> "Matter" is an abstaction. Mind, properly considered, (i.e. not with words) is not.
...wat?
> Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically.
No: you have that reversed. Matter can be reasoned about, matter is a useful abstraction, e=mc^2. energy = matter*speed of light^2. No such formula exists for the mind.
> I don't know what's what, but I think this insistence is a useful counterweight.
Why is insistence a useful counter weight to factual arguments?
...wat?
> Strict adherence to Occham's razor would have us dispense with the former, but the latter is useful empirically.
No: you have that reversed. Matter can be reasoned about, matter is a useful abstraction, e=mc^2. energy = matter*speed of light^2. No such formula exists for the mind.
> I don't know what's what, but I think this insistence is a useful counterweight.
Why is insistence a useful counter weight to factual arguments?