Occam's Razor is lizard shit

[seemslikeadream]

Occam's Razor is lizard shit, and other horrors for the inner reptile...

with respect, let us begin...

please note that if your mind instantly reacts to the title with derision and repulsion which you will be able to recognize from the visceral emotional response, then it, that is to say, YOUR mind, is likely responding from that the 'scientists' call the 'R-complex'. Around the wujo, it is known as the 'reptilian mind', or 'your inner reptile'.

The R-for-reptilian Complex part of your mind is responsible for the lightning fast, instant judgments about most situations in your environment. Your inner reptile is amazingly fast in its response to universe. The speed is really cool. Unfortunately, it, which is to say, your inner reptilian mind, is pretty stupid. The reptilian part of your mind only has 3/three (note how you feel about numbers...the emotional response to numbers comes from your inner reptile) modes of response, which as we all know, are Fight, Flight, or frozen (in Fear). Note how you feel about lists, that comes from the reptilian part of mind. Also note your own emotional response to Capitalized Words, and Bolding...again, this response is from your inner reptile. Also note how the lack of either on the word 'frozen' plays in your mind, especially emotionally. If it is perceived as 'discordant', that feeling associated comes from deep in the fear part of your inner reptile mind.

See how cool radical linguistic experiments can be? You are now performing both complex thought experiments, and deep consciousness sensing experiments within the greatest test bed there is...your own mind. The aware observer notes their own mind and body response to universe as both clues from universe about methods of harmonization, and clues about their own nature within universe. Of course there are many levels of this experiment, and also it obviously, if continued for a lifetime, leads to mastery, at least of self, though all masters i have met are multiply talented creative beings.

Anyway, we digress...and deliberately so...why? Well, because this whole article is an example of what my buddy Jay Weidner, the 21st century alchemist, calls 'self initiation (into the mysteries)', in other words, the digression just taken has shaken the odorous order out of our preceding logical path and thus disrupted the control over your larger mind, by your inner reptilian mind, as was previously invoked by the title and other techniques already demonstrated. Thus is demonstrated the feeling of alchemic initiation.

So, to jar the inner reptile a bit more, let us return ("whew" say, in an internally quoted fashion, those academically dominated minds trapped in anxiety lest the Occam's razor is bullshit statement NOT be addressed) to the major premise. Again, disruption to the inner reptile is part of the process as well as one of the goals of the experiment.

Occam's razor, from Wikipedia, is defined as going toward the 'simple', with such expressions of it as 'the simple answer is the true answer'. Also note all the 'odorous order' language used in the Wikipedia definition such as 'laws' and other statements of authority embedded in what you are reading which are actually instructions for your mind about the text as it reads it. Clear as monkey butts on moonless midnight?

So the point of this missive is that Occam's razor is bogus and can easily be demonstrated by merely examining the context of universe and the language of expressions of Occam's razor. First note that universe is ANYTHING other than simple. In fact, complexity rules. Universe, if it ever was simple, instantly headed in the direction of the nearby hills of Complexity at breakneck speed and never looked back.

Complexity of systems and the total horror of complexity begetting increasing complexity is one of the primary fear triggers for the inner reptile as it demands, as part of the whole fear complex, that 'order' exist, 'in order that' (note the language we use when discussing it even), the 'safety' of the inner reptilian mind may be guaranteed. We note in passing that the fear aggregate is desperately seeking 'simple', as in its limited view of reality, 'simple' both exists, and implies the ability to 'control'. What does the inner reptile desperate try to control? Well....manifesting circumstances in universe (thus the big hoopdedo about the 'secret' and 'law of attraction' are yet other examples of traps for the inner reptile spun by TPTB) for one, and of course *any* control of manifesting circumstances in universe implies 'safety' for the inner reptile. And all this is dependent on a view of universe that has at its core the idea of simplicity.

