From: kimbawlionATaolDOTcom@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:57:18 GMT, "Interesting Ian"   
    wrote:   
      
   >I am currently discussing this paper and more generally NDEs on the James   
   >Randi board (a skeptic board) should anyone be interested:   
      
   I'll read those papers as I have time. Thanks for the links.   
      
   The arguments on boards such as the Randi one are provocative, but in the   
   end it's like trying to convince a bunch of Southern Baptists that it's OK   
   to be gay. They're not interested in hearing it. And the Randi folks are   
   just as religious in their beliefs. (Leave it to a dragon to be the most   
   outrageous 'defender of the faith'.)  ;)   
      
   I see you've already had your fill of the thread. Pity, I had worked up one   
   reply I was rather proud of, and had several other posts marked for reply.   
   But I realize it is futile. The board exists for the same reason the Randi   
   Challenge exists: to defend the faith. Still, I hate to waste my little   
   essay, so here it is...   
      
      
   Since the holy Ockham's Razor has been invoked in these discussions I   
   would like to point out that poor William of Ockham's principle is   
   frequently distorted into a crutch for sloppy thinking.   
      
   William of Ockham was fond of saying, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine   
   neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."   
   This reflected his choices in life--a monk under a vow of poverty--and he   
   was a minimalist in all aspects of life; he was adamantly in favor of   
   abolishing property rights, for example. It's no wonder that his   
   principle is also called the principle of parsimony.   
      
   But notice that Ockham's Razor is purely heuristic--it does not   
   necessarily give correct answers. It is merely one method of testing a   
   hypothesis, not, by any means, proof of anything. When one is facing a   
   problem, shedding concepts that appear unnecessary will pare the problem   
   down to a form that's easier to examine, but it does not necessarily   
   provide one with the correct answer. Ockham's Razor does NOT state that   
   the simplest answer is the best; it is merely an attempt to purify one's   
   thinking.   
      
   There is an implicit responsibility in following his course of logic:   
   that one examines one's assumptions. Because our society trains us to   
   think in a specific way, the convoluted assumption here--that an NDE is   
   "just" a phenomenon triggered by brain chemistry--is perceived as the   
   simpler explanation. Since the mechanism is unproven, it has to be   
   remembered that this is just an assumption.   
      
   To a person who approaches the subject with a different point of   
   view--that consciousness does not originate in the brain--the assumption   
   that consciousness and body can exist separately and this is what   
   results in an NDE is the simpler explanation.   
      
   Thus, we have two opposing hypotheses, each with proponents claiming   
   theirs is simpler. Ockham's Razor is useless in this situation.   
      
   The problem then shifts to other methods to find which is the correct   
   explanation. The separate-consciousness-and-body camp has anecdotal   
   evidence dating from the present back to the dawn of recorded history.   
   The brain chemistry camp has nothing that stands up to scrutiny. (Which   
   is probably why arguments along these lines always deteriorate in the   
   manner displayed on the Randi board.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)