This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
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
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Paul Redling
If your want to take that out of the equation, probably by showing that any change will disprove it, and showing that it holds its own without relying on assuming anything else to be true other than the fact that it is as it appears for all intents and purposes. Like, you can prove 1+2=3 by saying that 1+3≠3 as long as 1 is actually 1, 2 is actually 2, 3 is actually 3, + is actually +, = is actually =, and ≠ is actually ≠.
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.ted.com/conversations/16464/after_learning_a_language_why.html
Allan Hotti
Paul Redling
Allan Hotti
I agree with you that our perceptions (beliefs) are at risk of being illusions (erroneous beliefs) even though our brain believes them to be real. Skepticism is healthy.
Random thoughts: There is hope.Technology has increased our sensory capacity to "see" the world/universe, with microscopes, spectroscopes, telescopes, microwave discs and arrays, so that some illusions have been dispelled, but I'm sure many remain. Similarly Neuroscience is better understanding our brains and dispelling our erroneous beliefs in how it works.
Proof exists in mathematics, I'm not sure it exists elsewhere with same rigor. Scientific method & Mathematics perhaps remain our best tools to provide answers to questions with a "proof" that many only be "good enough" for now.
No offense meant.
Allan
Casey Christofaris 10+
Check out this ted convo
http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html
Richard Krooman 50+
Because the fact that you "think" means that somewhere a 'you' must "exist"... notice that it doesn't tell you anything about how you think or where you are or in what form 'you' are. Just that somewhere there must be a 'you' because how else could you think?
Paul Redling
natasha nikulina 50+
Famous "I think therefore I am" tells you , that the virtual reality created in a code is enduring as long as the code maker endures.
natasha nikulina 50+
Is there ANY possibility to get out of the illusion ?
Allan Hotti
Illusions might well "accurately" represent a brains (mechanistic) response to sensory inputs and perceptions and become memories represented by neurons/neural circuits/proteins, but do they accurately represent the world out side the body? If these illusions/beliefs lead to fitness enhancing behaviors, perhaps that is all we need.
"Self" is an illusion ... cognitive neuroscientist Bruce Hood explore(s) the building blocks of what we experience as the “self” in The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity.
"I think therefore I believe I am" This has proved useful.
natasha nikulina 50+
Agreed ! :)
Meaning is in the confrontation of contradiction - the coincidencia apositorum.
Two opposites should not contradict to each other but resonate.
Illusion- yes; but your illusion is real and matters.
Something like this :)
But i would distinguish 'self' from ' ego-self'. We can't avoid language ambiguity here, but how ego-self-illusion is possible without Self ? Self is something not existing but real, it embraces ego-self, not the other way round.
Maybe there are ways to be aware of Self, but it's impossible to language it for language is a code and is the property of 'ego-self'.
Thanks for the name (Bruce Hood ) i'll google it .
Thank you !
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
It seems to me that "I think" needs to be stripped also. What remains is "I AM".
Casey Christofaris 10+
Richard Krooman 50+
Then what are you if not a collection of your thoughts?
The logic is... that whatever you think is being thought by you, and because of that "you" must somehow "exist".
Everything can be an illusion... but your thoughts put them to "your reality".
We could be all controled by some computer which presents our "thoughts" with an image of a natural world where you have a body and can break bones etc.
But the one thing that makes sure that a "you" exists is that what you think is somehow related to a "you".
In yet another form... There MUST be someTHING (which is strongly related to 'someone' which is strongly related to 'you') to trick even if we are being tricked.
Haven't you guys ever read up on "I think therefor I am"?
It is a really fascanating idea...
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Richard Krooman 50+
Aka you cannot say that "I think 'therefor' I am" you can only say "I think and I am" in which case "I am" would be already the conclusion that Descartes was after?
Descartes sais that "because you think. You can infer that you are" rather than "whatever thinks has to exist".
There is no cause and effect needed there... Hume just imagined there to be because he was too busy with taking mathematical logic too literal.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Hume wasn't the only one to point out issues with this phrase. My point is that reason is quite useless when it comes to "self". All reasoning regarding "self" is circular. It's easier just to accept "I am" (our existence) as an unconditional self-evident truth, without reasoning, evidence, or proof.
edward long 100+