Also note that in universe, so far as has been repeated demonstrated, everything that is ever alive, including our personal inner reptiles, will die. Also note that TPTB hold out EXCEPTIONS to death in their religions "in order" to snare your inner reptilian mind into thinking that if you somehow *just* are able to 'fear god enough', or 'love god enough', or 'slave for god enough', then somehow your personal inner reptilian mind figures it can get a free pass. Of course, at the core of its fear structure, the inner reptile can smell its own demise, and that is what has it driving the poor afflicted human mercilessly over its limited lifespan in the never ending search for the 'safe place', or the 'safe choice' in providing for ultimate 'safety' of the inner reptile itself. Also note that the inner reptile is purely selfish and has had some of its more visible parts labeled as 'ego' by academic mind-pluckers. And, also note, that the act of trying to quantify mind is a reptilian response as it seeks 'order' such that simplicity and control may also exist. It basically figures that if it imposes order on all, then it can find 'safety', which probably at its most basic definition is 'infinite me unchanging'.

Please note, that this last, like Occam's razor, is a lizard shit view of manifesting universe. Universe is all about complexity, and complexity is change at its core, thus nothing is unchanging, and thus everything is finite, and since that is the case, 'me' becomes this real small thing indeed. Especially since complexity is ALL about manifesting even more complexity JUST so your mind will get the point of it....which is complex itself.

Universe proceeds toward complexity and academicians prove this to themselves daily. Put a smear on a petri dish filled with agar, and life will sprout up and proceed toward complexity that will scare the carp out of your pond, especially if that smear on the dish came from some part of 'you'...which is to say, your body, which is also to say, not the actual 'you', since the body dies, but the 'you' does not. Too bad the inner reptile associates ALL of its existence with the body, and thus, again, the part that is horrified by the growing collection of life complexity erupting out of the petri dish with the emotion of 'revulsion' is your inner reptile trying, yet once more, to assume control, since control of anything, including the small 'me' that is you, is therefore valuable to preserving ITS safety. Which we repeated demonstrate does not and cannot exist in this expression of universe.

Returning to poor Occam once again, we note that the point of his law or postulate is to provide a pointer to 'truth'....but as the aware observer notes, there is 'true' and there is 'factual'. These are not the same. It can be factual that the rock in the middle of the road exists. Three humans walking along encounter the rock in the middle of the road. It is a factual part of universe for all three, but for one of the humans, whose inner reptile rules, the shiny yellow color converts the fact of the rock in the road, into the 'truth' of a gold discovery. One of the other two humans, trained his mind to include facts about geology, and knows the 'truth' is that the rock is a sulfide of iron also known as the mineral pyrite or fool's gold, and thus his 'truth' also includes a proviso that his gold obsessed traveling companion is delusional. Further, seeing the far away look on his other companion, he thinks that he is probably the only sane and rational one of the three of them. The third human is on several journeys simultaneously, smiles and laughs a lot, and has his truth that regardless of its labels, the rock in the middle of the road 'is', and that all three of the travelers are delusional, not the least among them himself, but that it need not spoil a good pie. Facts exist, truths are felt. As complex as that and getting more so by the instant.

What Occam was doing with his 'law' was putting his inner reptile in charge of the totality of his mind. Not that he was wrong. Many people think this a valid way to live. And, since they are in their reptilian mind which exists only to Fight, Flight, or Freeze, they will defend their RIGHT to live encapsulated in their rule constrained view of universe until their own, and probably your death. That they would happily kill you to defend their inner reptilian limited view of universe is not wrong, merely dangerous. Snakes have a right to exist. But we need not put them in control.

So once again, so sorry to shock the inner reptilian, but old Occam was trying to constrain universe and complexity by his 'law', and it just is waaaaay too small to fit. The idea that simple is a clue in universe is absurd when it can be easily observed that universe is complex beyond our ability to comprehend!

But what is easily understood is that ANYONE trotting out old Occam's razor to 'explain' any issue, is only trying to settle it with a control technique. For instance. Occam's razor says that JFK was shot by a single nutter assassin who was almost instantly killed by his own assassin. Occam's razor says that the simple answer is the most likely true answer. Of course true and factual are not the same thing. So when someone, especially government types, who operate almost exclusively under reptilian control, offers up old Occam as 'proof' of anything, the aware observer, will smile, and note that complexity is demonstrating itself right here in universe, and someone's inner reptile is having a shit fit. So they keep a wary eye focused inward to watch out.

