TED Conversations

Arthanari Chandrasekaran

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Strange questions that humans have not yet found an answer for!

We all have a unique course of action through out our day. Many of the conversation along with our friends or some that we hear from others talking at times surprise us and gets our brain thinking, but only to later ignore saying this might be beyond human reach. Have you come across any such question through your brain or from others which you think humans have not yet explored or researched or any unanswerable question?

Topics: brain collective intelligence intelligence unknown
+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • David Gorniak

    • +1
    Jul 18 2012: I've been reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil recently so to quote - "Why truth? Why not untruth?"
    I think that means to ask us why we put so much value in finding the truth in everything. Can we ever find the value of "untruth"?
    • thumb

      Debra Smith 200+

      • +3
      Jul 18 2012: Wow David, that is quite an undertaking, I needed quiet to assimulate that one. Are you aware that the American supreme court recently affirmed that there is a'right to lie?" This is what I might term as being so open minded that your brain has fallen out.
      There are some things which are to me, and to the American founding fathers, apparently self evident. With due respect to the sheer wattage of Niettzche, truth is one of them to most earnest hearts and minds. It maybe the actual foundation of Nietzche's diversion and unapplicability, It is at the very heart of all civilization and human endeavour. If we can neither trust nor believe each other we never find the basic accord of common understanding. If I know that you are willing to distort my world view or misrepresent your own, I can never trust one word you say.

      • David Gorniak

        • +1
        Jul 18 2012: Hi Debra,
        I really appreciate your heart-felt and passionate reply. It is rare to come across it and i find it original and refreshing.
        i feel that i have taken on a bigger task than i understand. The danger is is that maybe I do not quite understand what it was that Nietzsche was saying. But i don't think trust has anything to do with it. Can we not trust without necessarily knowing the truth? Maybe its meant to mean that there can't be a truth to everything or that the pursuit of it is impossible and that too accept this would be beneficial.
        Also i would say that "untruth" is not the same as lying. It is not to know the truth then to distort it or to "un"do it.
        • thumb

          Debra Smith 200+

          • 0
          Jul 18 2012: David, this is where is becomes crucial to define terms, I THINK. When i refer to 'truth' perhaos i more rightly mean 'assumed shared understanding' These were not Nietzches' words but my cognition in response to the stimuli he provided (hence my reference to his wattage'. ) You must understand his meaning for yourself as I must do; so please do not defer to mine especially as it has been sometime since I read it )at least two years ago when I was dating a judge who brought me books rather than flowers - I loved it!)

      • David Gorniak

        • +1
        Jul 18 2012: By assumed shared understanding would i be right in thinking of that as being a common truth so far as its the closest thing to the truth that we are all willing to live with? If it is then I like it a lot. I like this idea of accepting the possibilty of never finding the absolute truth but then all agreeing and living with the nearest thing to the truth. This has certainly made me think anew about what it was Nietzsche might have been saying.
        It's a challenging read, but am enjoying too :)
        • thumb

          Debra Smith 200+

          • +1
          Jul 18 2012: Yes, David that is exactly what I meant. At my age of 56 with myriad experiences under my belt, I no longer feel the need to absolutely believe anyone's version of events. Without a video camera of the event, I freely admit I do not know what happened. However, I can take very seriously someone's perception of that event as being accurate, persuasive and impactful for that individual and thus often for me. I am convinced that 'error" is based on perspective and limited knowledge. That does mean that I abandon the search for truth (the video tape if I can) and this is part of why I am here on TED answering and asking questions. I must have another theory that in getting enough (sho knows how many) responses I will have a better approximation of not only the 'truth' but also the most common types of errors. I think this is very instructional.
        • thumb

          David Hamilton 50+

          • +1
          Jul 19 2012: This conversation inspires me to re read "Beyond Good and Evil", I remember it being a personal favorite, actually in my top ten right after I read it, but it's been 6 or 7 years.

          If I remember correctly though you are approaching the truth of his perspective. The concept that human knowledge in any category, can only "approach truth", the way an exponential equation approaches infinity.

          Every untruth brings you closer to the truth, and you can see an untruth... but you can't see the truth, so why do we hold it at higher value than untruth... I think there are elements of the value of failure here. The idea that experimenting and failing is just as valuable as experimenting and succeeding, but I may be grasping a bit.

          Thanks for inspiring a trip to the bookshelf though.
    • thumb

      V Alexander

      • +3
      Jul 18 2012: Just to make it mundane: 1> We WANT truth/true knowledge 2> Any near possibilities proven as UNtruth are useful, an elimination of a possible answer, which now gone need not distract from #1. So the untruth of "chocolate = god of the red ants" is random, spurious nonsense while the untruth of a geocentric universe is useful. Truth is infinite whereas untruth is infinitely infinite. :)
    • thumb

      Wade Crum

      • 0
      Jul 26 2012: Truth is relative, therefore untruth is relative.

    • Barry Palmer 50+

      • 0
      Jul 31 2012: Thank you, David, and those who responded, for a very good question and an excellent thread. It has been a long time since I read a philosophical discussion that seems relevant and useful, and this is both.

      I especially like David's idea of approaching truth like an exponential equation.

      I have read this whole thread three times, and I suspect I will learn more from another reading. This is the kind of material I hope to find at TED.

      (Please, let no one else take offense, many of the other threads are very valuable too.)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.