parsimony is equivalent to rejecting the science of physics. The problem is not that physicalism can't account for everything. The problem is that supernaturalism accounts for absolutely nothing.

Can you verify that the universe is conscious? What is consciousness and what are its properties?

Physicalists and atheists admit that they don't know everything about life and evolution all of the time. Have you actually been paying attention to what the scientific community in regards to life and evolution? The theory of natural selection explains 99% of what we know about life, but not everything. It's the other team who claims to have a theory to explain everything, when their "theory" really explains nothing at all.

How is the use of parsimony dishonest once you apply it to the metaphysical theory of supernaturalism? It's dishonest when a scientist rejects a supernatural theory for the formation of cancer cells in favor of a natural theory?

You can disagree with me without insulting me, can't you?

If it is detectable, then it is physical, if it is physical, then it is detectable. From a strictly monist view, consciousness is of the same nature as everything else. From a physicalist's view, consciousness must be physical. Consciousness, as far as I can tell, is a process arising out of simultaneous neurological events/interactions. It is detectable(by brain scans ect), so it must be physical in nature. Conciousness, like a bubble, seems to require simultaneous physical events in order to occur.

[2] If it is detectable, then it is physical, [1] if it is physical, then it is detectable. [3] From a strictly monist view, consciousness is of the same nature as everything else. [7] From a physicalist's view, consciousness must be physical. [4] Consciousness, as far as I can tell, is a process arising out of simultaneous neurological events/interactions. [5] It is detectable(by brain scans ect), so it must be physical in nature. [6] Conciousness, like a bubble, seems to require simultaneous physical events in order to occur.

1. We know we can detect physicalness, we don't know if we can detect all the physicalness there is (how can we possibly know what we can't detect?). Many scientists believe gravitons exit, but can't detect them. Will we ever detect it? There is no way to know.

2. On what basis do you limit detectability to what's physical? The history of what we've detected thus far? If so, two issues come into play. First, we don't know what new detection skills we may develop in the future that will allow us to detect other than physicalness, and secondly I doubt if you know all the detection achieved by humans. In fact, there is a huge body of reports by people turning inward who claim to "detect" something non-physical.

3. From a monist's point of view, all is ultimately the same nature, but that doesn't mean that nature has to be physical. More in this in #7.

4. No, consciousness, as far as we can tell, involves simultaneous neurological events/interactions. You can't logically assume cause from that observation when it could merely be correlation. Every time stomp my foot my house rattles; if I assume all there is to my house rattling is a foot slamming against the floor, then I overlook the involvement of my will in that event. No will, no foot stomp, and no house rattling. Likewise, we see the brain firing, but we don't know if the brain is firing itself, or if there is the will of being involved.

At this point some want to apply Occam's razor, except what about the billions of people who report their will is in control? Yes, we can mess with the brain and observe mental changes, but similar to an analogy I gave earlier, if you mess with a television's circuitry, the images it produces on the screen will alter. But does that prove the circuitry is creating the image, or that the image is merely dependent on the TV to be shown at that particular location?

The physicalist explanation doesn't sit well with the vast majority of people mainly because it doesn't match their personal experience. While thinkers like Dennett suggest that's because we don't actually know what produces the sense of will (i.e., and so are reporting inaccurately), physicalists have yet to prove their theory true, and there are competing theories out there just as popular.

5. Again, your reasoning is improper. The fact that there are elements detectable by physical devices like brain scanners only means there are physical elements to detect, but not that there aren't non-physical elements present which can't be detected. If you have a machine that only detects physicalness, why should expect it to find anything else?

6. You can't know if consciousness "requires" simultaneous physical events, only that most people are using consciousness in combination with the physical senses, and using the brain to work through the body and to think. Is consciousness something more basic than sense perception and brain functions? That's the debate we're having.

7. You say "From a physicalist's view, consciousness must be physical. " This is the heart of the issue. You assume a priori the position of physicalist, and that in turn biases both what you study and the filters you put in place that will decide what information you accept. How can any truth seeker remain objective if he assumes the truth of what he's supposed to be investigating to see if it is true?? It is gross bias, and one that most of the scientific community is guilty of when they make physical ontological claims. Fans of the philosopher Karl Popper appreciate his point that just about any theory can be "corroborated" with evidence; just collect what supports your a priori belief, and ignore or dismiss that which doesn't.

In my opinion, we will never have an objective exchange of ideas between people who already believe they know. For example, I myself think monism offers the best possibility for solving theoretical dilemmas like infinite regress and dualism. You as a pre-committed physicalist state the one nature is physical; the idealist claims mind is the basic stuff. But it makes more sense to me to have something more basic than both, some sort of neutral substance that is uncreated and eternally existing that both physicalness and mind arise from (as in neutral substance monism). I like to call this most foundational "stuff" the ground state substance.

We can more easily eliminate the pesky modeling problems of infinite regress and dualism if the ground state substance is uncreated (always existing), and if physicalness and mind are each a form of the ground state substance. But if you make physicalness the ground state, then explanations for consciousness and creativity become mechanistic, and that doesn't jive with most people's experience of their own consciousness; and if we make it all mind, that doesn't seem to jive with the natural, mechanistic, and gradually evolving features of the universe.