Other horrors for your inner reptile are rapidly approaching during these times of increasing emotional release language. The inner reptile freaks out over 'insecurity' as that implies death and lack of control, and no more inner reptile which it simply will not allow if it can Fight, Flee, or Freeze. However the human mind aware being notes that none of these tactics will ever succeed in fulfilling the frenzied needs of inner reptilian mind and thus Free it of its incessant drive and the chatter that we call 'monkey mind'. The aware observer also notes that obsessions with odorous order often manifest as fixations on numerals and 'synchronicities'. Such aware observers thus discriminate in mind before manifesting universe clearly demonstrating that while all synchronicities are meaningful, and reveal different aspects of universe, not all are benign. Universe is complex, and complexity comes with in built traps for the unwary or unprepared minds. Universe is complex and comes with both potential and actual manifestations of forces and condensate energies (beings) that are working their own agenda....not all of which are favorable to terrestrial humans.

Universe, in its expression of complexity increasing as the 'natural state of things', is having one of those 'bloop-d-bloop' moments when the constraint balloons imposed on the collective, working view of reality by TPTB (the powers that be, all of whom are deep reptilian mind types), are going to be a'poppin....an interesting time indeed.

The release language for this period is shaping up as predicted, and in spite of the many threats from those under control of their personal lizards who wished for calamity all at once, complexity of universe is manifesting alternatively to their preconceptions. This release language period will demonstrate, and is demonstrating what 'release language' does 'feel like'. As forecast.

Noting that the inner lizard does not know anything about humor, and that part of initiation is to teach how to think other than under inner reptile control, i offer as a replacement image for the current consensus manifesting reality the idea that we are all sitting down in the theater with our pie and drinks (dark roast coffee for me, touch of honey please), while the main event has started on screen. So far we see that TPTB (played by CFR, FED, minions) as Curly, Moe, and Larry, find themselves in a room full of operating fans, and with 3/three (notice how different it feels to read 3/three versus 3 ) shovels and a giant pile of lizard shit. Hmmmm...wonder what will happen?

By the way...we here in the PNW have had weather issues causing communications problems with intermittent net connectivity at best. This will likely resurface for lots of humans across the northern hemisphere (especially northern tier USofA, and northern Europe) as we progress into winter.

clif

November 26, 2010

edit
wrong vid

[Wombaticus Rex]

Great rant, but it's definitely taking the reification of metaphor to a comic extreme. I get the nagging sensation the author took this seriously.

[BrandonD]

I was looking forward to a slightly different article, because to a certain degree I do think that occam's razor is shit.

There's a rule that is a necessary counterpart to occam's razor, which is called "duhon's hammer". It basically goes like this:

Duhon's hammer- The accuracy of Occam's razor is inversely proportional to the number of factors, involved in the phenomenon being investigated, that the investigator is ignorant of.

To help illustrate Duhon's hammer, consider a group of cave dwellers who don't understand electrical science. One night three of these men see a giant bolt of lightning, streaking down from the clouds to the ground and striking the tallest tree in their village, which they consider a sacred tree. The tree catches fire and is burned to a cinder.

The next morning everyone in the tribe discovers the burned-down tree, and these three men tell everyone that they witnessed a light come down from the sky and burn the tree. People in the village become afraid, and the "educated men" of the group are consulted for help in explaining this bizarre occurrence.

The educated men consult among themselves and come to the only rational conclusion: It is all a hoax. These men burned down the tree themselves and made up the story, perhaps for attention.

But the three men insist that they are telling the truth.

In response, the educated men ask the tribe to consider Occam's razor. Which alternative is more likely: A) That a magical ray of light streaked down from the sky, defying all known laws of science, and out of all the trees just happened to strike the sacred tree and burn it to the ground, or B) That this small group of men instead set fire to the tree themselves and then concocted this "paranormal" story to conceal their hoax?

Occam's razor is a fine tool when trying to decide whether the sweets in the fridge were eaten by your girlfriend, but the "razor" is quite dull when dealing with subjects where the laws and variables are little understood.

