Carl-Richard

Yes, but if we were to concede that we want to box something in for the sake of utility (which if you're a pragmatist, is what metaphysics is about in the first place), then you need some other criteria than just parsimony, because the most parsimonious option is actually the least useful option (it refuses to box anything in).

What if physicalism has more explanatory power than traditional idealism? You can argue that it does.

Ok, so we're back to the most parsimonious explanation being equal to no explanation. But again, is that really the best explanation though? I suggest not.

No.

Yes, the utility becomes obvious when you're presented with two very different examples within a simple context like establishing a single causal link. However, the interesting things happen when you have two very similar explanations within a complex context like establishing a metaphysics, and that is what I tried to show with the physicalism vs. traditional idealism example.

Self-ID definition: "a man is somebody who identifies as a man". It doesn't tell you what a man is. It then follows that a trans-man is somebody who transitions to somebody who identifies as a man. It doesn't tell you what a trans-man is.

If you're using the self-ID definition of man/woman, then trans-man doesn't mean anything.

Ok.

Oh, well in that case, if the explanations always have the same explanatory power, then that is a highly idealized interpretation of the razor. In reality, two explanations are virtually never equal in all ways but the amount of assumptions they deploy. That's why I pointed out the trade-off between parsimony and explanatory power when it comes to traditional idealism vs. physicalism.

Ok, so when you say it's the best one, you only mean best with respect to parsimony itself, not any other metric, right? I mean best with respect to the five aforemention epistemic values.

The title came off as dismissive and callous, like he should know better. That is the usual tone when Rupert Spira is mentioned alongside this forum's ideas about God.

Systems thinking, deep ecology and holism being applied in full force on the systems of humanity and nature. What the Game B guys only make animated YouTube videos about, Sadhguru does in real life: Rally For Rivers, Cauvery Calling, Project GreenHands etc. What Green generally only has a partial and intuitive understanding of (the importance of ecology, social inclusion etc.), Yellow manages to articulate and systematize into a coherent framework, and Turquoise manages to apply it in practice to its full extent.

I don't think having sex is an unrealistic hypothetical, but you do you.

@Ramu <-This mf really just conflated Gen X and Gen Z in a discussion about Baby Boomers.

LSD is weed^3 + clarity - retardation

Didn't you just make a topic on the distinction between words and concepts? The word "God" has been poisoned by thousands of years of history. You don't just use that word unapologetically unless you want to be certain you've been misunderstood.

If I were a girl and this guy asked me out and then invited me home and took his clothes off, I would be like "hang on..." That's how accurate the definition is.

I think the best definitions are the most restrictive ones. The inclusion sentiment boils down to social activism, not the soundness of definitions.

The goal of SD, as far as it's a developmental psychological model, is to map out levels of cognitive complexity. Tier 2 is complex enough to handle the problems that Tier 1 isn't able to solve, most crucially the exclusion of other points of view (and the pitfalls of that), by recognizing these views as parts of themselves (and not just retrospectively as a developmental arch, but as constituting their very being, i.e. Tier 2 is purple, red, blue etc.). It also understands the existential necessity of Tier 1 in all its forms as a means to its own development. In other words, there is a nurturing capacity analogous to parents for their child, where the ultimate solution to any problem regarding the child's behavior is clearly understood as adulthood, not annihilation. That doesn't mean that the only good parent is endlessly benevolent and lets their child devour them. That would go back to the importance of integrating the lessons from earlier perspectives (e.g. Red autonomy & respect, Blue order & restraint etc.). Yellow is when Tier 2 starts to take root in the individual. There may be aspirations to change the world, but the means are very limited. A good example of this is the Game B crowd and their various off-shots (e.g. the Consilience project). They're mostly stuck in a very one-sided approach to changing systems, e.g. writing articles, doing podcasts, conferences etc. On the other hand, a good example of Turquoise is Sadhguru, not because he is a mystic, but because he has managed to inspire and mobilize literally millions of people into taking action, changing government policies, talking at international forums, live TV interviews etc. And yes, Sadhguru is indeed a Tier 2 thinker (I can prove it ).

Are you a woman if you inhabit the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman?

That's all of metaphysics

Usually, but not always. The most parsimonious explanation is to not give an explanation, because that requires the fewest assumptions. Truly good explanations tend to give you an optimal grip on the situation: the optimal ratio between simplicity vs. complexity, specificity vs. generality etc. For example, Spiral Dynamics wouldn't be such a good model if you threw out all the color-coded vMEMEs and replaced them with something like a spectrum of low to high consciousness, even though that would be a more parsimonious option. It's the same when it comes to metaphysics: how can you give both a detailed and comprehensive account of what reality is? It's a question of balance and elegance.

It does explain reality though. If it didn't, we wouldn't give it any thought. Occam's razor (a.k.a. conceptual parsimony) is not the only epistemic criteria by which we give weight to different metaphysics (certainly the naturalist ones). You also have things like coherence, internal logical consistency, empirical adequacy and explanatory power. Physicalism does pretty well for most of these things. Yes, it's true that physicalism is less parsimonious than idealism, but traditional forms of idealism (everything except analytic idealism) notoriously lack empirically adequate explanations for how we get individualized personal perspectives. Physicalism might not have an explanation for how consciousness arises, but if consciousness is a given, then it has an explanation for how individual perspectives arise (through the arrangements of subatomic particles into separate bodies and brains), while traditional idealism does not. So in this scenario, which one should you choose: parsimony or explanatory power? So to summarize: if you're a fan of traditional idealism but you also value logic, science etc., then you have to choose between parsimony (in this case idealism) or explanatory power (in this case physicalism). However, if you're a believer in analytical idealism, then you don't have to make that choice

@Tyler Robinson All people live in a community or "tribe". That is not a contradiction. Edit: I just watched this and it reminded me of your comment ?: Red Joe stands up for daughter ?