[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Case]

[Ham]
It was then that I realized the question you were "begging" [Laramie has
told me I don't know what 'begging the question' means] the wrong question.
Relations represent man's intellectualized perspective of objective
otherness.  It is man himself who sees relationships and constructs
geometry, mathematics, evolution and spatial distribution to express them.
So the question I would have expected is: How can physical processes be
understood as anything but cognizant ideas?

Suprisingly, unless you've made a New Year's resolve to be more amiable, we
seem to be in agreement -- even "wholeheartedly so" on many of the remaining
issues we've discussed.

[Case]
In several contexts I have argued that we are trapped inside our own skins.
We construct internal models of reality based on the evidence provided by
our sense. This is processed through the organic equipment provided to us a
birth. It is an illusion to think otherwise. I think this is phenomonalism
or something similar. As far as I am concerned it is not just a
philosophical idea but a demonstrable fact. There is a disconnect between
our sensations and the objects sensed. Pirsig points to it in ZMM in his
discussion of Hume and Kant. Hardcore mystic argue there really is nothing
but our thoughts but I tend to think our thoughts and sensation refer to
something other as you point out.

[Ham]
Falisification is a valid test of scientific theory, hence is valuable; but
the debate is meaningless because it is well embedded in the methodology of
Science.

Parsimony is a fancy 19th century word implying stinginess or "being tight"
with one's money.  I don't really know how it got picked up by scientific
philosophers, but I suppose it's the modern equivalent of Occam's razor (the
simplest theory is the best).  I'm all for that principle, and have
diligently tried to follow it throughout my thesis.

[Case]
Parsimony and Occam's razor are the same thing as far as I understand them.
What is bothersome about it is that while I see the logic of falsification
there is not real logic to say that a more complex explanation can not be
the correct one. Instead parsimony is more of an aesthetic judgment than a
logical one.

[Ham]
Incidentally, I'd be interested in knowing how I have "convinced [you] to be
more civil" by arguing with you.

[Case]
Actually you didn't. I have this occasional sense of when I have crossed the
line between being passionate and being just nasty. I think I cross it with
you fairly often so I usually just don't say anything. But don't get too
used to it. I also tend to snap a lot and you know how resolutions can be.