TED Conversations

Casey Christofaris

Owner, CS3 Inc

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed.

How do we prove an answer

that it How do we prove an answer


I just want to clarify that I do love science and the understanding of the universe that it has brought us. As well as the tech

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 17 2013: What is the question? Is the answer empirical or theoretical? A empirical answer is easier to prove than a theoretical answer, and theoretical answers can be impossible to prove.
    In the area of theoretical questions one can use Platonic logic or Aristotelian logic and come up with proof for completely different and opposing answers. It can get very confusing.
    This may help in the discussion:
    In complicated geometric or mathematical questions "proof involves reasoned, logical explanations that use definitions, axioms, postulates, and previously proved theorems to arrive at a conclusion about a geometric statement. A good proof has an argument that is clearly developed with each step supported by:
    Theorems: statements that can be proved to be true
    Postulates: statements that are assumed to be true without proof (for example, an angle has only one bisector)
    Axioms: self-evident truths or the basic facts that are accepted without any proof (for example, a straight line can be drawn between any two points)" from chegg.com a very interesting academic website.
    My background is the Arts most of the answers I seek have little or no proof and are fluid in nature, changing shape with a blink of the eye
    • thumb
      Feb 17 2013: What if I use your personal logic to prove my answer

      (Danielle Swain's personal logic)

      Would you recognize it as truth
      • thumb
        Feb 17 2013: Hi ya Casey ... not sure what you mean by "my personal logic" I mentioned Geometrical and mathematical logic; Platonic logic and Aristotelian logic. There are many systems of logic. Any claims I may make to have a "personal logic" most likely was derived from some system of logic long thought of before my birth. Some may conclude I cannot recognize a truth because I disagree with them or there logic. Others may conclude I cannot recognize a truth because they do not like me or what I say. I will go back to my first question: What is the question?
        • thumb
          Feb 17 2013: " I cannot recognize a truth because I disagree with them or there logic"
          I would be using your logic or your common sense to prove truth to you.

          So let me see if I can use logic and reason to show you how you need to use their logic and reason. To not prove them wrong but to show them that there is other truth. So you can pick any topic you want and any side of the said topic and I will debate the other side. See to get someone to believe what you say is truth you first have to understand their side as truth as well. Not that it wrong and it clearly might be(like anyone who would say oil is not toxic).

          It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. ~ Sun Tzu Art of War

          Now it doesn't matter how the argument is going once I figure out how you came to your knowledge of truth I can figure out your thought "pattern" or common sense. Once I understand that I can use your common sense thats right your common sense to prove my information as truth. Not as I am right your wrong but just that there is other truth. Edited: I dont even need to believe that what I am trying to debate is truth or not, I just need to except that it can be

          And as far as Sub, object question go. I like to say that it's not that I think inside the box or outside of the box. I realize that its all box's and I try to think in all of them.
      • thumb
        Feb 17 2013: I am being miss quoted... the quote should read " Some may conclude I cannot recognize a truth because I disagree with them or there logic." George Carlin once said "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." Same holds true for quotations.

        But I am starting to get your gist.

        Okay here is a question: Will my conciseness survive the death of my body?
        I say no. Now prove me wrong.
        • thumb
          Feb 17 2013: Why do you say no if I dont know your reasoning I simply can not use your logic
      • thumb
        Feb 18 2013: My reasoning: ‘Inference to the best explanation’ since there is no empirical evidence direct observation or experiments that can prove the survival of consciousness or a “soul” after the death of the body ‘inference to the best explanation’ is the logical way to come to a reasoned answer. What are some the explanations?

        Consciousness is nonphysical it can transcend the body

        There are eternal ides and forms that are not physical like a perfect circle or justice thy can only be grasp by consciousness. Only something eternal and nonphysical can grasp something eternal and nonphysical. Consciousness is nonphysical it can grasp ideas and forms that are eternal therefore consciousness is eternal.

        After our death our parts still exist. Our consciousness is part of us so it to still exists.

        Our consciousness recognizes eternal ideas and forms even without every experiencing them. Our consciousness acquired this experience before our life in an eternal realm.

        Our physical brain manifests consciousness though it may take on properties of the nonphysical a blow to the head a lobotomy drugs or bran damage can severely affect consciousness.

        I will quickly run through them to explain why I picked the last one as the best explanation. I do not think I have to be eternal to grasp an eternal idea. I do not have to be a cat to know a cat. It is true that before my birth and after my death my atoms exist, but as for my parts my heart, my liver will stop working unless they are transplanted and still they only get one chance at that. My mind can extrapolate on ideas and forms I have never experienced in this life. This leaves me with the last explanation
        I brought up this question because it is very compelling. The question has been around for a long time in one form or another. Many great thinkers have pondered this question all their lives without coming to a solid or sound answer. I have no solid answer. Something of faith my be needed to gain peace with the question.
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: Is light physical?

          Also whats the question not one cannot figure out? How one can not be eternal can grasp something that is eternal?
      • thumb
        Feb 18 2013: Light is electromagnetic radiation the photon is the basic unit of any EMR. Photons are particles. Particles are physical. Therefore light is physical... I am off for sabbatical and will be away for a time. I enjoyed our discussion and I wish you well.
        Kind regards
        • thumb
          Feb 19 2013: Does your consciousnesses reside in a place external of your actual mind or do you think is the brain?

          Have a great time on your sabbatical

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.