[norton ash]

Occam's razor is a fine tool when trying to decide whether the sweets in the fridge were eaten by your girlfriend

Excellent example, BrandonD. Especially if you're desperately hoping your girlfriend doesn't have a new friend... or that a real unknown unknown has access to your home. So sweetie ate the sweets, and we'll leave it at that.

[munkiex]

I think it's a close race regarding which philosophical concept is abused more greatly in colloquial usage: "begs the question" or "Ockam's Razor"

[BrandonD]

Excellent example, BrandonD. Especially if you're desperately hoping your girlfriend doesn't have a new friend... or that a real unknown unknown has access to your home. So sweetie ate the sweets, and we'll leave it at that.

Now you're making me paranoid!

[BrandonD]

I think it's a close race regarding which philosophical concept is abused more greatly in colloquial usage: "begs the question" or "Ockam's Razor"

I'd say in religion: begs the question, and in science: Ockam's razor

[slomo]

I am a big believer in Occam's Razor. It is a fine, sharp tool for rational thinking, but it cuts in unintended ways.

First, the principle is not "The simple explanation is the correct one." Rather, it's "The simplest explanation that fits the data is usually the correct one."

This is an important point: the explanation has to fit the data. In addition, data collection can be biased. It is incumbent upon us to ask how the data were collected. Epidemiologists are always looking for potential biases that might arise from careless data collection, and the concern applies as well to parapolitical theory and metaphysics. What are your sources? Are they reliable, or compromised? Are we considering a simple random sampling of events, or some systematically distorted subset? In summary, there are epistemological underpinnings to Occam's Razor that are usually ignored.

In my experience, juxtaposing personal experience with a vast body of news and commentary from a variety or sources, I have come to the conclusion that the models of reality proposed by RI commenters and our sources (aside from a few of the weirder models) are simpler, and more explanatory, than the competing models from the usual mainstream sources. In addition, they are more predictive, which is another statistical/epidemiological principle that goes hand-in-hand with Occam's Razor.

[Simulist]

Anyway, we digress...and deliberately so...why?

Because it's just easier to baffle with bullshit than to dazzle with brilliance.

[JackRiddler]

For such a clever article with good points to make, it could bother at some point to correctly define Occam's razor as a heuristic (rule of thumb) for formulating hypotheses by avoiding more entities (premises) than appear necessary to explain the relevant and available facts of a phenomenon (which is often a battlefield - in science and in court, "What is to be explained?" is more than half the fight).

Presumably Occam himself would never have imagined to think of this process as a natural law - anyone who cites it as though it were reveals their own weakness - and of course many phenomena turn out to require more entities to explain them than initially appears to be the case, all the more so given the ever-shifting shape of what one accepts as "the facts."

The rule is not at odds with complexity, only in the minds of its routine abusers.

Also, it's pretty much useless for figuring out human affairs. I can never resist that speech, having delivered it 90 times online. Here's a sample, in reply to yet another someone who brought a platitude to a razor-fight:

http://journals.democraticunderground.c ... iddler/707

JackRiddler's Journal

Occam's Razor?

Sun Mar 14th 2010, 11:42 AM

Are you referring to the convenient heuristic (not a scientific law) for formulating hypotheses in the natural sciences by minimizing the "entities" or suppositions lacking evidence required to make the hypothesis work, also known as the principle of parsimony? The rule of thumb that a human being defined?

Well, when rocks like humans can issue press releases claiming they're not subject to a downward force of about 10 meters per second per second, let me know. Otherwise admit that thanks to consciousness and reflection and the ability to deceive each other, humans regularly circumvent "Occam's Razor," which anyway is not a law.

Or let me know when rocks like humans attempt to divert from evidence by way of thought-stopping platitudes that may make the speaker feel smart and smug, but don't actually say anything. Especially when what is included into the set of facts requiring an explanation is itself highly contestable, as is usually the case in human affairs.

By the way, at least get your terminology right. In the social sciences, and they do happen to be the subject here, "Occam's Razor" is properly referred to as the "Nerd Self-Lobotomy."

