Wednesday, February 12, 2003, 2:08:04 PM, James Rogers wrote: JR> Occam's Razor doesn't tell you what the correct explanation is, it is JR> only a mechanism for "optimal" hypothesis selection and ordering. There JR> is a world of difference between the two, and the pedestrian "simplest JR> answer is always right" definition falls a bit short.
You're correct, I should have formulated this better. The heuristic many act on (even without knowing about Occam) is "the simpler explanation tends to be better". It's an intuitively obvious, experientially derived heuristic that works most of the time. JR> And it works with life as well as anything else. Consciousness does not JR> affect its intrinsic efficacy if used correctly. This is where I disagree, to the extent that an intelligence can act _deceptively_ or _misleadingly_ -- a practice which depends implicitly on an observer's intuitive use of Occam's razor. >From a chameleon's disguise to people having affairs to surprise birthday parties to political assassination, the deceiver depends precisely on the observer's use of this heuristic leading them to the wrong conclusion. That's why I contend the heuristic breaks down (or *can* break down) in the presence of life. -- Cliff ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