Anyway, to conclude, I think without a doubt the rule of parsimony, when applied to the common field of facts surrounding the murders of JFK, Tippit and Oswald, points with certainty to a coup d'etat by the national security state. In truth, this hypothesis is simple, ordinary, in keeping with precedent and context, and consistent with the totality of facts to be explained.

.

[BrandonD]

I am a big believer in Occam's Razor. It is a fine, sharp tool for rational thinking, but it cuts in unintended ways.

This is an important point: the explanation has to fit the data.

Even if the explanation fits the data perfectly, Occam's razor is not necesarily a reliable tool to solve a mystery. Very often it is totally incorrect because the investigator is missing crucial data that >>he is not even aware is missing<<.

This is an important point because it applies so strongly to contemporary science, which has become increasingly more of an arrogant crusade to propagate our western mythology rather than a humble inquiry into the nature of reality.

Read the example I gave above for an example of Occam's razor being totally incorrect even though the investigators perfectly fit the data to Occam's razor. For every single piece of data that is unknown or inaccessible to the person investigating, that razor becomes more and more dull and useless as a tool for discerning the causes of phenomena.

And let's face facts, Occam's razor is almost 100% of the time used to attack cases of paranormal phenomena and things taking place on the fringe of human understanding, where we are almost certainly missing vital data. So in fact, MOST of the time that Occam's razor has been invoked it is a totally useless tool.

[munkiex]

It should be noted, The Razor came out of a pretty specific context in Western philosophical history. You had a lot of intellectual wankery going on making things a lot more complicated than they needed to be. In that context, I think it was a pretty succinct and useful tool. However, it was never intended as a way to dismiss things out of hand that one does not agree with, which is how you usually see it "used" now.

[BrandonD]

It should be noted, The Razor came out of a pretty specific context in Western philosophical history. You had a lot of intellectual wankery going on making things a lot more complicated than they needed to be. In that context, I think it was a pretty succinct and useful tool. However, it was never intended as a way to dismiss things out of hand that one does not agree with, which is how you usually see it "used" now.

Good point, that totally makes sense.

[Sepka]

The reptilian part of your mind only has 3/three modes of response, which as we all know, are Fight, Flight, or frozen (in Fear).

"Ignore" is also a valid response.

[slomo]

I am a big believer in Occam's Razor. It is a fine, sharp tool for rational thinking, but it cuts in unintended ways.

This is an important point: the explanation has to fit the data.

Even if the explanation fits the data perfectly, Occam's razor is not necesarily a reliable tool to solve a mystery. Very often it is totally incorrect because the investigator is missing crucial data that >>he is not even aware is missing<<.

This is an important point because it applies so strongly to contemporary science, which has become increasingly more of an arrogant crusade to propagate our western mythology rather than a humble inquiry into the nature of reality.

Read the example I gave above for an example of Occam's razor being totally incorrect even though the investigators perfectly fit the data to Occam's razor. For every single piece of data that is unknown or inaccessible to the person investigating, that razor becomes more and more dull and useless as a tool for discerning the causes of phenomena.

And let's face facts, Occam's razor is almost 100% of the time used to attack cases of paranormal phenomena and things taking place on the fringe of human understanding, where we are almost certainly missing vital data. So in fact, MOST of the time that Occam's razor has been invoked it is a totally useless tool.

Fair enough, but many of these ideas are well formalized in quantitative disciplines. I use the ideas of parsimony, bias, and rare events every day in my professional life. The problem is that these principles are not well understood by the general public, and people are therefore often misled. The measure of a model is its predictive ability (in a very formal sense), understanding of course that nothing can be predicted exactly, and that natural variability is in some sense irreducible. [Again, this is the foundation of the quantitative disciplines with which I am intimately familiar, statistics and epidemiology.]

The mainstream models are not predictive. That's how I came to RI: I was trying to come to a better understanding of reality, in a way that could more accurately predict public (and even private) events. In some ways, Occam's Razor led me here. Of course, the models I have come to accept include an explanation for exactly why the mainstream models are innacurate: it is by design, because people are easier to control when they don't know the true nature of reality.